Committees have formed around civic problems: public helath and safety, streets and sidewalks, etc. The debates actually began last week when one committee put forth the proposition for Harrington City to "go green". That committee presented the proposition to only a special interest group: a committee that is studying the street and sidewalk problem and who has already purchased dump trucks that are not "green". They argue that "green" dump trucks would cost $1 million apiece. The "Greening Harrington" committee become discouraged.
However today, this morning, 7:30 to 8:17 am first period, on the last Monday before Winter break, an entrepreneur who is starting a casino, put forth the proposition to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. He has written out his proposition, made enough copies for each memeber of the class to sign, and now, a general debate as begun about how to decide if the proposition should be passed. A list of pros and cons has started at the front black board, (pros: other countries don't have limits, help the economy, the true adult vs the adult "label"; cons: more deaths related to the teen population, 18-21 don't know limits, more crime, more bige drinking). The debate results in a compromise: limit the hours of under-21 drinking, and monitor this for a year, then change or add to the ordinance.
What transpired during this discussion included: parliamentary law review, debate protocol, and no heads down on desks. One student, who asked to go to the breakfast table in the lobby, forgot to go, instead joining in the debate. In fact, this student suggested that this scenario could be written up as a year or two in the future, and the results determine how the ordinance would be decided.
The "Greening of Harrington" committee has asked to present during the next class with a new strategy.
What does this have to do with "literature"? My answer this morning is: they are writing their own literature.