5.2 Case studies:Vaccine mandates & sport
News Story in focus: Novak Djokovic v the Australian Government
The ongoing argument between the number one tennis player and the Australian Government has had been more dramatic than any tense 5 set final in Djokovic's history. As of the 14th January 2022, the Australian Government has once again cancelled Djokovic's visa with repercussions that might extend to him unable to enter the country for a further three years. It appears it seems to hinge upon is vaccination status and his public actions during the time of his apparent confirmed case of Covid.
Making sense of excess information
When there is a long running news story with lots of twists and turns it is important to remain committed to distinguishing fact and opinion at the very least. In addition to this we must consider the credibility of the news sources we are using. The following exercises aim to review how to decide if a source is credible, clarify events through the creation of a timeline, explicitly identify facts from opinion and explore who the stakeholders are in this situation. Sources are suggested but it is encouraged the students widen their reference point and explore what else is out there. There are some suggestions of systems to use to understand if a source is credible and remember Understanding 'Truth' is an excellent resource to expand understanding. Pick one activity or do as a sequence... exercise your excellent teacher judgement!
ATL skills focus: Research skills
Introduction: What makes a credible source?
1. Find 5 sources from a range of news authorities across the world. You should aim to have at least three different countries represented. These sources are connected to the story of Djokovic v the Australian Government running from 5th January 2022.
Further teacher notes
This can be done as an introductory or revision activity if students have already explored in detail credibility of sources. However you can also take advantage of this time as an opportunity to explore the sheer breadth of news articles and opinion pieces and explicitly assess them for credibility using an agreed list of features. you can also make use of the Research skills page and the RAVEN system that is suggested above.
Synthesising and ordering events
Students need to identify the key events that took place that created an ethical issue in this situation. Be vocal about what are the facts of the case and how do we know? Once students have worked out the key events that influenced the outcome of opinion and division in this situation, have them order them from the date that they think is most significant. (Whilst Djokovic may have been refused entry on the 5th January which may denote the start of the story, you may find that there are dates prior to this that shape the case).
Creating a visual timeline and evaluation
This timeline can be done as a timeline in a journal, post-its on a desk, A4 paper with agreed events ordered on a wall or students standing with events in a line. Discuss as a group or class the implications of all these points, the different stakeholders involved and the effect and outcome of each event.
Separating Fact and opinion.
Now identify the multiple stakeholders involved in this story: not just the obvious people - consider different news organisations, courts and government agencies. Clearly extract opinions as sound bites but keep them to less than 50 words. Post these along the timeline. What effect do these opinions have on the direction of events? What sources are these people using to form their opinions?
Wider implications of the whole story
Take a step back from the analysis of the news story. What are the wider implications of this story? What issues and dilemmas come out that have global implication rather than specific to Australia? You could start with the ethics surrounding compulsory covid vaccination to enter a country and go from there.
Reflective Project debate: Should the Australian government have cancelled Novak Djokovic's visa based on his vaccination status?
Structuring your ideas
As you can find out from Starting discussions and debates in the Applied Ethics area of the Personal & Professional Skills area, debates need to follow a specific protocol (there are varieties of this but the formality of the process and structure is key). Here is a summary below. You can also use this summary to identify whether your research and arguments are detailed and shaped enough. To stand the test of a 1st proposer/opposer, 2nd proposer/opposer and summary as well as questions from the audience.
Stakeholder here is defined as: speaker, 1st proposer, 1st opposer, 2nd proposer, 2nd opposer, summarisers and audience members.Debating order
The order that is followed in a formal debate is:
- The debate is chaired by a 'speaker', who reads out the motion.
- The first proposer presents the arguments for the motion.
- The first opposer presents the arguments against the motion.
- The second proposer presents further arguments for the motion.
- The second opposer presents further arguments against the motion.
- This side-to-side debating of the motion continues until all the people involved have had their say ...and limited to each contributor speaking only once during the debate.
- An opposer then sums up the key points of the argument against the motion.
- A proposer then sums up the argument for the motion.
- The speaker re-reads the motion.
- The audience then votes 'for' or 'against' the motion.