The decision not to indict Officer 115 is one of the most discussed moments in The Hate U Give, and it makes a natural prompt for an argumentative essay. Students can ask whether the process was fair, what the decision says about the justice system, or how Starr's testimony shaped the result. These are questions with no single answer, which is what makes them good writing tasks. They also demand careful grading, since students will argue from different perspectives.

A strong prompt names the specific decision students are evaluating and the standard they should use. For example, students might argue whether the grand jury process, as depicted in the novel, served the community it was meant to protect. The word "depicted" is useful because it keeps students anchored in the text rather than wandering into general claims about real cases. It also lets the grader check evidence against a shared source.

Students often need a short primer on how grand juries work before they can write about them well. Without it, essays can contain factual errors that have little to do with the novel. A one-page handout covering the basic role of a grand jury is enough to reduce confusion. The rubric can then include a line for accurate use of background information without making it the main focus.

Define what a strong claim looks like

A weak claim in this unit would be that the decision was unfair, because it merely names an opinion. A stronger claim specifies why and ties the argument to the text, such as arguing that the proceedings treated Khalil's character as more relevant than the officer's actions. Showing students both versions before they draft helps them see the difference. Graders can then use a consistent standard for what counts as an arguable and specific thesis.

• Presents a specific claim about the fairness or consequences of the decision
• Draws on events and details from the novel as primary evidence
• Explains how each piece of evidence supports the argument
• Anticipates a reasonable opposing view and responds with reasoning
• Concludes by explaining why the argument matters beyond the book

Grade the quality of the counterargument

Counterarguments are where student writing most often falls short. Many essays acknowledge an opposing view in a single sentence and then dismiss it, which does little to strengthen the claim. A better approach is to present the opposing view fairly, then explain with evidence why it is less convincing. A rubric line that rewards this full treatment pushes students to engage rather than brush past.

Feedback on this section can be very specific. Instead of writing "develop your counterargument," a teacher might suggest naming one reason someone could defend the decision and responding to it using a particular scene. That kind of instruction gives students something to do immediately. Over time it builds the habit of treating disagreement as an opportunity to reason.

Keep scoring balanced and efficient

Because this topic is emotionally resonant, graders should be careful to evaluate the same criteria for every essay. Reading the essays in a randomized order and scoring one criterion at a time reduces the chance that an early strong paper sets an unfair bar. Teachers can also anonymize essays during grading to limit bias. These simple steps protect fairness without adding much time.

AI-assisted grading adds another layer of consistency by applying the same rubric language to each essay and drafting comments tied to specific criteria. Teachers can focus on reviewing flagged areas such as missing counterarguments or unsupported claims. This approach is especially helpful for large classes where fatigue can affect judgment. The end result is feedback students can trust to be even-handed.

Extend the learning after grading

A graded argumentative essay can become the basis for a structured discussion. Students might trade essays with a partner who took the opposite position and write a short response identifying the strongest point in the other argument. This exercise builds respect for reasoned disagreement and deepens understanding of the topic. It also gives teachers more writing to assess if they choose to.

Collecting a few anonymous examples of effective counterarguments for future classes gives new students a model to learn from. Models are one of the most effective supports for argument writing because they show the finished product, not just the checklist. Pairing them with a clear rubric helps students aim higher on their first draft. Each year the unit gets stronger as the example bank grows.