Prof. Mark Tunick tunick@fau.edu 799-8670, HC 133

Sept. 9 : Thesis proposal form due, including name of 2^nd reader.

Sept. 16: Detailed thesis statement (1-2 paragraphs), preliminary bibliography and outline due.

October 14 : Revised statement of thesis, revised bibliography and revised outline due.

October 28 : Draft of Introduction due.

Between late October and early April: I should see drafts of all the sections of your thesis as they are written (with the possible exception of your conclusion). I will put detailed comments on these drafts which you can use in making revisions. It is important that these drafts be as polished and complete as you can make them, because this is the period in which I will give criticism that you have a chance to address before turning in the final draft that will be graded. When you turn in the final draft of the completed thesis, I will read it carefully and grade it–you will not have another opportunity then to respond to my criticisms with the hope of getting a better grade. Be sure to use the "Track Changes" function in Word when submitting revisions of work.

April 9 : Final draft of thesis is due. This is the version that will be graded.

April 13: Research Day. You will present your thesis research on Research Day along with other Honors College seniors.

April 25 : Final version will be returned to you with grade. You still may make last minute changes and corrections, and properly format according to College guidelines.

May 1 (tentative) : Signed thesis is due

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Citing works:
Use the following model for books or articles. This is a variation of Chicago Manual of Style which you should consult for other types of citations such as multiple authored works, newspapers or websites. Use footnotes (not endnotes), and a bibliography, and observe the conventions appropriate for each (as the examples below illustrate). Nothing should appear in the bibliography that you don't cite in a footnote.

Bibliography:
Smith, J.C. Legal Obligation. London: Athlone Press, 1976.

Tunick, Mark. “Is Kant a Retributivist?” History of Political Thought 17(1):60-78 (1996).

Footnotes:
J.C. Smith, Legal Obligation (London: Athlone Press, 1976), 27-29.

Mark Tunick, “Is Kant a Retributivist?” History of Political Thought 17(1):60-78 (1996), 62-3. [This is volume 17, issue 1; if an issue number is not available, just cite as 17:60-78]

Jean Dixon, “Entrapment,” Harvard Law Review 321:1175-1253 (2011), 1201-2.

Richard Wasserstrom, "Privacy: Some Arguments and Assumptions," in Frederick Schoeman, ed., Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy, 317-32, at 330-32. [This is how you'd cite from an edited book the first time; after that, just write: in Schoeman, ed, 330-2; note that Schoeman's edited book should be a separate item in your Bibliography, as will Wasserstrom's chapter in this book]

You needn't cite court cases in the bibliography, but must cite them in footnotes as follows:
First time:
De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc., 473 N.Y.S. 2d 922 (1984), 924.
After that:
473 N.Y.S. 2d 922, 924.

The first time you cite a work in a footnote you should have complete info, and after that just use an abbreviated version (e.g. Tunick, “Is Kant a Retributivist?” 62-3; or if you only cite one work from Tunick, simply Tunick, 62-3). Note that in a footnote you’ll be referring to a specific passage or passages and I expect to see reference to the specific pages so a reader can find the precise passage you mean.
Do NOT use ‘supra’ or ‘infra’, as law reviews do, or Ibid. It is just as easy to cite Smith as to cite Ibid.

Additional notes:
Policy on Accommodations: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), students who require reasonable accommodations due to a disability to properly execute coursework must register with the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) -- SR 110 (561-799-8010) – and follow all OSD procedures.

Academic Integrity Policy:Students at Florida Atlantic University are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards. Academic dishonesty is considered a serious breach of these ethical standards, because it interferes with the university mission to provide a high quality education in which no student enjoys an unfair advantage over any other. Academic dishonesty is also destructive of the university community, which is grounded in a system of mutual trust and places high value on personal integrity and individual responsibility. Harsh penalties are associated with academic dishonesty. For more information, see University Regulation 4.001 and http://www.fau.edu/divdept/honcol/students/honorcode.html

Classroom Etiquette Policy: In order to enhance and maintain a productive atmosphere for education, personal communication devices, such as cellular telephones and pagers, are to be disabled in class sessions.