Duddy's treatment of Yvette and Virgil is the moral heart of The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, and it provokes strong reactions from students. Many want to condemn him immediately, while others defend him as a product of hardship. A fair grader must evaluate the quality of the ethical reasoning, not whether the student shares the teacher's verdict. That requires criteria focused on argument structure and evidence.

A common weakness in these essays is the unsupported moral declaration. A student writes that Duddy is selfish and cruel, which may be true, but never demonstrates it through specific scenes or explains by what standard those actions are judged. Feedback should ask what Duddy actually does, what consequences follow, and what values the student is applying when they call the behavior wrong.

Another frequent issue is ignoring complexity. Duddy is driven by genuine fear and by a desire to earn his family's respect, and the novel does not ask readers to dismiss those motives. Strong essays acknowledge the sympathetic elements of his character while still holding him accountable, which produces a more persuasive and honest argument than a flat denunciation.

Rewarding the quality of reasoning

Make your rubric explicit about the reasoning you want to see. A strong ethical argument defines its terms, applies them consistently to evidence, anticipates a counterargument, and responds to it. For example, a student arguing that Duddy is ultimately a victim of circumstance should address the fact that Yvette and Virgil had far fewer options and still behaved with more integrity.

• States a clear ethical position about Duddy's actions
• Supports the position with specific scenes involving Yvette or Virgil
• Explains the standard being used to judge right and wrong
• Addresses at least one opposing view fairly
• Considers how Richler's narration guides the reader's judgment

Keeping the classroom environment fair

Because these essays involve judgment, students sometimes worry that a teacher will penalize disagreement. Reassure them early by explaining the rubric and demonstrating that opposing positions can earn top scores when well argued. Sharing example paragraphs from both sides, annotated for strengths, makes the standard concrete and builds trust.

Pay attention to your own bias as you grade. If you find yourself reacting emotionally to a defense of Duddy, pause and reread the paper against the rubric. Grading one criterion at a time can help, since it keeps you focused on specific features such as evidence and counterargument rather than your overall impression of the stance.

The role of the narrator

A sophisticated essay will consider how Richler shapes the reader's moral response through narration. The novel often invites amusement at Duddy's schemes before revealing the harm they cause, and that shift in tone complicates any simple judgment. Students who examine this technique show that they understand how literature influences ethical perception, not just what characters do.

You can prompt this kind of analysis by asking a question in the assignment itself, such as how the narrator's tone affects the reader's sympathy for Duddy at a particular moment. The question nudges students beyond plot-based judgment and toward literary analysis. It also produces more varied essays, which makes grading more interesting.

Making feedback efficient and specific

Ethical argument essays share common patterns of weakness, so a structured set of comments can address most of them. Prepare notes on unsupported claims, missing counterarguments, and neglected complexity, and adapt each to the individual paper. Students benefit when feedback names the missing element and illustrates how to add it.

AI tools that apply your rubric can flag essays lacking a counterargument or relying on assertion, giving you a head start. You remain the final judge, particularly on questions of tone and fairness to unconventional positions. This division of labor saves time while keeping human judgment where it matters most.