Was physicist Robert Oppenheimer, the "father of the atom bomb," a patriotic hero or a cruel and heartless "destroyer of worlds?" In his oversight of the "Manhattan Project," the U.S. government's effort to develop nuclear weapons during World War II, Oppenheimer displayed unquestionable brilliance. At just 42 years of age, he successfully led the team of world-renowned physicists who built—in record time—the most destructive bomb ever made. Some say, though, that in his arrogant quest for power and glory, Oppenheimer became a monster. For instance, he openly advocated using the powerful new weapon on a live target. Disagreeing with the physicists who argued that doing so would be morally indefensible, Oppenheimer maintained that a mere demonstration would not convince the Japanese enemy to end the war. However, when the new weapon was actually used weeks later, on August 6, 1945, to level the Japanese city of Hiroshima, Oppenheimer was appalled. The bomb had killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Whatever his sense of guilt, though, Oppenheimer never expressed regret for creating the weapon, perhaps because he always believed that he had acted in the best interests of his country. He did, however, understand the terrible consequences of his scientific "accomplishment." Painfully aware of his part in handing humanity the power to destroy the planet, he became a vehement spokesman for control of the international arms race. (Sources of information: Malcolm Jones, "Conjuring Up Dark Clouds," Newsweek, April 25, 2005, p. 12; "Robert Oppenheimer," Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer)

Evaluating Bias:

a. The author reveals a bias but still remains open-minded and fair.

b. The author reveals a bias that limits his ability to be fair and open-minded.

c. The author gives no sign of personal bias.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of couples seek counseling to save their troubled marriages. Research shows, however, that marital therapy is completely ineffective. According to studies, 25 percent of couples are actually worse two years after ending counseling. Four years after their counseling experience, 38 percent are divorced. Admittedly, most couples wait until their relationships are in critical condition before they seek help. However, even when presented with the most distressed marriages, therapists merely ask each angry partner to take turns telling the other one what is ruining the relationship, often for months or even years on end. This traditional approach might serve as a temporary band-aid for about a year, but it is obviously inadequate for dealing with long-term conflict, when couples inevitably relapse into old, destructive patterns. Clearly, troubled husbands and wives need therapists who can help them get to the root cause of their problems and then work toward permanent resolution. Traditional marital counselors, however, do not have the answer to those problems and couples in trouble need to explore new possibilities rather than wasting time and money in marriage counseling. (Source of information: Susan Gilbert, "Married With Problems? Therapy May Not Help," The New York Times, April 19, 2005, www.nytimes.com)

Evaluating Bias:

a. The author reveals a bias but remains open-minded and fair.

b. The author reveals a bias that limits her ability to be fair and open-minded.

c. The author gives no sign of personal bias.

The group called "Pre-K Now" advocates the establishment of government-funded, high-quality preschool programs for all children, not just disadvantaged children. According to this group, research shows that a high-quality pre-K program increases a child's chance of academic and real-world success. Children who attend high-quality preschool programs are less likely to have to repeat a grade, less likely to need special education, and more likely to graduate from high school. The group also argues that in the kindergartens of many states, expectations for children are higher than they have been in the past. Thus, children need a preschool program to help them master the pre-academic and social skills they need in order to quickly grasp kindergarten-level content. In particular, they need to build a foundation for reading skills. Yet while few people would argue with Pre-K Now's contention that children benefit from entering kindergarten with some basic skills, plenty of people disagree with Pre-K Now's assertion that publicly-supported pre-K programs are the only place to acquire these skills. Pointing to the low quality of many existing preschool programs, they argue that parents who want to keep their three- and four-year-olds at home are often capable of providing the necessary instruction. They insist that this is especially true in light of the lack of credentials of most preschool teachers. According to opponents of Pre-K programs, the teachers involved are usually not required to have a degree or any specialized training. Thus, they cannot necessarily be counted on to make sure the children in their charge learn everything they need to know in order to start school successfully. (Sources of information: Pre-K Now, "Why All Children Benefit from Pre-K," www.preknow.org/factsheets/childneed.html)

Evaluating Bias:

a. The author reveals a bias but still remains open-minded and fair.

b. The author reveals a bias that limits his ability to be fair and open-minded.

c. The author gives no sign of personal bias.

Most employers have long banned the use of tobacco products anywhere on company property. And now, an estimated 6,000 U.S. companies have gone one step further: they refuse to hire people who smoke, even if those people smoke only on their own time and not while they're at work. That's because smoking-related illnesses create additional health costs. As a matter of fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the cost of smoking at $3,383 per person per year: $1,760 in lost productivity plus $1,623 in additional medical expenses. Understandably, many companies have decided to eliminate these extra expenditures by employing only non-smokers. Of course, some smokers and civil rights activists have labeled this policy unfair, for many other choices people make-including what and how much they eat-can also contribute to poor health and lost productivity. Critics also claim that refusing to hire smokers is a form of discrimination, and some states have passed legislation prohibiting state agencies from rejecting employees who smoke. But private companies can't keep their employee health-coverage costs down any other way. Plus, they are doing smokers a favor by encouraging them to give up a deadly habit. (Source of information: Jennifer Barrett Ozols, "A Job or a Cigarette?" Newsweek, February 24, 2005, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7019590/site/newsweek/page/2/)

Evaluating Bias:

a. The author reveals a bias but still remains open-minded and fair.

b. The author reveals a bias that limits her ability to be fair and open-minded.

c. The author gives no sign of personal bias.

In April 2005, a group calling itself the "Minuteman Project" stationed about 450 volunteers from around the country along a 23-mile stretch of the Arizona-Mexico border. The group's mission: use binoculars, night-vision goggles, and air surveillance to help track down and arrest men and women from Mexico who tried to illegally enter the United States. Calling themselves a "civilian neighborhood watch gone national," the project's organizers described their efforts as a peaceful protest against the U.S. government's failure to properly control the country's borders. The administrations of U.S. President George Bush and Mexican President Vincente Fox, however, accurately characterized them as armed vigilantes who had no right to detain immigrants at gunpoint or otherwise interfere with the legitimate U.S. Border Patrol. In response, the Minutemen claimed that they were simply fulfilling the president's post-terrorist-attack request for all citizens to remain alert to potential threats to national security. The group's founder insisted that the Minutemen were instrumental in the arrest of hundreds of would-be illegal aliens. However, his group's members also clumsily disrupted the normal operations of the real border patrol by accidentally tripping sensors that wasted agents' time with false alarms. (Source of information: Amy Goodman, "Vigilantes or Civilian Border Patrol? A Debate on the Minuteman Project," Democracy Now!, April 5, 2005, www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/05/1334206)

Evaluating Bias:

a. The author reveals a bias but still remains open-minded and fair.

b. The author reveals a bias that limits her ability to be fair and open-minded.

c. The author gives no sign of personal bias.