PHIL 401 D: Advanced Topics in Philosophy

American Philosophy

American Philosophy (PHIL401)

Winter 2022

Course description: American philosophy has a rich and diverse tradition, from roots in Native American thought to influences from India. Some of its distinctive features include: tendency for pluralism and democratization of ideas, general tolerance of competing standpoints, and resolve to put philosophy into action, thus making it relevant to current problems in society. This course examines the history of American philosophy from the early 19^th century to the mid-20^th century, with an emphasis on uncovering overlooked pieces of the narrative. We start with interactions between Native and European American ideas and the pluralism of the Native American outlook. After that we visit the St. Louis Hegelians on the frontier and examine how they applied idealism in practical ways to build educational infrastructure across the nation. Then we encounter Charles Peirce’s original statements of pragmatism and some of his later metaphysics as well as William James’s pragmatism and his criticism of classical empiricism. We will explore Josiah Royce’s absolute idealism and a defence of it by Mary Calkins, plus the influence of Indian philosophy, especially from the Brahma tradition. We will then study the pragmatic naturalism of John Dewey and the cultural pluralism of Alain LeRoy Locke (who was the father of the Harlem renaissance). Finally, we will dive into the philosophy of William Savery, who founded the philosophy department at UW in 1902. Our aim is to uncover the ways in which he forwarded the pragmatist tradition. This course has a unique practical element to it. We will visit UW Library, Special Collections and learn archival research methods by researching the William Savery Papers. One focus of the course is to put Savery’s philosophy in the spotlight and piece together his contributions to the University of Washington.

Required textbooks: Texts will be made available online, either through the UW library, Canvas, archive.org or Googlebooks. Other readings such as recommended and optional readings will be made available online on Canvas or through UW library.

Learning outcomes: On successful completion of the course, students will be able to demonstrate: i) a detailed understanding of the concepts, problems, and arguments that motivated American philosophers, ii) a thorough knowledge of the theories and arguments by these philosophers in their historical context, especially with respect to the development of each philosopher’s thought and the debates that unfolded between them and their contemporaries, and iii) an enhanced ability to examine philosophical texts critically, especially primary material from nineteenth and twentieth century America.

Assessment:

Social annotation: 5% of final grade. For each reading you will be required to socially annotate the reading using Hypothes.is in Canvas. We will go through comments in class. You must access the reading through Canvas when marking up the reading so that your work is recorded and graded properly.

Reading responses: 15% of final grade. One-page double-spaced reading responses to be posted on Canvas by the beginning of the second class, graded out of 2 points. Reading responses are designed to help you develop the skill of identifying arguments, explaining them in your own words, and evaluating them. These skills are important for writing papers and class discussion. Reading responses must not exceed one page, double-spaced.

For the first class or second class reading you must explain one of the author’s arguments and offer a critical evaluation of it. The argument you discuss must not come from class notes, class discussion, or material on Canvas. You must find an argument in the reading directly.

The reading response must have two sections:

• Section 1: in one paragraph, explain one of the author’s arguments in detail. Do not summarise the reading. Do not simply describewhat the author is up to. Explain how the author argues for a certain conclusion. Think of yourself as teaching your reader.
• Section 2: in one paragraph, critically evaluate the argument you have presented in section 1. For instance, you could explain why a premise of the argument is false, or raise a worry for a premise or an inference between premises or from premise to conclusion. You are permitted to raise a clarificatory question about the meaning of a term or phrase (e.g., that it is ambiguous) but this should be executed in a philosophical manner (e.g., if it is ambiguous, disambiguate and explain the distinct meanings). Just because you do not understand a term it does not imply that the term is meaningless or incoherent.

Do not quote from the text. Your task is to explain some argument or theory, not to repeat it. If you quote something, it is difficult to determine whether you have understood it. Your reading response should demonstrate some grasp of the author’s project. Your response should be wholly original. You should not consult outside sources.

Here is a sample reading response from my PHIL322 Modern Philosophy course.

Group presentations: 10% of final grade. Meaningful contributions and intentional participation are essential for active learning. You need to prepare adequately and actually contribute meaningfully to class discussion. For almost every week in the second class there will be a presentation by the assigned group for that week. The presentation must be insightful, relevant, and philosophically interesting as well as generate discussion. One purpose of the presentation is to lead discussion for that portion of the class. Presentations can follow a similar format to that of the reading responses, with discussion questions given at the end of the presentation. Other formats include:

• Explain This. The designated group will present a list of 3 terms, phrases, or sentences whose meaning they think needs explaining. The larger class will then attempt to provide the relevant explanations.
• Plausible vs. Implausible. Two groups will be designated. One group will present what they think is an especially plausible claim or argument from the reading, while the other group will present what they think is an especially implausible claim or argument. The larger class will then discuss how to push back on the plausible claim/argument and how to defend the implausible claim/argument.
• Close Textual Analysis. The designated group will lead discussion for the class with a focus on specific passages in the reading. The discussion should be aimed at understanding and evaluating the particular passages highlighted by the group. Suggested prompts: ‘let’s figure out what’s going on in this passage’, ‘this claim seemed implausible to me – how could somebody defend it?’, ‘this claim seemed really plausible to me – how could somebody challenge it?’

Points are lost for not giving a presentation. You need to sign up for a presentation group under the People menu in Canvas. Do this in the first two weeks of term. End of Week 3 you will be manually put into a group and the ability to self-sign-up will be turned off.

You are strongly encouraged to prepare a PowerPoint presentation. Your group will be allowed to use the classroom technology to present your PowerPoint.

Term paper: 40% of final grade. A philosophy paper has a distinctive argumentative structure that clearly articulates and argues for a specific thesis. A history of philosophy paper has a more specific argumentative structure that involves interpretation and reconstruction of an author’s argument(s) and an evaluation of that argument(s). Length: 5 pages, for both undergraduate and graduate students.

The term paper is to be submitted on Canvas and will be peer reviewed and blind graded; therefore, you must not include your name or ID number in the document anywhere or in the filename. Only .doc and .docx file extensions are accepted.

Term paper consists of the following elements:

• Draft, 2%, graded credit/no credit
• Peer review, 2%, graded credit/no credit
• Final version of paper graded by Instructor, 36%, graded according to rubric.

Further instructions and grading criteria for each paper will be provided closer to the due dates. Paper topics are centred on the William Savery Papers at UW Library, Special Collections.

Paper topic 1: select one of Savery’s published articles, and then study his correspondence on it. Example: read Savery’s Dewey chapter in the Schilpp volume, then study his correspondence on it (e.g., the letter exchange between Donald Williams and Savery, or letters between Tufts and Savery); and identify some disagreement between the two correspondents and evaluate it. Another example: read ‘Concatenism’ and examine the reactions by fellow philosophers in Savery’s correspondence.

Sample paper layout: Introduction. Section 1 on exposition of chosen Savery article. Section 2 is a presentation of objection in letter by some correspondent. Section 3 surveys Savery’s response (if there is one). Section 4 evaluates the debate (who is right?). Conclusion.

Paper topic 2: find an unpublished paper by Savery in his archive, explain its context and summarise overall content, present an argument in it, then critically discuss the argument.

Sample paper layout: Introduction. Section 1 is explanation of context and content of chosen unpublished paper. Section 2 is exposition of one significant argument in the paper. Section 3 is critical discussion of the argument (raise problems for it, etc). Section 4 is final evaluation (is the argument ultimately successful?). Conclusion.

Paper topic 3: choose one of Savery’s published articles and bring in his archive such as other unpublished papers that are related to the topic. For example, you may choose Savery’s defence of hedonism (1934), then you would explore his archive for other work on hedonism or a related topic in ethics and connect the two philosophically. Paper topic 3 is more open-ended than 1 or 2.

Sample paper layout: Introduction. Section 1 is exposition of chosen article, with presentation of a central argument. Section 2 is explanation of a related paper from Savery’s archive that is relevant to the chosen article and the central argument just presented. Section 3 is comparative analysis. Section 4 is critical discussion (does the paper support the argument in the published article?). Conclusion.

After the course you may consider submitting your paper to the UW undergraduate philosophy journal The Garden of Ideas! Submissions should be sent to: gardenofideasuw@gmail.com Please speak to me about this.

Group project on Savery: 30% of final grade. The class will be divided into groups and each group will:

1. transcribe and edit an unpublished paper from the Savery Papers;
2. as editors you will write a 2-3 page introduction to the paper, wherein you explain why it’s worth transcribing, explain the context, explain the content for the reader;
3. you will present your edition as a group on the final day of class.

Each group member must also individually write a 1-page report stating what you contributed to the project and reflecting on what you learnt from the exercise.

You will need to find an unpublished paper from the Savery Papers. Before you begin transcribing and editing each group should inform me which paper they have chosen and explain briefly why that paper was chosen. Obviously, two groups should not transcribe the same paper and clear justification must ground the selection.

Note on writing credit: Passing this course is enough to earn a W credit.

Policies:

Late work: Late work is not accepted. Exceptions are made only for personal and medical emergencies when documentation is provided. Let me know in advance if you have having trouble!

Conversion: A conversion scale (to the 4.0 system) will be chosen at the end of the quarter, based on the usual grade distribution for classes like this. On any chosen 4.0 conversion scale, however, 96% and above will be sufficient for a 4.0, and 60% and above will be sufficient for passing the course, where ‘passing’ just means achieving a 0.7 or higher on the 4.0 system.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism on any assignment will be reported to CSSC and penalised. It is your responsibility to know what counts as plagiarism. It is easy to avoid plagiarism in this class. See the department-wide policies for more on plagiarism.

Class expectations: Each student will have read the reading actively and critically. Active reading means taking notes, underlining text, summarising relevant passages, etc. Critical reading means argumentatively engaging with the author, questioning a premise or a conclusion in some argument, or raising queries or finding something that seems implausible or introducing a relevant consideration that has been overlooked, or identifying an unclear word or phrase or concept. Each student should write out answers to the reading questions and come up with their own questions. In the case of leading class discussion, the student will have prepared discussion questions and lead discussion by introducing the topic and posing questions.

Course expectations: The class is not identical with the course. The class is one part of the course. The other parts of the course involve each student reading the material before class and after class. A student’s understanding of the content of the course should not rest entirely on what unfolds in class. A student should not draw their sole understanding of the material from class, class discussion, class notes, or class handouts and other related material.

Please see the department-wide policies page for further policies and resources.

Course schedule: (please see the more colourful and dynamic course schedule, which will be updated more regularly throughout the term.)

Week 1: Introduction and Native American Thought

Tue 4 Jan: Introduction to American philosophy

Thu 6 Jan: Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha, (1805) ‘Speeches’ [4pgs]; Wynnogene, (1920) ‘Our Democracy and the American Indian’ [10pgs]; reading response 1 due

Week 2: St. Louis Hegelians and their impact

Tue 11 Jan: William T. Harris, (1894) Introduction to the Study of Philosophy, ch. 4, sec. 6: The Third Stage of Thinking: The Absolute Idea, or the Reason, pp. 145-66: Change and Self-activity and Life, Individuality, Absolute Personality [21pgs]

Thu 13 Jan: Susan E. Blow, (1908) Educational Issues in the Kindergarten, chapter 2: The Froebelian Antithesis, sec. 1-3 and sec. 10-12 [18pgs], and chapter 5: Herbart and Froebel [25pgs]; reading response 2 due; Group presentation wk2

Week 3: Charles S. Peirce, the Metaphysical Club and Pragmatism

Tue 18 Jan: Peirce, (1877) ‘The Fixation of Belief’ [10pgs]; Peirce, (1878) ‘How to Make Our Ideas Clear’ [10pgs]

Thu 20 Jan: Peirce, (1891) ‘The Architecture of Theories’ [9pgs]; Peirce, (1902) ‘Uniformity’ [8pgs]; Peirce, (1893) ‘Evolutionary Love’ [5pgs]; reading response 3 due; Group presentation wk3

Week 4: William James: Pragmatism and Radical Empiricism

Tue 25 Jan: James, (1907) Pragmatism, Lecture 2: What Pragmatism Means (excerpt) [13pgs]; and Lecture 6: Pragmatism’s Conception of Truth (excerpt) [14pgs]

Thu 27 Jan: James, (1904) ‘Does “Consciousness” Exist?’, sec. 1-2 [6pgs]; James, (1904) ‘A World of Pure Experience’ (excerpt) [4pgs]; James, (1909) ‘A Pluralistic Universe’ (lecture 8, excerpt) [4pgs]; reading response 4 due; Group presentation wk4

Week 5: Idealism and Josiah Royce

Tue 1 Feb: Royce, (1885) ‘The Possibility of Error’ in The Religious Aspect of Philosophy (excerpts) [7pgs]; Royce, (1908) The Philosophy of Loyalty (excerpts) [9pgs]; Royce, (1899-1901) ‘The Internal and External Meanings of Ideas’ in The World and the Individual (vol. 1) [8pgs]; Royce, (1913) ‘Community and the Doctrine of Signs’ in The Problem of Christianity (vol. 2), lecture 8 [5pgs]

Thu 3 Feb: Royce, (1899-1901) ‘Physical and Social Reality’ in The World and the Individual (vol. 2), sec. 1-4 [26pgs]; reading response 5 due; Group presentation wk5

Week 6: More on Idealism as well as influences from India

Tue 8 Feb: Mary Whiton Calkins, (1919) ‘The Personalistic Conception of Nature’ (sections 2 to 4 only) [25pgs]

Thu 10 Feb: Poola T. Raju, (1937) ‘The Problem of the Infinite: Hegel, Bradley and Sankara’ [14pgs]; reading response 6 due; Group presentation wk6

Week 7: John Dewey on knowledge; Alain LeRoy Locke on pluralism

Tue 15 Feb: Dewey, (1929) The Quest for Certainty (excerpts) [14pgs]; Dewey, (1920) ‘Reconstruction in Moral Conceptions’ in Reconstruction in Philosophy [3pgs]; Dewey, (1934) A Common Faith (excerpts) [4pgs]

Thu 17 Feb: Alain LeRoy Locke, (1942) ‘Pluralism and Intellectual Democracy’ [16pgs]; reading response 7 due; Group presentation wk7

Week 8: William Savery on pragmatism and truth

Tue 22 Feb: Savery, (1938) ‘The Synoptic Theory of Truth’ [28pgs]; paper topics explained; group project assigned

Thu 24 Feb: class on archival research methods at UW Library, Special Collections; no reading response

Week 9: Savery on monism versus pluralism

Tue 1 Mar: Savery, (1937) ‘Concatenism’ [18pgs]

Thu 3 Mar: class on the Savery Papers at UW Library, Special Collections; no reading response

Week 10: Savery on probability and the cosmos

Tue 8 Mar: Savery, (1932) ‘Chance and Cosmogony’ [33pgs]

Thu 10 Mar: presentation of group projects in progress; term paper workshop; course evaluations; no reading response; draft of term paper due

Sun 13 Mar: peer review of term paper due

Week 11: Finals week 12-18 March

Tue 15 Mar: term paper due

Fri 18 Mar: group project edition of Savery paper due; individual 1-page reflection piece due

Grades due: Tue 22 March by 5pm

Information for Students

University of Washington, Department of Philosophy

Policies and Resources

Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct, including plagiarism, is prohibited by the Student Conduct Code for the University of Washington (Links to an external site.) and is taken very seriously by the UW. According to the student conduct code, academic misconduct includes:

1. "Cheating" which includes, but is not limited to:
   1. The use of unauthorized assistance in taking quizzes, tests, or examinations, or completing assignments;
   2. The acquisition, use, or distribution of unpublished materials created by another student without the express permission of the original author(s);
   3. Using online sources, such as solution manuals, without the permission of the instructor to complete assignments, exams, tests, or quizzes; or
   4. Requesting, hiring, or otherwise encouraging someone to take a course, exam, test, or complete assignments for a student.
2. "Falsification," which is the intentional use or submission of falsified data, records, or other information including, but not limited to, records of internship or practicum experiences or attendance at any required event(s), or scholarly research.
3. "Plagiarism," which is the submission or presentation of someone else's words, composition, research, or expressed ideas, whether published or unpublished, without attribution. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
   1. The use, by paraphrase or direct quotation, of the published or unpublished work of another person without full and clear acknowledgment; or
   2. The unacknowledged use of materials prepared by another person or acquired from an entity engaging in the selling of term papers or other academic materials.
4. Unauthorized collaboration.
5. Engaging in behavior specifically prohibited by an instructor in the course of class instruction or in a course syllabus.
6. Multiple submissions of the same work in separate courses without the express permission of the instructor(s).
7. Taking deliberate action to destroy or damage another's academic work in order to gain an advantage for oneself or another.
8. The recording of instructional content without the express permission of the instructor(s), unless approved as a disability accommodation, and/or the dissemination or use of such unauthorized records.

(Source: WAC 478-121 - Academic Misconduct (Links to an external site.))

Plagiarism may lead to disciplinary action by the University against the student who submitted the work. Any student who is uncertain whether his or her use of the work of others constitutes plagiarism should consult the course instructor for guidance before formally submitting the course work involved.

Incompletes

Incomplete grades may only be awarded if a student is doing satisfactory work up until the last two weeks of the quarter and has furnished proof satisfactory to the instructor that the work cannot be completed because of illness or other circumstances beyond the student’s control. (Sources: Office of the Registrar – Incomplete Grades (Links to an external site.)), UW General Catalog, Student Guide – Grading System (Links to an external site.))

Grade Appeal Procedure

A student who believes that the instructor erred in the assignment of a grade, or who believes a grade recoding error or omission has occurred, shall first discuss the matter with the instructor before the end of the following academic quarter (not including Summer Quarter). If the student is not satisfied with the instructor’s explanation, the student, no later than ten days after their discussion with the instructor, may submit a written appeal to the chair of the Department of Philosophy with a copy of the appeal also sent to the instructor. The chair consults with the instructor to ensure that the evaluation of the student’s performance has not been arbitrary or capricious. Should the chair believe the instructor’s conduct to be arbitrary or capricious and the instructor declines to revise the grade, the chair, with the approval of the voting members of his or her faculty, shall appoint an appropriate member, or members, of the faculty of the Department of Philosophy to evaluate the performance of the student and assign a grade. The Dean and Provost should be informed of this action. Once a student submits a written appeal, this document and all subsequent actions on this appeal are recorded in written form for deposit in a School file. (Source: UW General Catalog, Student Guide – Grading System (Links to an external site.))

Concerns About a Course, an Instructor, or a Teaching Assistant

If you have any concerns about a philosophy course or your instructor, please see the instructor about these concerns as soon as possible. If you are not comfortable talking with the instructor or not satisfied with the response that you receive, you may contact the chair of the program offering the course (names available from the Department of Philosophy, 361 Savery Hall).

If you have any concerns about a teaching assistant, please see the teaching assistant about these concerns as soon as possible. If you are not comfortable talking with the teaching assistant or not satisfied with the response that you receive, you may contact the instructor in charge of the course. If you are still not satisfied with the response that you receive, you may contact the chair of the program offering the course (names available from the Department of Philosophy, 361 Savery Hall), or the Graduate School at G-1 Communications Building (543-5900).

Equal Opportunity

The University of Washington reaffirms its policy of equal opportunity regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability, or status as a disabled veteran or Vietnam-era veteran in accordance with University of Washington policy and applicable federal and state statutes and regulations.

Access and Accommodations

Your experience in this class is important to the instructor. If you have already established accommodations with Disability Resources for Students (DRS), please communicate your approved accommodations to the instructor at your earliest convenience so you can discuss your needs in this course.

If you have not yet established services through DRS, but have a temporary health condition or permanent disability that requires accommodations (conditions include but are not limited to: mental health, attention-related, learning, vision, hearing, physical or health impacts), you are welcome to contact DRS at 206-543-8924 (Voice & Relay) or uwdrs@uw.edu or disability.uw.edu.  (Links to an external site.)DRS offers resources and coordinates reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities and/or temporary health conditions. Reasonable accommodations are established through an interactive process between you, your instructor(s) and DRS. It is the policy and practice of the University of Washington to create inclusive and accessible learning environments consistent with federal and state law.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is defined as the use of one’s authority or power, either explicitly or implicitly, to coerce another into unwanted sexual relations or to punish another for his or her refusal, or as the creation by a member of the University community of an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or educational environment through verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

If you believe that you are being harassed, seek help—the earlier the better. You may speak with your instructor, your teaching assistant, the undergraduate advisor (363 Savery Hall), graduate program advisor (366 Savery Hall), or the chair of the philosophy department (364 Savery Hall). In addition, you should be aware that the University has designated special people to help you. For assistance you may contact: SafeCampus; Office of the Ombud (Links to an external site.) (339 HUB, 206-543-6028); Title IX Investigation Office (Links to an external site.) (for complaints that a University student has violated the sexual misconduct provisions of the Student Conduct Code); University Complaint Investigation and Resolution Office (Links to an external site.) (for complaints concerning the behavior of University employees, including faculty, teaching assistants, and other student employees).

Integrity

The Office of Research Misconduct Proceedings (ORMP) coordinates the University’s handling of allegations of research misconduct against members of the University community, in consultations and cooperation with the University’s schools, colleges, and campuses.

University rules define scientific and scholarly misconduct to include the following forms of inappropriate activity: intentional misrepresentation of credentials; falsification of data; plagiarism; abuse of confidentiality; deliberate violation of regulations applicable to research.

Students can report cases of scientific or scholarly misconduct either to the ORMP, to their faculty adviser, or the department chair. The student should report such problems to whomever he or she feels most comfortable.

(Sources: Executive Order No. 61 – Research Misconduct Policy (Links to an external site.); Office of Research Misconduct Proceedings (Links to an external site.); minutes of Grad School Executive Staff and Division Heads meeting, 7/23/98.)

SafeCampus

Preventing violence is everyone's responsibility. SafeCampus is the University of Washington’s Violence Prevention and Response Program. They support students, staff, faculty, and community members in preventing violence.

SafeCampus staff will listen to your concerns and provide support and safety plans tailored to your situation. Caring, trained professionals will talk you through options and connect you with additional resources if you want them.

If you're concerned, tell someone.

• Always call 911 if you or others may be in danger.
• Call 206-685-SAFE (7233) to report non-urgent threats of violence and for referrals to UW counseling and/or safety resources. TTY or VP callers, please call through your preferred relay service.
• Don't walk alone. Campus safety guards can walk with you on campus after dark. Call Husky NightWalk 206-685-WALK (9255).
• Stay connected in an emergency with UW Alert. Register your mobile number to receive instant notification of campus emergencies via text and voice messaging. Sign up for UW Alert (Links to an external site.)
• For more information visit the SafeCampus website (Links to an external site.).

Religious Accommodations

Washington state law requires that UW develop a policy for accommodation of student absences or significant hardship due to reasons of faith or conscience, or for organized religious activities. The UW’s policy, including more information about how to request an accommodation, is available at Religious Accommodations Policy (https://registrar.washington.edu/staffandfaculty/religious-accommodations-policy/) (Links to an external site.). Accommodations must be requested within the first two weeks of this course using the Religious Accommodations Request form (https://registrar.washington.edu/students/religious-accommodations-request/) (Links to an external site.).

Food Insecurity and Hardship

Any student who has difficulty affording groceries or accessing sufficient food to eat every day, or who lacks a safe and stable place to live and believes this may affect their performance in the course, is urged to contact the UW Any Hungry Husky Program. Any Hungry Husky provides hunger relief free of judgment or stigma. Go to https://www.washington.edu/anyhungryhusky/ (Links to an external site.) for information about the food pantry and food security grants. In addition, UW offers emergency aid for students experiencing unexpected financial hardships that may disrupt their education or get in the way of completing their degree. Go to https://www.washington.edu/emergencyaid/ (Links to an external site.) for more information about how to apply.

Guidance to Students Taking Courses Outside the U.S.

Faculty members at U.S. universities – including the University of Washington – have the right to academic freedom which includes presenting and exploring topics and content that other governments may consider to be illegal and, therefore, choose to censor. Examples may include topics and content involving religion, gender and sexuality, human rights, democracy and representative government, and historic events.

If, as a UW student, you are living outside of the United States while taking courses remotely, you are subject to the laws of your local jurisdiction. Local authorities may limit your access to course material and take punitive action towards you. Unfortunately, the University of Washington has no authority over the laws in your jurisdictions or how local authorities enforce those laws.

If you are taking UW courses outside of the United States, you have reason to exercise caution when enrolling in courses that cover topics and issues censored in your jurisdiction. If you have concerns regarding a course or courses that you have registered for, please contact your academic advisor who will assist you in exploring options.

Face Coverings and Social Distancing in the Classroom during COVID

The health and safety of the University of Washington community are the institution’s priorities. Until otherwise stated face coverings are required per UW COVID Face Covering Policy (Links to an external site.): indoors where other people are present and outdoors when keeping a 6-foot distance may not be possible. This includes all classrooms and buildings/public spaces on each of the UW campuses.

If you physically can’t wear a mask, you choose not to wear a mask, your mask isn’t appropriate/sufficient, or if you aren’t wearing a mask properly (covering both your nose and mouth – see diagram below), you CANNOT be in the classroom and will be asked to leave.

If you have a medical condition or health risk as outlined in the UW COVID Face Covering Policy (Links to an external site.), you may request an accommodation. Please contact Disability Resources for Students office BEFORE GOING TO CLASS at uwdrs@uw.edu (Seattle) drsuwt@uw.edu (Tacoma) uwbdrs@uw.edu (Bothell).

A face covering must:

• Fit snugly against the sides of the face
• Completely cover the nose and mouth
• Be secured with ties, ear loops, elastic bands, or other equally effective method
• Include at least one layer of cloth, although multiple layers are strongly recommended
• Allow for breathing without restriction
• Be capable of being laundered and machine dried without damage or change to shape

CDC: How to Wear Masks