Remember that the Annual Scholarship Bowl is fast approaching! Now is the time to sign up for a team! This event is such a great tradition, allowing faculty and staff to come together for an afternoon of FUN comraderie.. and, oh yeah, scholarship fundraising! The Bowl takes place Saturday Feb. 12 form 12:30 to 3pm. Cost is $25 per person for GREAT cause.
Relling Westfall and Marti Leighty are working on getting an English bowling team together, so if you're intersted in participating and don't have a team, please contact Relling (rwestfall@reynolds.edu) or Marti (mleighty@reynolds.edu) about rounding out their team!!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Monday, November 15, 2010
Joel Burns and Rhetorical Appeals
Here's a great and timely example of a way of looking at rhetorical appeals using an engaging media source, from Relling Westfall. In a larger way, this contant also ties into promoting our Leanring Community principles (civility) and promotes an environmenta of tolerance, in the wake of GLBT-SA National Ally week (Oct 19-23).
Joel Burns and Rhetorical Appeals
Classroom BackgroundAt the beginning of the semester, one of my English 111 students wrote a memoir about her big high school romance that crashed. The biggest problem with the memoir was her choice of pronouns. She consistently referred to her unnamed love as “it” and “they.” When I told her that her choices undercut and confused her narrative, she replied that she was gay. She knew people had problems with gay students. She reasoned that she would be able to do better in this class if she kept her lifestyle a secret, even when it meant distorting her essays. Although I thought about saying many things, I simply suggested that she might use a pseudonym for her lover, and select an androgynous name, such as Caleb, Blair or Sydney. That discussion left me feeling slightly discouraged. Even though I haven’t had any students make offensive remarks in the class, or on Blackboard, clearly I haven’t achieved a safe space.
Joel BurnsOn October 14th, I heard part of Joel Burns’ address to the Fort Worth, Texas, City Council on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show on MSNBC. Burns used his allotted time as a councilor to deliver a message to parents and adults in general, and also to gay teenagers, at a regular city council meeting on October 12th. His thirteen minute statement became viral on youtube.com, and was also played on CNN and NBC. He was invited to appear on a variety of talk shows on the following days. Although talks on bullying are almost invariably boring and tedious to hear, Burns’ address, “It Gets Better,” was clearly very successful and powerful.
I searched the web to find out about his larger context. In September, 2010, Dan Savage created a website, itgetsbetterproject.com, in response to the recent series of suicides among gay teens. Savage suggested that LGBT youth frequently lack models of what their successful adult lives may look like. To counteract the isolation and despair which many teens feel, Savage created a space where adults could make videos explaining that life gets better after adolescence. There are seventy-five videos on that site as of November 14th. The spectrum of people who have made these videos is broad. On the one hand, there are the famous democrats, such as President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Kathleen Sibelius. There are also two college presidents, one labor union leader, Cindy McCain, and a wide range of religious leaders. But the majority of videos have been made by unknown individuals across this country, and overseas. While some of the videos are stiff, formal, and redolent of what one might call “Victorian duty,” others are chatty and informal. However, none of the other seventy-four have even remotely achieved the popularity of Joel Burns.
Classroom applicationI had planned to launch into an introduction of the rhetorical appeals during the week following Burns’ speech. So, I slightly altered my plans. In class, I explained the appeals in the same manner as the textbook and gave additional examples. Then, I asked the students to watch Joel Burns’ video and find examples of how he incorporated these appeals into his speech. Some students tuned out. A couple of students made the typical off-topic remarks. However, most students were able to find examples of Burns’ use of appeals, and were engaged during class. Moreover, as the discussion progressed, the reasons for the video’s success became apparent. First, Joel Burns knows how to address his audience and present his material. He is a master of example, elaboration and decorum. Second, Joel Burns presents himself as a Norman Rockwell painting. He grew up in a small West Texas town. His mother was a church organist, and his father was a cowboy named Butch. Although he had a difficult time in high school, he went off to college, and later began a career. He also got married to his husband, JD. He’s remained in Texas, close to his family. Indeed, he moderated his written comments because he didn’t want to hurt his parents’ feelings by what he had planned to say. Joel Burns is a thoughtful speaker, and he’s an example of Americana.
Overall, I think this was a successful lesson. I think the students understood rhetorical appeals better. I also think my classroom environment became safer, due to the influence of Joel Burns’ speech. I don’t think anyone changed his or her beliefs, but I do think that Joel Burns’ speech expanded our collective understanding.
Joel Burns and Rhetorical Appeals
Classroom BackgroundAt the beginning of the semester, one of my English 111 students wrote a memoir about her big high school romance that crashed. The biggest problem with the memoir was her choice of pronouns. She consistently referred to her unnamed love as “it” and “they.” When I told her that her choices undercut and confused her narrative, she replied that she was gay. She knew people had problems with gay students. She reasoned that she would be able to do better in this class if she kept her lifestyle a secret, even when it meant distorting her essays. Although I thought about saying many things, I simply suggested that she might use a pseudonym for her lover, and select an androgynous name, such as Caleb, Blair or Sydney. That discussion left me feeling slightly discouraged. Even though I haven’t had any students make offensive remarks in the class, or on Blackboard, clearly I haven’t achieved a safe space.
Joel BurnsOn October 14th, I heard part of Joel Burns’ address to the Fort Worth, Texas, City Council on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show on MSNBC. Burns used his allotted time as a councilor to deliver a message to parents and adults in general, and also to gay teenagers, at a regular city council meeting on October 12th. His thirteen minute statement became viral on youtube.com, and was also played on CNN and NBC. He was invited to appear on a variety of talk shows on the following days. Although talks on bullying are almost invariably boring and tedious to hear, Burns’ address, “It Gets Better,” was clearly very successful and powerful.
I searched the web to find out about his larger context. In September, 2010, Dan Savage created a website, itgetsbetterproject.com, in response to the recent series of suicides among gay teens. Savage suggested that LGBT youth frequently lack models of what their successful adult lives may look like. To counteract the isolation and despair which many teens feel, Savage created a space where adults could make videos explaining that life gets better after adolescence. There are seventy-five videos on that site as of November 14th. The spectrum of people who have made these videos is broad. On the one hand, there are the famous democrats, such as President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Kathleen Sibelius. There are also two college presidents, one labor union leader, Cindy McCain, and a wide range of religious leaders. But the majority of videos have been made by unknown individuals across this country, and overseas. While some of the videos are stiff, formal, and redolent of what one might call “Victorian duty,” others are chatty and informal. However, none of the other seventy-four have even remotely achieved the popularity of Joel Burns.
Classroom applicationI had planned to launch into an introduction of the rhetorical appeals during the week following Burns’ speech. So, I slightly altered my plans. In class, I explained the appeals in the same manner as the textbook and gave additional examples. Then, I asked the students to watch Joel Burns’ video and find examples of how he incorporated these appeals into his speech. Some students tuned out. A couple of students made the typical off-topic remarks. However, most students were able to find examples of Burns’ use of appeals, and were engaged during class. Moreover, as the discussion progressed, the reasons for the video’s success became apparent. First, Joel Burns knows how to address his audience and present his material. He is a master of example, elaboration and decorum. Second, Joel Burns presents himself as a Norman Rockwell painting. He grew up in a small West Texas town. His mother was a church organist, and his father was a cowboy named Butch. Although he had a difficult time in high school, he went off to college, and later began a career. He also got married to his husband, JD. He’s remained in Texas, close to his family. Indeed, he moderated his written comments because he didn’t want to hurt his parents’ feelings by what he had planned to say. Joel Burns is a thoughtful speaker, and he’s an example of Americana.
Overall, I think this was a successful lesson. I think the students understood rhetorical appeals better. I also think my classroom environment became safer, due to the influence of Joel Burns’ speech. I don’t think anyone changed his or her beliefs, but I do think that Joel Burns’ speech expanded our collective understanding.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Distraction Free Writing Tools?
Lifehacker's hive mind is running a question by their readers, namely, which distraction free word processor is the best. If you know a student (or a professor) who gets distracted while drafting, then you might want to consider trying out one of the word processors mentioned:
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
ENG 112 textbook adoption
Just a reminder, our selection process for the new ENG 112 textbook is underway! This textbook will be adopted for Spring 2011!
Presentations began with Bedford-St Martin's presentation on Tuesday: Everything's an Argument Eds. Andrea Lunsford et al, and Current Issues and Enduring Questions, Eds. Barnet and Bedeau.
Here's the schedule:
All presentations will take place 3-4:30 p.m. in Massey 117, Parham Road. **except Thursday Nov. 11 which will be held in Massey 210
Wednesday, 10 November Emily Kimple: Pearson
Envision In Depth: Reading, Writing, and Researching Arguments, 2/E by Christine Alfano & Alyssa O'Brien.
Thursday, 11 November Mary Helen Willett: Norton
They Say/I Say 2nd. ed.
Monday, 15 November Nancy Shepherd: McGraw Hill
The McGraw-Hill Reader, 11th edition, Gilbert Muller.
Research Matters , 1st edition, by Rebecca Howard, with Aims of Argument, brief version 7th edition by Timothy Crusius and Carolyn Channell (shrink wrapped package).
Tuesday, 16 November Kristin Ix: Cengage Learning
The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide, 1st Edition ©2012 Available January 201. Harry Phillips - Central Piedmont Community College & Patricia Bostian - Central Piedmont Community College.
The Well-Crafted Argument, 4th Edition ©2011 Fred D. White - Santa Clara University & Simone J. Billings - Santa Clara University
Presentations began with Bedford-St Martin's presentation on Tuesday: Everything's an Argument Eds. Andrea Lunsford et al, and Current Issues and Enduring Questions, Eds. Barnet and Bedeau.
Here's the schedule:
All presentations will take place 3-4:30 p.m. in Massey 117, Parham Road. **except Thursday Nov. 11 which will be held in Massey 210
Wednesday, 10 November Emily Kimple: Pearson
Envision In Depth: Reading, Writing, and Researching Arguments, 2/E by Christine Alfano & Alyssa O'Brien.
Thursday, 11 November Mary Helen Willett: Norton
They Say/I Say 2nd. ed.
Monday, 15 November Nancy Shepherd: McGraw Hill
The McGraw-Hill Reader, 11th edition, Gilbert Muller.
Research Matters , 1st edition, by Rebecca Howard, with Aims of Argument, brief version 7th edition by Timothy Crusius and Carolyn Channell (shrink wrapped package).
Tuesday, 16 November Kristin Ix: Cengage Learning
The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide, 1st Edition ©2012 Available January 201. Harry Phillips - Central Piedmont Community College & Patricia Bostian - Central Piedmont Community College.
The Well-Crafted Argument, 4th Edition ©2011 Fred D. White - Santa Clara University & Simone J. Billings - Santa Clara University
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
On Not Teaching Ethics
Mary Gardner sent me an e-mail sharing with me a couple of blog entries made by her Eng 111 students. She didn’t like what these students had to say about gay people after reading articles on gay marriage – but we teach composition, not citizenship, not ethics. So how does a professor who believes in the dignity and equality of human beings, regardless of gender orientation, respond to student statements like these?*********************************************************************Student Student #1 This is just one of the incidents that I read about. There are more diseases in the gay community than any other community. It has been said that the HIV/AIDS virus started in the gay community. Most gay men are undercover, they have wives and children. So do we just sit back and let them destroy their families because we approve of them being with other men? Not saying that heterosexuals don’t contract diseases too, but most of the major diseases started in the gay community. Could this have been prevented? Yes everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do I believe it’s going to stop? No. We can do something about it by writing to our congressmen and not supporting bills legalizing gay marriages. Approving of gay marriage is not going to help us in the long run -- it’s going to destroy our country and our children.
Student #2 I believe people shouldn't be bothered by what other people are doing; like, get over yourself, dude/tte. If people want to be gay and touch each others hands, and other private areas of the same sex it's fine by me. As long the gays don't try to sway me to their skippidy-do-dah, "My Favorite Color is Rainbow & do I look fat by the way-ways, I see nothing wrong with people wanting to get married, regardless of what kind of sex they prefer. I don't believe that our birth rate will diminish in the future, it will only grow larger and larger, much like a gays... feelings. But really, there's plenty of straight people in the world to keep the children a pumpin'. Look at Ancient Greece for example, they practically invented homosexuality and abusive older men, as well as "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". The Spartans also managed to beat a massive army of Persians, I don't think that would've been possible had they not been in such a spirited mood from their morning shield polishings. Gays are good for many things apparently shopping & war being the main ones, because no one fights like a woman trapped in a man's body - and no one shops can shop like a woman with a man's credit card.
*****************************************************************************
How would you handle this?
My thoughts: Principles that we already teach in a standard ENG111 class actually cover the issues that these offensive posts raise.
Student #2 was trying for humor. Sometimes subjects that are taboo (sex, race, sexual orientation) are popular targets for humorists, so it’s not surprising that Student #2 took this approach. Making jokes about the situation of gays in America is a way to avoid dealing with a serious topic. Instead of “you shouldn’t make fun of gay people”, I would reinforce some lessons from our English 111 text. Our book describes context. In some contexts, jokes about gays will get a positive response (laughter). Is a writing assignment for a college class the right context for this? Had the instructor already laid out some guidelines for comments that disrespect a person based on his or her gender, race, creed, or orientation? (In this case, she had.)
Our textbook also introduces the concept of appealing to an audience. Is it safe to assume that this audience (his instructor and classmates) appreciates humor that mocks a minority group? This tactic has the instructor not lecturing a student on his civic responsibility to respect every member of our society, but rather reinforcing lessons that every young writer needs to learn as part of his or her ENG111 curriculum.
Student #2 ought to also recognize that sometimes shooting for humor is going to interfere with sending a clear and accurate message. It’s not accurate to describe a gay man as “a woman trapped in a man’s body” – I’m not sure whether he’s trying to describe a person with gender identity disorder/dysphoria, or whether he really thinks that’s what gay men are. And, if I might criticize his humor, “spear polishing” would have been way more suggestive than “shield polishing”.
Student #1 presents a more troubling problem. Where Student #2 just wanted to make inappropriate jokes, Student #1 appears to have some real malice towards gay people. I have often heard that prejudice is founded on ignorance, and this student’s diatribe illustrates that relationship pretty well. He or she says There are more diseases in the gay community than any other community. And most of the major diseases started in the gay community. These are prejudice-generating ideas that just aren’t true. My problem with these statements isn’t that they aren’t PC, it’s that they aren’t accurate. It’s well-known that AIDS in America hit the gay community before spreading out to other groups. But that’s one disease – and it’s not one of America’s major killers, either. What are these other diseases the author alludes to? As for diseases starting in the gay community, does this author imagine that gays gave us hepatitis? Rabies? Diabetes? The author also states that Most gay men are undercover, they have wives and children. When my students use the word “most”, they know that means “this is the case for 51% or more of the subject, and I have a research source to back it up”. I really don’t know how many people are secretly gay, living a heterosexual cover-up life, and I’m sure this student doesn’t know either. “Some gay men are undercover” would have been a supportable statement; “most gay men are undercover” implies that this student has some research, which was clearly not the case.
There’s also a logical disconnect here – is this student telling us that legalizing gay marriage would worsen the problem of covert gays in traditional marriages? I would think it would do rather the opposite, giving gay people a societally sanctioned alternative to their sham marriages. Nor do I see from this student’s argument how legalizing gay marriage would increase the rates of transmission of all these diseases that are supposedly coming out of the gay community. This student’s points should support each other. As disconnected as his or her thoughts are, it comes off as a diatribe: “I don’t like gay people, and therefore I don’t want them to be able to marry legally.” Few rational people could take this appeal seriously.
To correct this student, we don’t have to talk about our social views. We don’t have to tell them how they should feel about gays in the military or gay marriage – that’s not our job. But it is our job to tell them how to construct a good argument. A strong argument has factual information and logical inferences drawn from these facts. This student’s position contains neither. The bottom line is that if you don't have good information, you can't have a reasonable argument. This principle has nothing to do with my political leanings or social agenda. This is just composition class.
How do you respond when a student writes something that is prejudicial or otherwise offensive to your ideology?
Student #2 I believe people shouldn't be bothered by what other people are doing; like, get over yourself, dude/tte. If people want to be gay and touch each others hands, and other private areas of the same sex it's fine by me. As long the gays don't try to sway me to their skippidy-do-dah, "My Favorite Color is Rainbow & do I look fat by the way-ways, I see nothing wrong with people wanting to get married, regardless of what kind of sex they prefer. I don't believe that our birth rate will diminish in the future, it will only grow larger and larger, much like a gays... feelings. But really, there's plenty of straight people in the world to keep the children a pumpin'. Look at Ancient Greece for example, they practically invented homosexuality and abusive older men, as well as "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". The Spartans also managed to beat a massive army of Persians, I don't think that would've been possible had they not been in such a spirited mood from their morning shield polishings. Gays are good for many things apparently shopping & war being the main ones, because no one fights like a woman trapped in a man's body - and no one shops can shop like a woman with a man's credit card.
*****************************************************************************
How would you handle this?
My thoughts: Principles that we already teach in a standard ENG111 class actually cover the issues that these offensive posts raise.
Student #2 was trying for humor. Sometimes subjects that are taboo (sex, race, sexual orientation) are popular targets for humorists, so it’s not surprising that Student #2 took this approach. Making jokes about the situation of gays in America is a way to avoid dealing with a serious topic. Instead of “you shouldn’t make fun of gay people”, I would reinforce some lessons from our English 111 text. Our book describes context. In some contexts, jokes about gays will get a positive response (laughter). Is a writing assignment for a college class the right context for this? Had the instructor already laid out some guidelines for comments that disrespect a person based on his or her gender, race, creed, or orientation? (In this case, she had.)
Our textbook also introduces the concept of appealing to an audience. Is it safe to assume that this audience (his instructor and classmates) appreciates humor that mocks a minority group? This tactic has the instructor not lecturing a student on his civic responsibility to respect every member of our society, but rather reinforcing lessons that every young writer needs to learn as part of his or her ENG111 curriculum.
Student #2 ought to also recognize that sometimes shooting for humor is going to interfere with sending a clear and accurate message. It’s not accurate to describe a gay man as “a woman trapped in a man’s body” – I’m not sure whether he’s trying to describe a person with gender identity disorder/dysphoria, or whether he really thinks that’s what gay men are. And, if I might criticize his humor, “spear polishing” would have been way more suggestive than “shield polishing”.
Student #1 presents a more troubling problem. Where Student #2 just wanted to make inappropriate jokes, Student #1 appears to have some real malice towards gay people. I have often heard that prejudice is founded on ignorance, and this student’s diatribe illustrates that relationship pretty well. He or she says There are more diseases in the gay community than any other community. And most of the major diseases started in the gay community. These are prejudice-generating ideas that just aren’t true. My problem with these statements isn’t that they aren’t PC, it’s that they aren’t accurate. It’s well-known that AIDS in America hit the gay community before spreading out to other groups. But that’s one disease – and it’s not one of America’s major killers, either. What are these other diseases the author alludes to? As for diseases starting in the gay community, does this author imagine that gays gave us hepatitis? Rabies? Diabetes? The author also states that Most gay men are undercover, they have wives and children. When my students use the word “most”, they know that means “this is the case for 51% or more of the subject, and I have a research source to back it up”. I really don’t know how many people are secretly gay, living a heterosexual cover-up life, and I’m sure this student doesn’t know either. “Some gay men are undercover” would have been a supportable statement; “most gay men are undercover” implies that this student has some research, which was clearly not the case.
There’s also a logical disconnect here – is this student telling us that legalizing gay marriage would worsen the problem of covert gays in traditional marriages? I would think it would do rather the opposite, giving gay people a societally sanctioned alternative to their sham marriages. Nor do I see from this student’s argument how legalizing gay marriage would increase the rates of transmission of all these diseases that are supposedly coming out of the gay community. This student’s points should support each other. As disconnected as his or her thoughts are, it comes off as a diatribe: “I don’t like gay people, and therefore I don’t want them to be able to marry legally.” Few rational people could take this appeal seriously.
To correct this student, we don’t have to talk about our social views. We don’t have to tell them how they should feel about gays in the military or gay marriage – that’s not our job. But it is our job to tell them how to construct a good argument. A strong argument has factual information and logical inferences drawn from these facts. This student’s position contains neither. The bottom line is that if you don't have good information, you can't have a reasonable argument. This principle has nothing to do with my political leanings or social agenda. This is just composition class.
How do you respond when a student writes something that is prejudicial or otherwise offensive to your ideology?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)