In light of the recent Supreme Court case on Affirmative Action, Frank Bruni has written the op-ed "The Lie about College Diversity" for The New York Times. With the help of expert opinions, Bruni asserts that there are actually few efforts to encourage intermingling within college campuses. To counteract this, Bruni proposes that colleges take measures to promote greater community in the student body.
Bruni's claim is fairly unique among the more common, thinly veiled racist criticisms of diversity on college campuses. In order to support his claim, Bruni references the opinions and anecdotes of university presidents and students themselves. He amasses quotes from David Reingold, the dean of the college of liberal arts at Purdue University; Carol Quillen, the president of Davidson College; and Adam Weinberg, the president of Denison University. These experts, who are in close contact with the daily life of universities, either echo Bruni's claim or support his push toward more proactive colleges. They provide anecdotes about some of their own institution's efforts, such as a Seder hosted by Jewish students for international Chinese students. These expert testimonies make Bruni both a credible author and problem-solver.
The most important take-away from Bruni's use of expert testimony is that he is not alone in his concern. He is not just a lone op-ed columnist digging for a half-baked issue to discuss; rather, the experts who mirror his opinion show that they too see a problem and have a solution. Their combined forces convincingly portray the benefits of college activities for a diverse student population, and it is time that Americans listen to what they have to say.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Sunday, December 13, 2015
TOW #12 - Stiff (IRB)
Although Stiff is a much lighter read than the heavily scientific The Feminine Mystique, it is much harder to distinguish Roach's purpose. The uses of cadavers is certainly an unusual and interesting topic, but I doubt she wrote Stiff for the fun of it. To find some sense of direction, I turned to Roach's introduction. In it, she writes, "The dead of science are always strangers." After reading through several chapters, Roach's larger purpose seems to be to give credit to the dead who have aided science. Roach achieves this through her humorous tone and frank diction.
Many people try to tiptoe around death with good intentions It's been generally accepted in society that death requires sensitivity, yet Roach bucks this sensitivity in her writing. This is not to say that Roach is callous or mean in her treatment of the cadavers. Rather, she speaks frankly about their appearances (and smells). It is a shock to her readers, initially, but it allows them to become closer to the cadavers. Roach writes of a cadaver, named UM 006, in an automobile crash test, "UM 006 has a comic's timing. He waits a beat, two beats, then slips forward again" (102). This way of writing portrays UM 006 as someone who is very much alive and who has a knack for entertaining a waiting audience. And, although odd, the readers laugh along with it. They feel a sense of warmth toward UM 006, who is just trying so hard to entertain his audience. They see that UM 006, who seems like just a body used for research, was a person who belonged to someone before death -- and that personhood should still be respected.
Our sensitivity to death also distances us from it. We don't want to encroach on someone's grief, so we skirt around the fact that their beloved husband died. We don't want to be reminded that our loved ones are mortal, so we say that people pass away, not that they die. We still insist that it's a person's grandmother or father in a casket -- not just another one of the many bodies crematoriums and funeral homes see daily. All of this is done with the hopes to make death easier on the ones still alive. Yet, our carefully chosen words may cloud our perspectives on the dead. We forget how to treat them like people instead of delicate glass sculptures that may crumble when handled the wrong way. Roach's language allows the alive readers to confront the meaning and reality of death.
Many people try to tiptoe around death with good intentions It's been generally accepted in society that death requires sensitivity, yet Roach bucks this sensitivity in her writing. This is not to say that Roach is callous or mean in her treatment of the cadavers. Rather, she speaks frankly about their appearances (and smells). It is a shock to her readers, initially, but it allows them to become closer to the cadavers. Roach writes of a cadaver, named UM 006, in an automobile crash test, "UM 006 has a comic's timing. He waits a beat, two beats, then slips forward again" (102). This way of writing portrays UM 006 as someone who is very much alive and who has a knack for entertaining a waiting audience. And, although odd, the readers laugh along with it. They feel a sense of warmth toward UM 006, who is just trying so hard to entertain his audience. They see that UM 006, who seems like just a body used for research, was a person who belonged to someone before death -- and that personhood should still be respected.
Our sensitivity to death also distances us from it. We don't want to encroach on someone's grief, so we skirt around the fact that their beloved husband died. We don't want to be reminded that our loved ones are mortal, so we say that people pass away, not that they die. We still insist that it's a person's grandmother or father in a casket -- not just another one of the many bodies crematoriums and funeral homes see daily. All of this is done with the hopes to make death easier on the ones still alive. Yet, our carefully chosen words may cloud our perspectives on the dead. We forget how to treat them like people instead of delicate glass sculptures that may crumble when handled the wrong way. Roach's language allows the alive readers to confront the meaning and reality of death.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
TOW #11 - Will the U.S. Supreme Court Give a Clear Answer on Abortion? (Written)
Roe v. Wade was a landmark case by the Supreme Court that most people believe guaranteed a person's right to abortion. In actuality, the cases following Roe v. Wade - notably, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey - have muddied the lines on what a person is and isn't entitled to. Now, in 2015, many states are renewing their battle against abortion, especially in light of the recent Planned Parenthood controversy. Whole Women's Health v. Cole is the latest in legal fights on abortion. Texas lawmakers have passed legislation that claims to protect women's health, but really only raises the standards for abortion clinics to unnecessary heights - thus, forcing 75% of health care facilities to shut down in the state. (Texas is not alone in its fight: Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming have only one abortion clinic in each state.) The decision has been upheld by the Fifth Circuit in Texas and will be heard by the Supreme Court likely in the spring of 2016.
Garrett Epps, author of the article "Will the U.S. Supreme Court Give a Clear Answer on Abortion?", hopes to answer readers' questions on what the Supreme Court decision will mean for abortion by referencing various court cases and explaining their significance.
Epps acknowledges that, in the upcoming Whole Women's Health v. Cole case, the Supreme Court could decide either way without overruling the previous Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. He asserts that the Casey ruling stated that no state could place "undue burden" on a person's right to abortion - yet, the definition of "undue burden" is frustratingly vague. To provide some clearer definition for readers, he writes, "For a definition, look to the Casey plurality: 'A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion' before the fetus is viable, a stage that now means roughly 24 weeks." Although no one (perhaps not even the Supreme Court) can say for certain what an "undue burden" is, readers are now equipped with the knowledge about what previous rulings have stated. Furthermore, they are aware of how this ruling may affect and be affected by the upcoming Supreme Court case.
Garrett Epps, author of the article "Will the U.S. Supreme Court Give a Clear Answer on Abortion?", hopes to answer readers' questions on what the Supreme Court decision will mean for abortion by referencing various court cases and explaining their significance.
Epps acknowledges that, in the upcoming Whole Women's Health v. Cole case, the Supreme Court could decide either way without overruling the previous Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. He asserts that the Casey ruling stated that no state could place "undue burden" on a person's right to abortion - yet, the definition of "undue burden" is frustratingly vague. To provide some clearer definition for readers, he writes, "For a definition, look to the Casey plurality: 'A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion' before the fetus is viable, a stage that now means roughly 24 weeks." Although no one (perhaps not even the Supreme Court) can say for certain what an "undue burden" is, readers are now equipped with the knowledge about what previous rulings have stated. Furthermore, they are aware of how this ruling may affect and be affected by the upcoming Supreme Court case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)