Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Proposal to the Pride Foundation
to support Seattle Public Schools sexual education program, FLASH, in partner with Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN)


Contact Information

Seattle Public Schools
John Stanford Center for Educational Excellence (JSCEE)

2445 3rd Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134
Phone: 206.252.0000

Contact Person: Alexander LaCasse, public school advocate and GLSEN member

Brief Description of Organization

What is now called GLSEN initially started out as a group of 70 gay and lesbian educators as the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Network in 1990. At its genesis, the country had two recognized Gay-Straight Alliances as well as one state that had policy in place to protect LGBT students. It was not until 1995 that the organization made its national debut. Chapters across the country began to quickly crop up. Today GLSEN staffs 40 individuals, has a board of 20 and has registered nearly 4,000 Gay-Straight Alliances around the country.
GLSEN strives to create an atmosphere of acceptance of others through education, ensuring that all students are safe in their schools regardless of sexual orientation. The mission was established early on and states that GLSEN “envisions a world in which every child learns to accept and respect all people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.”
GLSEN works collaboratively with state legislature and and school districts in order to address the issues surrounding the young gay and lesbian population. The vision of GLSEN can be broken into four categories:
1.Convince education leaders and policymakers of the urgent need to address anti-LGBT behavior and bias in our schools.
2.Protect students by advancing comprehensive and effective safe schools law and policies.
3.Empower principals to make their schools safe places to learn.
4.Build the skills of educators to teach respect for all people.
Seattle Public Schools, a publicly funded entity, understand and respects GLSEN's efforts to create a more cohesive and accepting atmosphere for all of its students.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Peta: An Unfortunate Reality

Peta presents clear and distinct images to viewers which are both appropriate and effective. Their message is obvious--animal cruelty is unacceptable.

The use of varying images such as altered logos as well as often brutal video conveys Peta's message as an organization determined to fight unjust behavior against animals. Emotionally speaking, the videos provide a specific personal element attracting viewers to adopt their specific school of thought. And, it works. Most specically Peta has a video chronocling the process of chicken slaughtering in order to be prepared for KFC restaurants. If the video had not had images of the process itself it would not have warrented intense review. However, because the narration was coupled with actual shots of what was being discussed, a certain sense of validity was added to Peta's argument. It is safe to assume that the medium shapes the message. Because of the "shock and awe" presented by Peta, a message of humane treatment and sympathy is automatically created thus hopefully motivating individuals to act.

Visual representation has an incredible impact on viewers. While one may not agree with Peta's mission as a whole, it is difficult to argue with images of animals being beaten by human beings. It is there. Radical and impactful images stay with us longer as viewers and have a lasting impression. Peta sets a reality for viewers--a reality that is amplified by shocking and startling images.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

MPP2

Our country is changing at a rapid pace.

The economic crisis is in full swing, our first African American president has taken office and our climate is altering every moment. All of these issues are in response to something--poor spending, greater racial acceptance, irresponsibility with sustainability ---that have caused us as a collective to change our paths, minds, education and direction.

It is time we respond to another pressing issue, and change direction yet again.

With greater legalization and the continuing normalization of same-sex couples in America, there arrives the need to address it in one of the largest arenas we have--our schools.

As I walk through the halls of our public schools, I hear slander left and right coming from the mouths of six and seventh graders.

"That's gay!" and "You're a fag!" run rampant in our schools. This is hate-speech. Our kids are effectively using hate-speech as a means to communicate and it has become normalized behavior. Since when is it ok for our children to use language not unlike that of a slave-owner? Is the socially taboo "N" word that far off from the language these students are using? According to one specific study, more than three quarters of students have reported being called "gay" or a "faggot."

This is unacceptable and as a community we should be ashamed.

Lets investigate the term "faggot" and where it comes from, to perhaps give some background to the offensive word. Many people justify the use of it because it refers to literally a bundle of sticks. What most people do not know, however, is that the term faggot refers to a moment in history where men suspected as sodomists would be burned alive in public.

We should not be praising this nor accepting it in our schools.

Schools are a safe-haven for our children. At least, they should be. They are fundamentally places to foster growth, motivate our youth and provide them with tools of acceptance.

Fundamentally this is an issue of respect and dignity. Sexual education should be comprehensive. This is to say that all avenues of life should be presented for students as a means to expose them to reality. Believe it or not, there are gay people in the world. And believe it or not, they are active members in our society who everyone will interact with at some point or another.

As a gay man, it would have been incredibly beneficial to have been introduced to the idea of homosexuality at an early age in school. Instead, my perception of what it meant to be "gay" was left to the kids on the playground. Gay automatically became funny and consequentially something I did not want to be.

Our schools are in the business of helping students, not harming them. Lets provide them with reality and stop living in the fantasy.

Maternal/Paternal Responsibility

With the case of "Octomom" Nadya Suleman, D. Parvaz makes it apparent in his editorial that her self-ignorance and irresponsibility is largely to blame. Bringing eight additional children into the world after a batch of six ushers in questions of responsibility and where it lies---especially considering her socio-economic status. The fact of the matter is, the larger society will ultimately be placed in responsibility of providing and taking care for these children. Suleman herself has no job, is in debt and lives off her mother (what little she does have.) Comparing Suleman's case to AppleBaum's piece on mothers in war, again there arrives issues of responsibility. AppleBaum makes a successful appeal to the rationale behind women in war--while freedoms and rights are applauded for women in war, the extent to which women who are planning to have children or are pregnant during their military career is questionable. I would even argue selfish and ignorant. The responsibility lies with the mother, not the state to take care of these children. If a woman is planning to enlist, then it would be a wise decision to perhaps not have a child at that time. When AppleBaum mentions instances of a child being left with no parents my heart aches for that child. It is these types of people who should not have children. Having a child is a lifetime commitment. To have a child and then ship both parents abroad is irresponsible, immoral and ignorant. This is not an issue of larger government. These are both issues (Suleman and war moms) of personal choice. The fact of the matter is, women do have a choice whether or not they want to enlist. That is great. More power to them. They should have that right, and be deemed equal under law. This is not under question. However, women are also free to choose whether or not they have children. Men are also involved in this decision. It is a collaborative affair with distinct choices.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Letter of Intent

To whom it may concern,

SafetyNet is a non-profit organization striving to provide Seattle Public Schools with comprehensive sexual education curriculum, including specifc curriculum promoting the acceptance of homosexuality. We have been in existence for 10 years in the Seattle community and are a certified non-profit.
SafetyNet is proposing a reconstruction of Seattle Public Schools current sexual education program, FLASH. This would include an intensive review, update and comprehensive inclusion of issues pertaining to gay and lesbian youth. Our schools are inundated with hateful language--fag, homo, etc--derived from a lack of knowledge when it comes to homosexuality. Our schools need to represent reality--homosexuality is one of these realities. To make it invisible within our schools is to make it mysterious and consequentially unaccepted. Introducing curriculum specifically designed to reduce prejudice and creating a safe place for students is beneficial to both schools and society. We are proposing a grant at a monetary base of $20,000 to provide for curriculum update, research and teacher training. SafetyNet has a history of working within the community and has been a beacon for the public schools in years past. The review process will plan to take one full academic year.
We are asking for your help in educating our students. This proposal is first and foremost a way in which our public schools can provide useful, applicable and respectful resources to our students. We ask funding of roughly $20,000 in order to provide a systematic review of the FLASH program as well as implementation of a same-sex based curriculum. Teacher training is also included. This proposal will be followed up with a phone call. Thank you so much for your time and attention. It is greatly appreciated.

Funding Project.

Proposal: A comprehensive sexual education program would include proper materials as well as trained educators in order to provide a medically accurate, socially representational and respectful sexual education environment for students in the Seattle Public School district. Most importantly, as it is often lacking in already well-established programs, funding would seek to implement a specific chapter covering issues pertaining to the homosexual. This is to say sexual education would include curriculum designed to teach students about the acceptability and varying viewpoints of "different" lifestyles. It is a presentation of the issue and a representation of the reality in our society then subsequent moral/value judgment by students themselves. Money would be needed for this, and thus this is where grant writing comes into fruition. This is an easily arguable and acceptable proposal since we are dealing with children--our society's greatest commodity.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

An Open Letter to Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson

Today, I mourn the loss of five Seattle Public Schools. The decision to do so puts a mark of shame and fault on the district, a mark identified not by its academics and success but rather by its failure to serve our number one commodity--students. This is an enormous social blunder. We are facing a loss to our community, one that will have impacts for years.

The closure of the five schools is an issue of social justice, not one of capacity management or financial relief. You have decided to uproot these students from their communities.

Let me share a story with you.

Two years ago, I worked for the district as a mentor at Meany Middle School. There I met with a boy named Deshawn---a shy, quiet, sensitive yet eager young man who thrived when he was at school. Deshawn was an amazing kid. He had the demeanor of a tough guy, but the swagger of a gentle soul. When we would be talking or working together, he would seek my approval. Deshawn would be proud when he got a question right, looking up to me for that "Great job" or a simple glance of boastfulness that "my" student had done something incredible. Seeing his face put a smile on mine everyday.

While his academics were below average, school was the one place he had consistency. Deshawn's father was not present in his life, and his mother had died. He was cared for by his grandmother. Late in the year Deshawn's grandmother died of a heartattack. He was devastated. While he had a minial support group at home, school was the one place he had as a source of safety and comfort. Meany Middle School became his family. His teachers, myself and his peers were his brothers and sisters. Deshawn became even more attached to Meany and the community that surrounded him. Without this at the time of his grandmother's death, Deshawn would have been lost.

It is this kind of story that stretches across your school district, and these stories that will be affected by your recent decision to close five schools. A consolidation of schools does not mean an increase in educational equality. What you fail to realize is that these closures signify a destruction of a community--a community founded on cultural competency and diversity.

What are we teaching our students by closing these five schools? That they don't belong at the school they've called home for the past 4, 6, 12 years? What does it tell them that the district is closing all minority, low income schools?

This is an issue that needs to be readdressed. Not for the sake of my arguments, but for the sake of the children who are being so dramatically affected. Transferring students like Deshawn to a completely new environment will only yield negative academic and personal results. Let him be. Let him thrive in a community he calls home.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Collegehumor.com: Generational Humor

CollegeHumor, an accessible funny video site, created for an by college students is spot on with its blatant sarcasm.

What makes these videos hysterical is not necessarily the humor itself but rather their relatability. The audience of these videos is easy to identify--liberal, college aged students who can "go the distance" when it comes to sometimes caustic humor. A Video like "Hand Vagina" is not necessarily driven towards an audience of middle aged women.

The videos are a glimpse into college humor, a sense of humor that is only relatable to a specific group of individuals. Much of what CollegeHumor uses as material is based off a specific generation. The "Minesweeper" movie, for example, takes something so mundane as a simple computer game and turns it into a sarcastic movie-trailer based on a game many of us played.

We can all recognize the hilarity of the situations presented in CollegeHumor's videos. There is a universal commonplace within the generation that has distinguished things funny, abnormal, sarcastic or just odd. By making light of everyday situations, CollegeHumor establishes a base or recognition and identity with viewers. We seemingly say to ourselves, "That is funny, because I've been through that" or "I get it! I use to play that game as a kid."

Blatant sarcasm also appeals to college students who tend to be more liberal in thinking. It is to go without saying that people tend to become more conservative as they get older. The college years then are a time to question, make fun of, and examine certain establishments and the CollegeHumor creators do this with ease.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Homosexuality in Schools

Homosexuality has entered into our social conscience now more than ever, therefore igniting the need to open up a conversation concerning the representation of gay and lesbian issues in our schools. I contend that a greater acceptance of homosexuality needs to be implemented in the sexual education curriculum in our public schools, both providing sensitive and medically accurate information concerning gays and lesbians. The debate often centers around the role of the school in education, and whether or not morals should be taught (many consider homosexuality a moral and ethical issue). The fact of the matter is, our public schools are in place to educate the whole person. This includes introducing students to concepts that they may not agree with completely. Education is about learning, not necessarily what is learned. To this extent, it is our schools obligation to present an issue of social importance. It needs to be talked about.

Additionally, the fact of the matter is there are individuals who use hurtful language to disrupt those who identify as homosexual. Phrases like "That's so gay," and "You're a fag" run rampant in our schools. This is unacceptable. By implementing a curriculum that teaches respect for those that are different--not a moral lesson on gay sex--will only breed positive results. At the foundational level, people should be able to recognize another persons right to be happy and safe. The debate is not about religion. I would argue that sexual education should not be centered around moral teachings, but rather the reality of our world. The reality of our world is that gay people are a reality. They are people. Respecting this is the first step and doing it through such a huge public arena as our public schools will only prove beneficial.

Debate Response.

The oral presentation of the local and pertinent debate surroudning the Alaskan Way viaduct proved lively. To see both sides of the argument explored was interesting, but even more so in light of our current economic recession.

While the safety of our citizens is important, I wonder if spending 4 billion dollars on a tunnel is where our priorities should be focused. With the recent closure of five Seattle Public Schools, infrastructure is not the type priority in our city--the thousands of displaced students are and should continue to be. Granted, we can't ignore our cities infrastructure. However, there are options that would eleviate costs. There was a hybrid tunnel/highway model proposed by a group that would end up saving money and still increase infrastructure safety.

The debate itself was lively. One debater, Nick, seemed as if he was not incredibly prepared. Issues were often repeated (especially the ecological impact) again and again with little gain. When he did mention Seattle Public Schools, however, I began to pay more attention. I realized that the debater themselves do not ultimately persuade. It is rather the narrative--connected through personal experience that attracts listeners. Having worked in schools for years, I have an invested emotional interest in the preservation of our schools. To know that 4 billion is going towards a tunnel rather than our schools is disheartening and automatically put me on the opposing side.

Sexual Education Curriculum and Homosexual Inclusiveness: Evaluating the Debate Surrounding Sexual Education in the Classroom

It is often said that our nation’s schools become the battleground for many, if not most, controversial issues surrounding our societal values, ideals and morals. Whether it is a battle over a few words in the pledge of allegiance, a disagreement over parenting styles or the repercussions of an economic downfall, schools generally feel things first. The issue of homosexuality does not evade this inevitable confrontation for the mere fact it has become so prevalent in our social conscious and has of recent been an issue—specifically when it comes to gay marriage— that has dominated our news media. As gay marriage has become legal in several states, the question arises as to whether or not educators should include curriculum pertaining to homosexuality in school sexual education programs. This is to argue that if heterosexuality is commonly taught in schools where does homosexuality fit into the equation, if at all? To this extent, if it is included in our schools sexual education programs, what exactly is included? The issue ushers in a plethora of opinions—many strong and deeply rooted in personal value and tradition. There is no option of skirting the issue. The fact is homosexuality has entered our social conversation in an unprecedented way therefore directing our attention to its treatment in schools. Each side of the argument is framed in a distinctly different way, presenting itself to two audiences with dissimilar backgrounds—one generally conservative in nature, the other more liberal. While it is often counterproductive to dive into a polarized form of argument, the stylized performances of those in support of introducing homosexuality in schools and those not in favor do tend to target a specific demographic with specific beliefs. There are two implied audiences for each side of the argument. While demonstrating itself in our schools, the issue of normalizing and educating individuals about homosexuality in mainstream culture gives rise to a larger societal issue of acceptance and whether or not a higher degree of acceptance should be taught in schools.
The history of sexual education, in particular sexual education that includes mention of homosexuality, dates far back in American history. As early as 1904, Doctor Prince A. Morrow and Psychologist G. Stanley Hall warn against the teachings of homosexuality in a classroom setting. The word itself at the time was a recent invention. Sexual education for much of the early to mid century was devoted to heterosexually normative education. When the Kinsey report came out in 1948, there was a national push to idealize heterosexuality in sexual education programs. In 1988, congress passed the Helms act—a bill that does not provide funding for AIDS education that promotes or encourages homosexuality. More recently in 1992 Oregon voters voted down an initiative that essentially forbid any school to discuss, facilitate or promote any conversations surrounding homosexuality. In 2004, California passed what was described as a “gay-inclusive” law which advocated for medically accurate and age appropriate sexual education.
Sexual education was not advocated for heavily until the 1940's when the U.S. Public Health deemed it an “urgent need.” The progression of sexual health programs has generally been slow in nature and to this day does not exist in every school district. Many programs back then and today refer to themselves as “Family and Life” curriculum rather than “sex ed.” Because homosexuality has been a controversial topic for years, naturally the issue of including it in our schools has been a point of contention.
Generally speaking the debate surrounding sexual education in schools lies along party lines. This is to say that those who identify as more “liberal” in party politics tend to side with those who insist sexual education—level of inclusion not counting—should be included. Contrastingly, many individuals who generally side with a more conservative form of party politics agree that sexual education should not have its primary place in the classroom but rather at home with the family and parents. Religion also often comes into play. Of course, these somewhat polarized viewpoints are not always consistent with reality. The arguments are varied and not always black and white.
Linda P. Harvey, in her article “Schools Should Not Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality” argues that homosexuality should not be taught in schools nor a huge stress put on acceptance of the lifestyle. She describes a “gay agenda” in which schools are imposing moral teachings on students. She states that “Religious freedom and freedom of speech issues are threatened by programs (that encourage acceptance of homosexuality).” What she proposes, instead, are sexual education programs that exclude the mention of homosexuality. Harvey contends that by doing this, the issue is avoided and conversely the heterosexual community is no longer demonized in the process of homosexual representation—a representation, she states, is defined by victimization. She argues that “the vast majority of people in this country are not potentially violence and do not deserve to be unjustly associated with violence toward homosexuals!” Harvey contends that by initiating homosexuality in sexual education and normalizing it puts both the straight and gay community’s at risk. She argues that by singling out a group of individuals, in this case heterosexuals, a pattern of persecution occurs wherein the heterosexual is deemed dangerous and/or negative. She argues that no single group is benefited by teaching a greater acceptance of homosexuality in our schools.
It is important to place Harvey's rhetoric in a specific situation given her personal history and narrative. She is a well-know conservative who discusses issues surrounding women, homosexuality and education. She is a regular contributor to Focus on the Family—a conservative group striving to preserve the traditions of the family. Her initial need in writing this article centers on the squelching of pro-homosexual activists who advocate homosexuality in schools. Furthermore, she has a need to get out her own agenda (or rather conservative agenda). Given this information, Harvey is clear and concise in her rhetorical mission. There is no denying she caters to a distinct audience. This specific article was written in 2002—about the time Massachusetts began the conversation on allowing gay marriage. There were also movements, as well as a piece of legislation in the state, to include homosexuality as a topic of conversation in a comprehensive sexual education curriculum. She is responding to this ongoing conversation and she makes it clear where she stands. Her audience is twofold. On one hand she is addressing a group of people who already agree with her—a largely conservative audience. Additionally, however, Harvey is making an appeal to parents who may be on the fence about homosexuality in schools. She appeals to the “don't let the schools form your child's morality,” an idea that strikes an emotional chord with parents who want to preserve family ideals and values.
Harvey also mentions one of the more widely held beliefs on the side of opposition. She contends that schools do not have the moral agency to provide students with education surrounded on what she describes as essentially a moral issue. Ezola Foster, a Nation writer and common contributor to CNN echoes Harvey's argument in her article “Infiltrating America's Public Schools.” She states that “Courts have repeatedly ruled that parents have the right to control the values taught to their children.” Much like Harvey, Foster focuses on the gay agenda—something she believes is taking over our schools. She uses several warrants in her argument, including what would normally be described as a credible source—Dr. Richard Isay, a psychiatrist, who argues that "homosexuality can and should be changed to heterosexuality by a 'neutral' therapy that uncovers repressed childhood conflict that interferes with 'normal' heterosexual development." This statement, while not pertaining directly to homosexuality in schools exemplifies a common belief along the extremely conservative side of this argument. Often times, the argument for sexual education that includes homosexuality is unarguable because of the fact homosexuality is not something biologically inherent according to people like Foster and Harvey. Foster continues to state that “Certainly, homosexuals deserve sympathy and love. They shouldn't be beaten or humiliated. At the same time, our young children must be allowed to know the truth of the tortured and unhealthy lives of homosexuals.” The argument here is foundational. She believes that homosexuality has severe moral implications and by presenting it to our children, schools are introducing them to a lifestyle deemed “unhealthy.”
While Foster is extreme in her defense against homosexuality in schools, she does represent a rhetorical strategy that addresses a specific audience with success. Because she is writing in The Nation, a largely conservative publication, her audience is more than likely conservative individuals who read along political lines. One can assume not very many far left liberals pick up a copy of The Nation. Language used in the piece is indicative of a certain—and strong—opinion. The fact that the article includes the world “infiltrate,” immediately sets the tone for the article and alludes to the fact that the “gay agenda” is one to be feared. Fear is something Foster plays off on a lot in this article exclaiming at one point, “LAUSD is the second largest school district in America. Your schools don't have it yet? They will soon!” LAUSD refers to the Los Angeles Unified School District. In the late 90's there was push by a homosexual teacher to create a counseling program for gay and lesbian students. Foster immediately describes it as “a program that recruits students for the homosexual cause.” Foster includes a rhetorical strategy that plays directly to the pathos of her viewers. By placing an individual’s children—a precious and important commodity for parents—alongside something that “recruits” and “infiltrates” creates an immediate sense of protectionism. She presents an almost cult-like standard, and what parents wants there students to be recruited and brain-washed? The locus of her argument is that the exclusion of a homosexual education is quantified. This is to say that by excluding such an education, ultimately the maximum good will be achieved for the greatest number of people. Everyone will benefit.
Kevin Jennings, in his article “Schools Should Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality” is fairly straight-forward in arguing why schools should adopt a more inclusive sexual education program which includes the acceptance of homosexuality. Jennings makes the claim that right-wing conservative individuals often against homosexuality taught in schools, insist that homosexuality has nothing to do with education (as demonstrated in Harvey's argument). He provides an example of an experience in Merrimack, New Hampshire where he attended a school board meeting. The board was voting on whether or not homosexuality should be brought up at all. A woman turned to him and simply said, “What does homosexuality have to do with education?” His response: A lot.
Jennings claims that a good education revolves around “learning to think.” He states that “a good teacher is one that takes a subject that matters to his or her students and helps them to think about it in a thoughtful, critical manner.” Addressing the woman's question, he claims that homosexuality has nothing to do with education—just like reading, writing and math don't have anything to do with education. He says instead that discussing the subject of homosexuality in terms of values, ideas and what it means for our world has large capacity to be educational. In order to combat the “gay agenda” response many conservatives label, Jennings claims that there is no agenda other than to combat serious hate.
He uses statistics in his article to site what he calls “verbal gay bashing” in schools. Of these statistics is one which states “88% of 1,000 students interviewed in a 2001 national phone survey conducted by Hamilton College reported having heard classmates use “gay” as a derogatory term.” He warrants that because of these statistics homosexuality needs to be addressed in schools. The fact that he as statistical information provides his argument with a sense of rationale. His main warrant, however, is that parents cannot control everything their children are exposed to. This is assuming that they are not keeping a constant eye on what teachers are instructing. Jennings claims that homosexuality is not what parents should fear. Rather, it is homophobia.
Jennings seems to value an education that relies heavily on exploration and conversation. His truths rest on the fact that children have the capacity to learn by themselves and discover their own truths through a positive education. This is to say that schools should present the topic of homosexuality and then ultimately allow students to decipher it in the way that fits in with their respective values and ideals. Jennings, coming from a bias perspective, obviously values teaching that focuses on the acceptance of homosexuality. However, on a deeper level, he seems to value education as a means of developing critical thinking skills. When it comes to homosexuality he values the acceptance of the homosexual and the consequent normality of the homosexual in our society. What he does not value is homophobia, to which he indicates statistics of derogatory language use. He describes this as a manifestation of cultural homophobia.
Jennings employs two loci specifically in his continuous argument promoting the inclusion of homosexuality in sexual education—person and quantity. His argument centers on comprehensive education for everyone. That is, the most good for the greatest number of people. He makes it a point of stating that introducing homosexuality is ultimately a way to provide the most good for the greatest number of people regardless of one’s position on the topic. According to Jennings, by exploring the topic, children are enlightened and encouraged to develop their own opinion, something crucial in the development of a child and responsible citizen says Jennings. He uses the loci of person in that his argument centers on the human being. The article has an overarching theme of human dignity and acceptance. He seems to say that regardless of one’s position, what we all do know is basic human respect, dignity, and autonomy. We are human beings above all else according to Jennings regardless of sexual orientation.
It is also important to note that Jennings uses somewhat of a logical appeal in his argument. What he suggests is to not focus on the issue of homosexuality itself but rather the presentation of it and consequent translation of it by students. Jennings seems to indicate that students are endowed with their own free will and therefore able to decipher what is right for them. According to Campbell and Huxman, Jennings creates a truth standard around his argument in that he presents his side as if he is attempting to solve a problem—one he cites through statistics and what can be perceived as logical argument.
With a similar degree of logic, Barbara Foulks Boyd enters the conversation in her article “Should Gay and Lesbian Issues Be Discussed in Elementary school?” Her main argument, in accordance with many of her peers in the same school of thought, centers on an ever-changing world full of diversity. She states that:
“Today's teachers work in an increasingly diverse society. Teachers are expected to broaden awareness of, and appreciation for, this diversity among children and families by being advocates for all people, including those of different lifestyles. By addressing diversity issues in the classroom, teachers can celebrate both similarities and difference among children and their families.”
Boyd uses increasing diversity, as an address of the current state of our world, and places it as an argument in why it is essential teachers include gay and lesbian issues in sexual education. She essentially defines the situation for us—there is a growing population of diverse and non-traditional families, therefore we need to address them in the largest sphere we know possible, our schools.
The issue of sexual education is one deeply rooted in controversy. While some would argue it is our schools obligation to introduce and educate our students on nearly every issue, many would contest this and would rather have public educators stay out of the topic altogether. What is consensual, however, is the conversation that has arisen out of the growing need to address the issue much like what Boyd has presented. As more and more attention is drawn to the homosexual community, gay legislation, and gay public figures there requires an addressing of the situation in the public sphere. Which way this conversation goes depends on the nature of the individuals involved and whether or not they are willing to enter a civilized and well-rounded discourse. For something as sensitive as sexuality, there is an obligation above all else to continue in this debate with a general attitude of respect and dignity for other human beings regardless of sexual orientation or opinion. The debate is not whether all homosexuals should be banished and exiled from mainstream society, but whether or gay and lesbian issues should be discussed in such a large arena as our public schools. No matter what side, the issue is one of importance because of its social relevance but more importantly its relation to our country's youth. People are talking about it. Therefore, we all need to enter the conversation and deem whether or not it is appropriate in all of our schools.

Jennings, Kevin. Schools Should Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality. GLSEN Education Department Resource. January 1, 1999.

P. Harvey, Linda. Schools Should Not Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality.“ Safe Schools: The Trojan Horse of 'Gay' Education,” Culture & Family Report, May 16, 2002.

Foster, Ezola. “Infiltrating America's Public Schools.” Headway. Volume 9. Issue 5. May 1997

Boyd Foulks, Barbara. “Should Gay and Lesbian Issues be Discussed in Elementary School?” Childhood Education. Vol. 76, Issue I. Fall 1999.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

A Student's Perspective

For Laurel Saito, junior journalism major at Seattle University, she is not expecting a big career with a lot of money after graduation. As an SU student, she has her eyes set on something a little more realistic and life-giving--a life devoted not only to her passion but to service.

"SU is about exploring different educational avenues and working to help people," says Saito.

Acccording to Saito, Seattle University is ideal because of its feeling of community.

"I like how the classes are so small and the professors are generally very accomodating," says Saito. While SU does not have the collegiate appeal of a large state-school Saito says her education has been enhanced by SU's unique and succint mission of educating the whole person.

"We have a definition for why we are receiving an education here," says Saito.

SU: On the Path to Victory

It will be a long and tough road for the Seattle University men’s basketball team. After a near four decade hiatus, the team will be entering an athletic arena featuring some of the biggest teams in the country. The taste of loss is something to be expected, but already the universities move to Division I athletics has been prosperous and sweet for the team. Isocrates notes that the journey itself is tough and often bitter in atmosphere, but the end result of anything worth doing is momentous and uniquely positive.

The same can be said about the larger university population—who at times has not been so positive about the transition from Division II to Division I athletics. The general fear—no wins, and a loss of academics.

Well, the men’s basketball team seems to be shouting a resounding “I told you so!” with a 13-6 season this year, making it one of the best in recent year. But the wins are generally silent, as the team is in a period of transition and has gone largely unnoticed.

But the mood is changing. As Steve Kelley says it in a recent times article, “When you walk out of the gym after basketball practice this week, the sun still is shining. The air is warmer. There are birds in the trees again and students are wearing shorts and T-shirts.”

The article was written in the dead of winter. However, the possibility is there and the team knows it. They can see the fruits of their hard labor in the distance. The next step: beating the University of Washington, a top pac-10 school. When in years past the thought of playing the Huskies was a drag, indifference has been replaced with excitement and hope.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Rough Draft: Introduction. MPA.

It is often said that our nations schools become the battleground for many, if not most, controversial issues surrounding our societal values, ideals and morals. Whether it is a battle over a few words in the pledge of allegiance, a disagreement over parenting styles or the repercussions of an economic downfall, schools generally feel things first. The issue of homosexuality does not evade this inevitable confrontation for the mere fact it has become so prevalent in our social conscious and has of recent been an issue—specifically when it comes to gay marriage— that has dominated our news media. As gay marriage has become legal in several states, the question arises as to whether or not educators should include curriculum pertaining to homosexuality in school sexual education programs. This is to argue that if heterosexuality is commonly taught in schools where does homosexuality fit into the equation, if at all? To this extent, if it is included in our schools sexual education programs, what exactly is included? The issue ushers in a plethora of opinions—many strong and deeply rooted in personal value and tradition. There is no option of skirting the issue. The fact is, homosexuality has entered our social conversation in an unprecedented way therefore directing our attention to its treatment in schools. Each side of the argument is framed in a distinctly different way, presenting itself to two audiences with dissimilar backgrounds—one generally conservative in nature, the other more liberal. While it is often counter productive to dive into a polarized form of argument, the stylized performances of those in support of introducing homosexuality in schools and those not in favor do tend to target a specific demographic with specific beliefs. There are two implied audiences for each side of the argument. While demonstrating itself in our schools, the issue of normalizing and educating individuals about homosexuality in mainstream culture gives rise to a larger societal issue of acceptance and whether or not a higher degree of acceptance should be taught.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Narrative. 1/29.

Come spring the boys and girls of Brier Elementary are excited. They have heard about it from their older brothers and sisters, that time of year when the girls would go to the gym and the boys to the library—that time when the secretive adult world was revealed. For many it is a right of passage. A stamp of approval that reads, “You are now validated as an adult. Welcome to sexuality.” Not quite. At least that is the argument surrounding current sexual education programs in our schools. In a changing and seemingly more progressive society, there has arisen the desire by many to address alternative lifestyles in sexual education programs. That is, heterosexuality not as the only option. There sits two sides to the debate—each represented in those bright-eyed elementary students. Billy has found that he sometimes likes to be around other boys, and he thinks about them a lot. He doesn’t know what this means. Julie, sitting in the gymnasium with her fellow female students, knows that she likes boys. Her parents agree. They tell Julie that a relationship is between a boy and a girl—she knows no different. The issue then arises with dealing how to reconcile these two different ways of looking at sexual life. To what extent does an elementary school sexual education program present moral and value issues to students? Many would argue it is not the place of the school to do a parents job. Others believe it should be presented and naturalized as much as possible.

Think B4 You Speak: A reaction.

The "Think B4 You Speak" campaign focuses on ending the use of the words gay, faggot, dyke, etc in a hateful way. According to their campaign mission, the organization states that "This campaign aims to raise awareness about the prevalence and consequences of anti-LGBT bias and behavior in America’s schools." It is not uncommon for phrases such as "That's so gay" and "faggot" to be commonly used in American schools. I myself have witnessed it on a daily basis, working at a middle school.

In order to tackle this problem the "Think B4 You Speak" campaign has released three advertisements using what they have described as "star power" in order to get the message across. Artistically speaking, the three commercials use humor and sarcasm in order to get the message that "That's so gay" is not transferrable with "That's so stupid." The mood of the commercials is to actually make fun of those individuals who commonly use phrases like "That's so gay" by turning it around and using a phrase that indicts something specific about an individual--like an ugly dress, a persons name or a cheesy mustache. This is to equate the use of the word "gay" as stupid for something personal to an individual. It just does not feel good for anyone when you are being made fun of. The tables are turned in these commercials.

The effectiveness of the campaign varies. It can be argued that the commercials do achieve its goal--the fact of the matter is, the organization wants you to "Think B4 You Speak." They make this clear. However, the truth of the advertisement attempts to solve a surface level problem. "That's so Gay" is not only a hateful phrase but it also has deeply rooted homophobic connotations. The larger problem is not the language, but rather the branded social norms of heterosexism and the fear of the homosexual. This is the problem. The language, I would argue, is simply a means to enact true feelings/the larger social problem at hand. It is a tool, not the source.

Ultimately, the ethical standard of this piece helps in the progression of social acceptance--albeit in a limited way. The rhetoric of the campaign does help the situation by indicating just how ridiculous it is. Addressing the rhetoric is an important first step. The organization uses the "power" of the celebrity as an iconic symbol and role-model to indicate the hateful phrases as fallible and hurtful.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

"Hook-Up" Culture--a lesson in love and sex.

Jack Grimes makes it apparent in his article, “Hook-Up Culture,” that there needs to be a revolution in the way we interact with one another intimately. While hooking-up may temporarily satisfy a carnal desire, ultimately Grimes makes the argument that sex and love are one in the same. To detach the two is to deny the fact that hooking up is both physical and emotional—it is, according to Grimes, “a lively and animated (partner) for you and (for the moment at least) you alone.”

Grimes uses Damer’s principles of a ‘good argument’ in several ways and succeeds in presenting clear and straight-forward claims as to why this pervasive culture among college students needs to mellow. However, there are numerous fallacies and claims open for interpretation. One of his claims relevant to his overall argument centers around the notion that physical pleasure cannot exist as an island. This is to say physical pleasure is attached to something deeper. He makes a profound statement, declaring “The body and soul are one.” Thus, he argues that the sexual encounter—regardless of context (even if it is a mere hook-up)—carries with it an emotional connotation. Later in the piece, he justifies dating by indicating an innate human desire to achieve emotional connectedness with another individual. Hooking-up, says Grimes, does not satisfy this.

The argument and his subsequent claims leaves plenty of room for rebuttal. It even seems as if he himself is uncertain about the situation, though this can be perceived as sarcasm in order to further his point. Grimes does, however, make it a point to include reasons as to why individuals do participate in the hooking-up culture.

One of the more interesting claims surrounded this culture and women. At one point he equates hooking-up by women “as, in essence, and unpaid prostitute.” He mentions that in many circles hooking-up has become a means of empowerment, to which he responds; “A woman who embraces the hook-up culture is simply making it easier for guys to treat her as a sex object.” There seems to be fallacy in his reasoning. This claim appears to come off as an overgeneralization in which the female is judged differently then the male.

Another large fallacy in Grimes argument is an appeal to common opinion. Grimes makes large, sweeping claims in which he assumes readers are on the same page when it comes to things such as gender roles (as witnessed in above paragraph). This article is very much male-dominated in experience and argument which in itself is a fallacy.

Overall, on a more personal note, I would have to agree with Grimes. Hooking-up, while it may satisfy the carnality of our human nature, does not achieve what really matters—the inevitable desire for something more, something emotional, something like love. He states, “trying to find intimate fulfillment by hooking-up is like trying to dig your way out of a hole in the ground.” Exactly. The fact of the matter is, while hooking-up may have its time and place, the larger picture indicates an inherent human desire to achieve a fusion of both love and sex.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

A step back in the Obama promise

He has related gay marriage to incest, polygamy as well as an adult marrying a child. For a quick moment, it appeared as if I was watching the inauguration of yet another Bush presidency.

The same nightmare of intolerance, bigotry and ignorance exuded from the last eight years wafted through the air on inauguration day as Rev. Rick Warren gave the invocation for the 44th president, Barack Obama.

As a conservative reverend his message is clear—his tolerance of homosexuality runs in line with the church, one not usually defined by its inclusion.
Luckily there was some representation for my gay brothers and sisters—just not on a large scale. We were silenced once again.

The day before, in what was called the “We are One” inaugural event, openly gay bishop Gene Robinson delivered an inclusive, heartfelt and cerebral invocation to a large crowd.

Robinson should have been the one speaking on inauguration day. His presence would have sent a clear message to the country, one in which affirms who we are as an American people. Obama’s message has been one of inclusion, openness and acceptance. He had made a point of including gay and lesbian rights in his campaign, stating that the era of inequality needs to come to an end. This was not the case on Jan. 20.

If I remember correctly, regardless of race, sexual orientation or class, the declaration of independence (a document Obama referred to in his address as being a symbol of who we are) states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Warren, as a symbol of intolerance—delivered a straight-forward message on inauguration day but because of his associations brought only distraction.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The Aesthetic Imperative: 1/20/09

In her article, “The Aesthetic Imperative,” Postrel makes a point of repeating several major claims about the role of the aesthetic in our daily lives. Among these is a claim that the aesthetic has become increasingly pervasive. She says, “Aesthetics is more pervasive than it used to be—not restricted to a social, economic, or artistic elite.” She uses examples of supermarkets, car dealerships and computers to restate her claim that aesthetics have become mainstream. Additionally, Postrel always speaks of aesthetics in a pleasurable way, and as something in which we enjoy. She states, “Aesthetic pleasure itself has quality and substance,” and “Aesthetics shows rather than tells, delights rather than instructs.”

Major data presented in Postrel’s argument is focused primarily on the architectural and theatrical. She uses examples of common structures being altered into aesthetically driven buildings such as a supermarket and items like household appliances. She says that while we may be skeptical of aesthetics, as we do not want to be manipulated, she argues “the look and feel of things tap deep human instincts.” That is, it is a very emotional sensory. Postrel says, “We enjoy enhancing our sensory surroundings. That enjoyment is real.” Where she delineates is recognizing aesthetics for what it is (emotion and the artistic), and not for what potential or individually created values it may encompass. It is pleasure and not values, put more simply.
Postrel presents a range of warrants. Substantively, she makes a disassociation with the preconceived notions of aesthetics—limited to the artistic, not mainstream, etc—and states a different view of it now. Additionally, and potentially her stronger warrant is the comparison between the world she represents as the aesthetic and the world in which we realistically live. To what extent do we need the grocery-shop experience or the comfortable coffee shop? She also makes mentions that aesthetics do have an impact on purchasing power.

Her ethos/authoritative is framed by two experts—David Brown, Ellen Dissanayake as well as consumers themselves. Finally her motivational warrants center around the emotional response to the aesthetic. She quotes a mid-century industrial designer who says “ ‘fundamentally the art of using line, form, tone, color, and texture to arouse an emotional reaction in the beholder.” This is to say that the well-designed coffee-shop may elicit a certain emotional response. Postrel also uses very emotional and at times poetic language to warrant her claims.

I believe that visual aesthetic is a good thing, because it ushers in an emotional response. The fact of the matter is, it is always more desirable to have an item or be in a location that is pleasing to the eye. Fundamentally, I think there is value in the aesthetic. Architecture, paintings, even a brand new Apple laptop sends a certain message—whether deep or simple. In contrast, however, one could make the argument that the perpetuation of the aesthetic is a response to misguided consumerism. Do we need all of this beauty surrounding us? We live in a culture of excess. In that sense, then, pervasive aesthetics point out our sensory experience as excessive and a response to blatant greed. In my opinion, it is difficult to keep aesthetics under control without trumping other values.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Westborough Baptist Church: Catalyst for Hate

The Westborough Baptist Church, classified as a hate group and not recognized as a legitimate Baptist organization, has received international attention for its message of intolerance. Their rhetoric is simple: God hates fags. They incite the “homosexual agenda” as the catalyst for natural disasters, war, disease and general death. Their slogans run the gamete. From “Too late to pray,” to “God hates America,” to “Fag=anal sex=death” the message is clear and strong. Any traces of tolerance when it comes to homosexuality is washed away by a general hatred of something different. As stated on their website, their views are primarily derived from religious texts. Needless to say, the church reads the biblical text very literally and consequentially applies it as an action. Aside from preaching their message, the church is founded on the principle of taking action. This is to say that the group often protests at the funerals of Iraqi soldiers, AID victims and gay murder victims. In times of misery, Westborough is there to indicate the event was in direct cause to God’s distaste with homosexuality.

Given the groups values, ideals and worldview entering a conversation with them would be quite difficult for me. As a gay man, I would not choose to put myself in a potentially dangerous position. At any rate, entering a conversation with these individuals would yield little to no results for me. They hate homosexuals. I am a homosexual. One would imagine the conversation not going very well. It is difficult to teach tolerance when it has been normalized for a group of people. A conversation would not yield any rational arguments.

Westborough’s worldview is so distinctly different from mine and everything I’ve known that is just seems so incredibly foreign—even other worldly. Like a group of aliens have invaded our nation, they are intent on destroying any bit of tolerance. For me this issue comes down to basic human respect. The fact of the matter is the Phelps’ and Westborough have no respect for human life. To me this indicates a severe lack of intelligence, socialized through an upbringing inundated with hate and intolerance. While my upbringing teaches me to respect all human beings, it is difficult for me to respect such a group of people when they have absolutely no respect for me. There would be no conversation with them. From what I can gather, these people are intent on making their position clear. There is no room for argument. Their rhetoric spews hate in the most extreme form. When it comes down to it, I am more apologetic for the people they are. While I would like to fault them left and right for their messages of hate (ones that threaten, embarrass, and place me on an animalistic level) one has to consider the idea of socialization. This is what they know. They have been taught hate. It’s a sad thing. Westborough’s ignorance is blinding.

Minor Analysis Paper # 1: 1/15/09

As the conversation surrounding same-sex marriage gains in popularity—whether in favor or not—there has arrived the need to address the issue in the arena of both public and private education. More specifically when it comes to comprehensive sexual education curriculum. Homosexuality has become an integral and important part of our national conscience. Regardless of varying views, it has become an issue at the forefront of what many have described as a 'culture war.' Today two states recognize same-sex marriages as legal, and most recently the high profile Proposition 8 was supported in California, disallowing same-sex couples to marry. The issue surrounds in a big way and therefore transcends into our classrooms as a potential topic of interest. It has been said that issues of high political importance—religion, race, violence and now homosexuality eventually end up in the classroom. No denying that. The issue: what should be taught in our schools when it comes to homosexuality? To that extent, should homosexual health be discussed?

There are generally two distinct schools of thought when it comes to homosexuality in the classroom. On the one hand, there are strong arguments in favor of providing comprehensive sexual education which encompasses issues pertaining to homosexuality. This would include curriculum concerning alternative families, what it means to be gay, tolerance, as well as an age-appropriate overview of gay sexual health. Those in support of such education adhere to the standard of a “safe” and appropriate environment where children are able to discuss homosexuality without fear of ridicule or judgment. Their goal, according to supporters, is to provide students with accurate, unbiased and inclusive sexual health education which includes the homosexual demographic—some of which may have personal experience. They argue that, in reality, many students have gay parents or have associations with a homosexual. To deny fair education and representation, argue some, is to negate the reality of many students' lives. Especially with gay marriage legal in two states, supporters argue that the new emerging demographic needs to be represented. Furthermore, a large part of this argument centers around a curriculum that focuses on wider acceptance. They often cite statistics indicating a high percentage of harassment against gay men and the increase use of derogatory slang words. While individuals may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, there still needs to be an aspect of mutual respect. This is also to say that children should be able to decide for themselves where they stand when it comes to homosexuality after being presented with it in the classroom. Supporters of a sexual education including issues of homosexuality cite it as a way in which kids can think and use their own minds—what several supporters have described as real education.

In stark contrast, there is an opposing side which argues issues of homosexuality have no place in a classroom. Generally speaking opposition arrives on the basis of moral objections. This is to say that schools should not be the place wherein educators are introducing curriculum that leads to value and moral selection—rather, this should come from the privacy of ones own home. Opposition makes it clear that introducing issues surrounding homosexuality in the classroom is inappropriate. Just as church and state are separated, church and sex should be separated according to opposition. Often times, homosexuality is an issue placed in the context of the church and therefore crosses the boundary. On a more extreme level, there are arguments that a sexual education curriculum which includes homosexual health advocates a sexual act that is not healthy. Individuals have said practicing anal sex is more dangerous than smoking on a daily basis. Many against homosexuality in the classrooms cite an effort to protect their children from risky behavior. Furthermore, opposition argues that the “gay agenda” has allowed for the discrimination and belittling of the heterosexual community. They argue that a homosexual inclusive sexual education leads to the homosexual as a “victim” and therefore creates problem. There is often the recommendation from this school of thought advocating for a complete exclusion of anything associated with homosexuality in the classroom.


Schools Should Not Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality

Linda P. Harvey, “Safe Schools: The Trojan Horse of 'Gay' Education,” Culture & Family Report, May 16, 2002.

Argument: Harvey argues that homosexuality should not be taught in schools. She describes a “gay agenda” in which schools are imposing moral teachings on students. She states that “Religious freedom and freedom of speech issues are threatened by programs (that encourage acceptance of homosexuality).” What she proposes, instead, are sexual education programs that exclude the mention of homosexuality. Harvey contends that by doing this, the issue is avoided and conversely the heterosexual community is no longer demonized in the process of homosexual representation—a representation, she states, is defined by victimization. She argues that “the vast majority of people in this country are not potentially violence and do not deserve to be unjustly associated with violence toward homosexuals!”

Believer:
Harvey makes some compelling arguments. When it comes down to it, children are sent to school to learn. What “learning” means can be defined in many different ways. However, it can be assumed that issues concerning homosexuality (most often linked to religion) are not appropriate especially at a public institution. In a lot of ways the issue of homosexuality has become one based on religious values and principles. As a nation that continually prides itself on the separation of church and state, it is reasonable to argue homosexuality does not belong in the classroom. Furthermore, the instruction of this controversial issue should not be left up to educators but rather parents. Moral and value judgments should be made inside the home, not in the classroom.

Skeptic: In her article “Schools Should not Stress Acceptance of Homosexuality,” Harvey preaches a distinct message of hate. What she fails to recognize is that our country is changing. The change comes from many directions, one of which is the construction of marriage. It is a reality that same-sex marriages and relationships are occurring. When creating a sexual education curriculum, there needs to be full representation. The fact of the matter is, many students may have gay parents or associations with a homosexual in their lives. To deny children fair, unbiased and responsible facts concerning other members of our society is to do them a disservice. Furthermore, her argument lacks a basic respect for human life. Opposition to her claim does not argue students are being told homosexuality is OK. Rather, the issue is being presented and then consequentially left open for interpretation by the student and parents. However, what needs to be included—and something with which Harvey does not mention—is foundational respect for different lifestyles. It may not be what you practice, but it is what someone else does.

Rhetorical Situation: Harvey is a well-know conservative who discusses issues surrounding women, homosexuality and education. She is a regular contributor to Focus on the Family—a conservative group striving to preserve the traditions of the family. Her initial need in writing this article centers around the squelching of pro-homosexual activists who advocate homosexuality in schools. Furthermore, she has a need to get out her own agenda (or rather conservative agenda). Given this information, Harvey is clear and concise in her rhetorical mission. There is no denying she caters to a distinct audience. This specific article was written in 2002—about the time Massachusetts began the conversation on allowing gay marriage. There were also movements, as well as a piece of legislation in the state, to include homosexuality as a topic of conversation in a comprehensive sexual education curriculum. She is responding to this ongoing conversation and she makes it clear where she stands. Her audience is two fold. On one hand she is addressing a group of people who already agree with her—a largely conservative audience. Additionally, however, Harvey is making an appeal to parents who may be on the fence about homosexuality in schools. She appeals to the “don't let the schools form your child's morality,” an idea that strikes an emotional chord with parents who want to preserve family ideals and values.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Inauguration of the 44th President of the United States of America: Barack Obama

What this inauguration means to me:

As a gay American, the inauguration of the 44th president is a beacon of hope for a community that has been neglected and torn down over the last eight years. With rights stripped away left and right, the inauguration of President Obama is a symbol that representation as a full, law-abiding, tax paying, and ‘able-to-be married’ citizen is possible—despite argument otherwise. As Obama is taking his oath of office, he will usher in a new generation focused on the inclusion of every individual regardless of race, social class or sexual orientation. It will be a new era of basic human respect—something much needed, especially after the denial of constitutional rights following the passage of Proposition 8 in California. This inauguration is a sign of new politics, a kind of politics that looks not wholly on the clout of the country but the interests of the individual.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Daily Assignment #1. January 8, 2009.

Question: In a single paragraph, first summarize very briefly (in a couple of sentences) what argument authors Graff and Birkenstein make about academic writing in the introduction to their text, They Say/I Say; then summarize very briefly (again, in a couple of sentences) what you take my argument to be about rhetoric in my Course Description of CMJR 320; and finally, in a few sentences, discuss what overlap might exist between their argument about academic writing and my argument about rhetoric.

Response:

Graff and Birkenstein explain early in their introduction that academic writing is built on the foundation of an open conversation. This is to say that sophisticated, persuasive writing is less monolithic and more binary in nature for it includes the expression of ones own ideas and those of an 'opposing' side. A well-rounded persuasive piece, and therefore academic piece, is one that acknowledges and consequentially addresses an opposing viewpoint. The authors make the point that to address opposing opinions in an academic piece is to ultimately strengthen ones initial argument. What is created is a cohesive, back and forth conversation. According to Graff and Birkenstein, academic writing is founded on the principle of argumentative writing. This continual conversation creates critical-thinkers, insisting that sophisticated academic writers are individuals whom “instead of sitting passively on the sidelines, can participate in the debates and conversations of your (the) world in an active and empowered way” (12). Bammert makes it clear that rhetoric has the ability to “shape public opinion and policy.” Rhetoric, as explained by Bammert and Marston, has four key principles all of which center around the construction of an overall argument and consequent action. The four cornerstones of rhetoric—advisory, addressed, situational, stylized—have one goal in common, as Bammert makes apparent in her CMJR 320 course description. This overarching goal, as she describes it, is to “inspire reflection, even change, among our fellow citizens.” It is here where Bammert, Graff and Birkenstein agree that both academic writing and rhetoric have a similar telos in mind, one that thrives on open dialogue and imminent change. These three academics would agree that both academic writing and rhetoric operate with an attempt to shape and form opinion. Whether the opinion is public (as most often in rhetoric) or private—elements of conversation, evaluation, argument and social progression are included.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Michelle Obama, Democratic National Convention, August 2008

Michelle Obama delivered an emotional and heart-felt speech at the Democratic National Convention, in front of an audience eager to soak up traces of hope.

Throughout the delivery of her speech, Obama made her advisory clear. The consistent world-view of "you can make it if you try," was exemplified numerous times as an avenue to reach the middle-class voting demographic. In fact much of the rhetoric of her speech, if comparing to Marston's four principles focuses on a large implied audience. The actual audience at the convention is clear: Obama supporters. Their support does not waiver. However, it was apparent that Obama had the responsibility to relate to an implied audience--the middle class. She did this through relating her own experiences growing up as well as her husband's. What results is a fulfillment of a general need. At the time of this address, and still to this day, the economy and loss of jobs is a major concern for many Americans. Responding to this economic crisis, Obama made it clear that hard work and a "never give-up" attitude will fulfill this need. She said at one point, "you work hard for what you want in life," thereby explaining a fulfillment while also injecting her and Barack's worldview and value system.

This value system is presented in a very relatable way. That is to say, Obama presents her world-view in a way that counters any political elitism.

She also made it clear that her life revolves around her family. There has been much criticism of Mrs. Obama regarding her capacity to mother and her nurturing demeanor. What the audience sees at the beginning of the speech is rhetoric appealing to her softer side. She says that her daughters are the center of her world and her "beat of my heart." The stylized performance ( arguably a performance or not) uses language often associated with a soft and nurturing mother. She leaves no room to doubt she is anything less than a hands-on mother.