Few characters split a classroom like Henry Higgins. Some students call him a bully who treats a young woman like a science project. Others defend him as the only person in the play who treats everyone equally badly. Both groups can write excellent essays, and both can write terrible ones.

The grading challenge is that students often feel strongly about their verdict. A teacher who quietly disagrees may mark down the evidence when the real issue is the conclusion. That is not fair to the student, and it teaches them that arguments are about pleasing the reader.

A better approach is to grade how the argument is built. Does the essay define what it means by villain? Does it use specific scenes, such as the bet in Act II or the confrontation in Act IV? Does it deal with the moments that complicate the verdict?

Higgins is a rich test case for this, because the text supports several readings. He is rude to Eliza, but he is rude to Pickering and his mother too. He claims to see all people as equal, and Eliza points out how little that helps her.

Separating the verdict from the reasoning

Tell students up front that either conclusion can earn full marks. What earns marks is the quality of the reasoning behind it. Write that into the rubric so nobody has to wonder whether their opinion is on the wrong side.

• What standard is the student using to judge his behavior, and is it stated?
• Which scenes support the claim, and which ones work against it?
• Does the essay consider how Mrs. Pearce, Pickering, and Mrs. Higgins respond to him?
• Is Higgins judged by his intentions, his effects on Eliza, or both?
• Does the conclusion acknowledge what the other side would say?

Counterargument is where most essays fall short

Students who pick a side tend to ignore the evidence for the other. The strongest essays name the best objection and answer it. Even a single paragraph that does this raises the level of the whole paper.

Give students a sentence frame if they need one, such as: a reader might point to this scene as proof of the opposite, but here is why that reading is incomplete. It is a small scaffold, and it produces noticeably better thinking. Use it in early drafts and let students drop it once they have the habit.

Keeping your own view out of the margins

Rubric-based grading, whether done by hand or with an AI tool, anchors feedback in stated criteria. GraideMind applies the standards you set, so the comments focus on evidence and reasoning rather than on whether the essay agrees with anyone. You can still review and adjust every comment before students see it.

It is worth spot-checking a few essays on each side of the debate. If the pro-Higgins essays consistently score higher or lower than the anti-Higgins ones, something in the rubric or in the grader is tilting the scale. Catching that early is much easier than defending it later.

Making the debate part of the unit

Once the essays are graded, run a short debate using strong lines from both sides. Students see their own arguments tested and learn why counterarguments matter. The classroom conversation then feeds into the next round of writing.

Keep the tone light. Higgins is a character students enjoy arguing about, and that energy is a gift for a writing unit. Use it.