Thursday, February 05, 2009
January 10, 2009
Today’s Agenda:
For today, you were to have read
Reading Discussion and Activities: 78-101
Let’s begin with a journal entry:
As part of your homework over the past week, you were to read Chapter 4, which dealt with Arguments based in Reason: Logos.
You wrote a journal response to this reading in which you talked about a logos-based argument that you have encountered recently. Can anyone remember what they wrote about?
Well, now that we have thought about it a little bit, I’d like you to write another short journal entry:
Describe a logos-based argument that you might encounter on a day-to-day basis? Go into specific detail about this argument.
Group discussion of writing.
We also read and wrote about chapter 5, Thinking Rhetorically. You wrote two blog posts on this chapter. As part of these posts, we started to think about how important it is to keep in mind subjects like audience and purpose when you write.
In your journal, I would like you to reflect on the following subject:
Have you ever had the experience of listening to an argument and knowing that the argument was not directed towards you? If so, what was that experience like for you? Describe why it was either uncomfortable or confusing.
Group Discussion
Now that we have had a chance to think about logos and rhetoric, I want us to turn our attention back to the essay we have been working with, “The Oblivious Empire.”
We have been working on understanding Pathos, Ethos and Logos in this course. In groups, I want you to identify specific claims that are made by the author, and tell me whether or not you would categorize these claims as being examples of either Logos, Ethos, Pathos. Once you have done that, I want you to explain how the author’s presentation of these examples may or may not be tailored to appeal to a certain audience or audiences.
Group Discussion:
Class Discussion
The Coming Week:
Now that you have had a chance to write, revise, and revisit your précis on “The Oblivious Empire,” it is time for you to bring this project to a close. To do this, you will be correcting your last draft, and writing a final draft.
There are a few things I need you to know before you write this draft:
MLA; In-Text Citation; How to Use a Quote; Short, direct sentences.
HOMEWORK FOR TUESDAY (5:00 pm)
SUBMIT A FINAL DRAFT OF YOUR “OBLIVIOUS EMPIRE” PRECIS TO ME VIA E-MAIL.
FOR Wednesday, 5:00
READ: 538-546
THEN:
ON PAGE 123 OF YOUR BOOK, YOU READ AN ARTICLE CALLED “PROTECTING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AT HARVARD.” THIS SHORT ESSAY DEALS WITH A FASCINATING AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO RESPOND TO THIS WRITING BY EITHER AFFIRMING OR CHALLENGING THE AUTHOR’S THESIS. TO DO THIS, I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS HIS MAJOR CLAIMS, AND EXPLAIN WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT. (1.5 PAGES, POSTED TO THE BLOG)
Advertisement
[...] Thursday, Feb 5 [...]
Kevin Adams
Professor Crowley
EH 124
10 February 2009
“Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard”
Derek Bok, a scholar and past president of Harvard University, writes his thoughts on a situation involving two students that hung Confederate flags in public, and a third student protested and hung flags displaying a swastika. Incidents like these have provoked many discussions and disagreement, and Bok defends free speech in his piece.
In the second paragraph, Bok provides the two sides that each party feels necessary as a solution. Without taking a side, Bok than goes on to explain the law of the issue by providing clarity of free speech under the First Amendment. According to Bok, “The fact the speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil.” Bok claims the actions taken by the students were, “insensitive and unwise because any satisfaction it gives to the students who display these symbols is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes to many others.”
Bok states that he shares remorse towards the students and saw their behavior unfortunate. Bok makes a statement when he says the students involved disregarded the feelings of others when the feelings of others are, “so essential to building and preserving a strong and harmonious community.” With that, Bok provides his major claim and begins to back up his statement by examining both sides of the argument. In this case, should the school remove the flags, or are the flags protected under the First Amendment.
Under the First Amendment, the situation clearly is in favor of free speech, but do communities have the right to regulate speech to protect themselves from potentially hurtful messages? Bok states, “We are faced with a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community founded on mutual respect.” Yes, the hanging of Confederate flags and swastikas fall within the protection of free speech and can’t be removed just because feelings have been offended. The rulings under the amendment must apply to all agencies of government. Bok provides proof through the use of the First Amendment (facts) to further explain his argument.
Bok makes another claim towards the end on the piece when he offers his own solution. Bok recognizes that speaking with the students involved and trying to help them understand the effects of their actions on others. According to Bok, talking with the students will educate and persuade them that such actions are not useful, if anything they are offensive and shameful. Manners such as these acts should be carefully evaluated with a common goal in mind. “To help us create a truly understanding, supportive community.” Bok claims.
I agree with Bok’s claims because he does a good job of defending and considering both sides of the conflict. He uses factual evidence with his use of the First Amendment to back up his claim of determining what should and shouldn’t be protected by free speech. I am affirming his thesis of the usage of communication within conflict to come to a conclusion. Understanding what your actions can cause for reactions are very important when creating and upholding and supportive community.
Emily Gala
2/10/09
Rhetoric and Comp. II
A. Crowley
“Protecting freedom of expression at Harvard”
The article I read was called “Protecting freedom of expression at Harvard” by Derek Bok. Bok’s thesis dealt with the fact that for years now universities have been struggling with the problem of trying to reconcile the rights of free speech with the desire to avoid and tension. He starts out this article with a few conflicts that had been exhibited throughout Harvard University. Two students hung confederate flags in public view, upsetting students.
I feel as though Bok makes a very strong thesis. All though, I don’t particularly agree with all of it. I mean its true, we the American people are protected by the First Amendment. This however, does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper or civil.
I feel that Bok has a great argument, but the case of the matter is will everyone agree? I for the most part don’t agree with Bok’s statement, “I have a difficulty understanding why a university such as Harvard should have less free speech that the surrounding society- or than a public university.” I mean, yes for the most part this is true, however when does the rest of our society go parading around with confederate flags in a completely multi-culture environment? Well I can answer this, never.
Bok also initiates another remark, “When talking to the students they should seek to educate and persuade, rather that resort to ridcule or intimidation.” I strongly disagree with this statement. First of all, as long as I can remember in school history is one of the major classes from elementary going on to high school. This subject requires students to further there horizon and learn more about the world they live in. This includes important pieces of history. Especially those impacted on us from day to day. In school we are educated about race, ethnicity and much more. Discrimination for what I know, has never been tolerated.
For these students at Harvard University, and the knowledge they needed to know in order to get in, should in fact come to the realization of what is and isn’t tolerable. This in tales the respect for others around them. This is why I don’t agree with what Bok has said should be put upon this students after upsetting those around them. Why wouldn’t this upset those? I feel as though this was a set up. I think that these students wanted a reaction. I may be wrong, they could fully believe that this was expectable. In that case what is considered crossing the line? What is going against the First Amendment? All of this brings good questioning into Bok’s thesis. However, does anyone think that they had the total obliviousness to not recognize what they did was going to be shocking, stop me if I’m wrong but I just don’t agree with it at all, nor do I agree with Bok’s reasoning for it.
Tyla Crocker
Protecting Freedom
Crowley
February 11, 2009
Protecting Freedom
In the article of “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard” it explains how at Harvard in 1991, students displayed confederate flags which upset many students. In retaliation, another student exhibited a swastika flag. But even though the author of the article Derek Bok doesn’t agree with upsetting others by use of offensive free speech, he doesn’t think that there can be laws and restrictions because it violates the First Amendment.
I agree with the Bok, although yes, it is true that others should not be allowed to upset others by displaying offensive material and behavior to others, but the First Amendment prevents this. Even if you could make laws against this behavior, there would always be arguments on what is considered offensive to certain people. If one person isn’t offended, someone else would be. Bok said, “Rather than prohibit such communications, with all the resulting risks, it would be better to ignore them, since students would then have little reason to create such displays and would soon abandon them” (124). I agree, by just ignoring the behavior is probably the most positive and effective solution to the problem. When all the attention goes away on a person (who clearly needs attention) they tend to go on to something else to receive attention.
Although I do believe that certain groups, universities, colleges, and other institutions should be able to permit their own laws and restrictions. Even though a lot of these organizations do have restrictions and rules, they are only able to go so far because of the First Amendment. Bok explains by saying, “While communities do have the right to regulate speech in order to uphold aesthetic standards (avoiding defacement of buildings) or to protect the public from disturbing noise, rules of this kind must be applied across the board and cannot be enforced selectively to prohibit certain kinds of messages but not others” (124).
No matter what law or restrictions one makes, there will be people who will not follow it and people will still be offended. This is why I agree with Bok, the best way to get away from offensive behavior is to just ignore it.
Jill Sarno
Rhetoric and Composition II
2/11/09
“Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard”
The article titled “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard” was a very interesting and controversial piece written by Derek Bok. His article is in response to the hanging of Confederate and Swastika flags on Harvard University’s campus. When the flags were displayed many students and the community found them extremely offensive and hurtful. However, others believe that the showing of the confederate flag and swastika flag fell into the category of freedom of speech.
Bok’s thesis on this matter is that flying such controversial flags should be allowed because they are part of free speech which is protected by the First Amendment. All American’s have the right to speak freely and communicate as they please. Though this his belief is true, it is not always looked upon as something that society approves of. When the flags were hung for all to see, a large majority of the Harvard students found it insensitive and unwise. Also, many people associate the confederate flag with slavery which was widely unpopular in a community mainly populated by African Americans. Unfortunately, for the Harvard House Maters, they were left with the final say on if the flags should fly high or if they should be taken down. The House Masters had to decide on if the flags represented free speech or were plainly offensive. Bok claims that if we begin to forbid flags, then we begin to prohibit offensive speakers.
My interpretation on the argument is that while Bok does make some very good claims, but he is looking at only the facts. He does not see how hurtful a swastika flag or a confederate flag can be to some people and a community. Since slavery ended society has always looked down upon the pro slavery flag. Since World War I and II ended society has always looked down upon the flag that represents the killing of Jews that created genocide. These Harvard students that hung the flags were either trying to get a rise out of their school and cause people the become upset. Harvard has always been a school to push the limits, but these students took it a bit too far. It is one thing to speak your mind and convey and idea, but it is another to hang something that is widely looked down upon, yet consider it freedom of speech. The First Amendment is extremely vague, so what is freedom of speech to someone is not the same to another. I find that speaking your mind is great wether it is controversial or not. But, hanging two flags without an explanation is simply not right, proper, nor civil.
Matthew Nash
February 11, 2009
Protecting Freedom
A. Crowley
The essay “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard” confronts an important issue facing American Universities and the general public alike, the first amendment, freedom of speech. The issue at hand was two students hanging confederate flags out for the public to see. In protest to these flags being shown, a third student displayed a swastika. Many students and community members found these displays offensive and wanted them removed. Others felt that it was protected under the first amendment and felt no need for them to remove them.
Bok researched what could and couldn’t be protected by the freedom of speech and found that these flags were protected. He states that under the Supreme Court rulings these symbols, although offensive to many people, are a freedom of speech. This is where Bok presents his thesis, that although these flags are protected under law, those students who displayed them should at least be dealt with in a non ridiculing or intimidating style. His first theory was to ignore these flags, as the students who displayed them probably only wanted the attention that he has received from putting them on view. If ignoring them wasn’t possible however, his plan would be to inform these students of how much these flags have affected the students and surrounding community.
Bok’s opinion on the flags is exactly where mine is. Although many of these flags are offensive, they are protected under the first amendment and these amendments are what our country is based on. If we start censoring everything that people find offensive, then eventually our freedom with completely be taken away. Although these flags were offensive due to what many people believe they represent, there are many different representations of them. I fully agree with Bok’s theory to have Harvard House Masters speak with these students to inform them of the affect they have had on the community. The beauty of America is we have so many different ethnicities and cultures. If we force each of these to suppress their individuality, then we will lose the diversity that makes this country so great.
Ben Landry
2/9/09
A. Crowley
Boundaries on Freedom of Speech
In the article “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard” by Derek Bok a particular incident is called into play where at Harvard University a couple of students displayed confederate flags in plain view for everyone to see. The display upset a majority of on lookers and was protested by a third student who displayed a swastika which ended up upsetting even more people. The flags brought an onslaught of debate concerning the topic on issues of whether the students should be allowed to put such things up for everyone to see without any consequences. It was decided that the displays were within the realm of free speech and that they were totally legal. Harvard decided to take no action against the students because they felt that students should not have their rights restricted on their campus even though they are a private university. The author, Derek Bok feels that the best way to get the offensive gestures to stop is to ignore them completely so there is no reason for these people to put these displays out in public.
I do not feel that ignoring these displays is the right route to take because I feel that it will only lead to violence. While steps are not being taken to challenge these offensive gestures people are still getting hurt by these displays. Whether we tell people to ignore these flags or not those who take offense to them will still take offense. Seeing them brings up the same emotions that make these affected people feel upset and by not doing anything about them the anger only builds up in these people who are hurt and it is only a matter of time before they just do not feel safe anymore or begin to lash out at the people responsible for the gestures making the situation hostile and much worse than it would be if the college was just to address the problem.
While these gestures at Harvard University may be within the students constitutional rights they are not morally acceptable. While they could have meant well with their flags it is not right for students to put them out on display because at a certain time in American history when these flags were prominent in American society there were terrible ideals directly associated with these flags and I feel that Harvard should have sat these students down and at least reiterated the severity of these gestures and that it could be offensive to other people on campus and make them feel uncomfortable, particularly the minorities. What Harvard should have done was pulled these kids aside so they would be able to tell them that what they were displaying did not follow Harvard’s morals and compromised the unity of the campus so the students would realize the problems with what they were doing.
Bethany Nadeau
Rhetoric & Comp. II
A. Crowley
11 February 2009
“Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard”- My Thoughts
Derek Bok makes a convincing argument through his article “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard,” though I do not entirely agree with him. He starts off his argument explaining the situation. Universities have constantly been bombarded with the issue of free speech, as have many organizations in this day and age. The question is always the same; should radical expressions be suppressed because they are offensive to the majority or should they be allowed because they are protected under the First Ammendment in the Constitution? Bok argues what the Supreme Court has recently held. Free speech should not be supressed just because it is offensive.
In my opinion, Bok made a quality argument for his thesis, but he could have done a better job convincing me had he not thrown in his personal opinion at the beginning and then contradicted it with his thesis and evidence. He starts off explaining how he feels students should not behave in such a manner as to make others uncomfortable, that displaying the flags was not a wise decision. He makes a very convincing argument that their behavior was inappropriate and should not be tolerated. But just as soon as I was convinced and agreed with him, the entire argument took a “U” turn and the exact opposite proved to be his thesis. This created quite a bit of confusion when reading his article. Perhaps if he wanted to make a more convincing thesis, he would have obstained from putting his own personal views into the mix.
Besides this confusion, his argument promoting free speech was rather effective, though it did not thoroughly convince me. I somewhat agree with what he is proposing, though he could have presented it in a much more quality fashion.
Rachel Foster
Rhetoric and Comp. II
A Crowley
February 5, 2009
Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard: an affirmation
In Derek Bok’s article, Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard, Bok writes about what has been a long-lasting controversial issue in the United States: freedom of speech and expression. The author claims that though the acts are “insensitive and unwise,” they are permitted, and lawfully so. Acts of expression are committed on a day-to-day basis and in a broad aspect of environments; some are offensive while others are not.
The act of hanging a confederate flag at Harvard was one of controversy. Bok does not support the act, but rather supports the fact that it is a legal act. I thoroughly agree with Bok and his artile and believe that he makes great claims to support his thesis. The author states that he has “difficulty understanding why a university such as Harvard should have less free speech than the surrounding society,” suggesting that there was no legal crime committed but one based on morals instead. Another claim that Bok makes is that whether Harvard is a private institution or not, it is still part of the United States of America that fall under the amendments to the Constitution where it states the legal right of every citizen is to have freedom of speech and expression. Bok states that not all acts of expression are insulting, but those ones that are do nothing to further the peace that a community strives for. He states more clearly saying that “conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community [are] founded on mutual respect” p 124
This privilege that we as American citizens have been awarded is not something that should be taken for granted. It is when privileges are abused that they are taken away, and I believe that the majority of the nation would agree on the fact that freedom of speech and expression is one of the greatest benefits to living in the United States. A solution to the offensive and insulting acts of expression is one that Bok suggests and I agree with: “Rather than prohibit such communications…it would be better to ignore them…” By doing so it provides less reaction and less attention from the ones offended, which in turn gives those who committed the action no further incentives to continue their foul acts.
Bethany Beaulieu
A. Crowley
02/09/09
Freedom of Expression
The article “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard” by Derek Bok, is an article written about the First Amendment. Bok writes about the controversy at Harvard University. The incident involves a couple of students displaying a Confederate flag which in turn, upset students. In order to protest the flag, a student displayed a swastika. This caused an uproar leading to restrictions. This has caused problems because it breaks the First Amendment. This breaks the Constitution because it is banning students to have freedom of expression and free press.
Bok’s has made some major claims in his article. He agrees with the students to an extent. He gives credit both sides of the argument. He claims that freedom of expression is important and every citizen of United States has that right. However he adds, “ It is important to distinguish between the appropriateness of such communications and their status under the First Amendment” (123). Bok continued with writing, “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communication is the offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree of the offensiveness against the potential value of the communication. If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (124).
I believe there should be some guidelines to the First Amendment. The guidelines could prevent people from getting insulted. As Bok writes, “Once we start to declare certain things “offensive,” with
all the excitement and attention that will follow, I fear that that much ingenuity will be exerted trying to test the limits, much time will be expanded trying to draw tenuous distinctions, and the resulting publicity will eventually attract more attention to the offensive material than would ever have occurred otherwise”(124). People would try to receive attention all the time. The guidelines should be created for public and private institutions. It would increase the awareness and prevent serious lawsuits of any kind. As for the students at Harvard, it should not have been ignored. I agree with the statement;“The wisest course is to speak with those who perform insensitive acts and try to help them understand the effects of their actions on others” (124).
I agree with Bok and his article claims. The students at should be brought together to help them achieve an understanding of what they had done. Similarly, the First Amendment should have guidelines for places like a university to prevent any misunderstanding and insensitivity.
Brianna Ward
EH124
February 11, 2009
“Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard”
Derek Bok wrote an article entitled “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard” on March 25, 1991. Bok is a distinguished scholar and past president of Harvard University. His article is a story about a controversy at Harvard that started when two students hung Confederate flags. This upset many students on the campus, and one student protested against the Confederate flags by displaying a swastika. This caused a controversy, because some believed that they should not be allowed to display these items, where others thought it was a form of free speech. In this ethos-based argument, Bok tries to explain to his audience that even though free speech is protected by the First Amendment, it does not mean that it is “right, proper, or civil”.
Bok believes that it is a hard decision to decide what should and should not be censored. He states that “one reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree of offensiveness against the potential value of the communication”. I agree with this claim because what one person believes is offensive another person may not, so it would be very difficult to decide what should be marked offensive and to what degree.
Bok also talks about the fact that once we mark something offensive and against the law to express, people will try harder to get attention by saying or displaying it. He claims that “once we start to declare things ‘offensive,’ with all the excitement and attention that will follow, [he] fears that much ingenuity will be exerted trying to test the limits, much time will be expended trying to draw tenuous distinctions, and the resulting publicity will eventually attract more to the offensive material than would ever have occurred otherwise. I agree with his view on this 100 percent. It is like when someone is doing something that really annoys you, if you let them know that it bothers you then they will keep doing it, but if you just leave it alone and let it die down then it will eventually stop.
I believe his thesis, which states that even though free speech is protected under the First Amendment does not mean that it is right, is completely backed up by his claims. We should just leave some things alone, because if we give them too much publicity then they will just attract more attention then they ever did before. He is right by saying if we mark things offensive and wrong, that people will try harder to draw attention to those things.
Chris Howland
EH 124
Professor Crowley
02-10-09
Protecting Freedom of Speech
After reading the article, “protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard,” I have come up with my own conclusions to the unresolved argument talked about in the piece. Although our freedom of speech and expression is actively used every day, we sometimes do not notice it unless it offends. I believe that the events which took place at Harvard, and events similar make freedom of expression a reality.
If there was no diversity of expression, there would be no reason for our amendment right at all. Throughout history people have lay claim to many extreme and outrageous events. I realize that the hanging of a confederate or Nazi flag at Harvard isn’t a history changer, but it is just an example of what our freedom is all about. In the article, Bok talks about how some students may be offended by either flag that was put up. I know that many students probably were mad and felt violated. But I believe it is violating the students who did put the flags up rights if the university didn’t allow this activity. It goes both ways with freedom of expression. If you tell one student he cannot do something which he feels is right and good to him, then you are totally making him feel the same way the student feels who sees the flag. You can never win in this type of situation. No matter what expression is made, it will probably offend someone. Also with these difficult situations sometimes come great things. When people are confronted with controversy they usually come back even stronger with there own beliefs and express them. In this way I truly believe that anything that seems bad at first, may be good in disguise. Maybe a Jewish student who saw the swastika sign will go out and start a movement to express the feeling they have with a group of other students. When people do things like this it creates a learning environment, and the lessons that are learned are very hard to teach in the classroom. They are lessons of emotion and experience.
For all these reasons I believe that no matter where you are, if it be Harvard University, or the back alley of America, freedom of expression should be protected. Without this freedom, many good changes would not come to the world, these lessons I talked about may not be learned. Right now I am expressing how I feel, and everyone, everywhere should be able to do the same.
Jessica Munson
Rhetoric and Comp. II
A. Crowley
2-11-09
“Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard”
The article “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard,” written by Derek Bok, addresses the controversial issue of free speech. Derek Bok uses an example of an incident that happened at Harvard University on March 25, 1991 to help prove his point. In 1991 two students hung Confederate flags in view of the public and in response or protest, another student hung a swastika. Many people found this act defensive and demanded action from the University. However, this is a form of free speech which is protected by the first amendment. This is a common issue that is been raised among many universities.
Bok’s thesis on this issue is that everyone has the right of free speech but if it is disrespectful towards others then it should be limited. I partly agree with Bok. People should have the right to say what they want but that also includes things that are offensive. Free speech entitles people to say what they want when they want no matter what it is. “The fact that speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil,” stated by Bok. It may not be right or proper to say offensive things in public but it is permitted. United States citizens have the right to express themselves and their opinions.
The major issue that Bok addresses is: when is it appropriate to enforce censorship on free speech? “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree of offensiveness against the potential value of the communication,” stated Bok. Officials find it difficult to recognize when it is necessary to prohibit free speech because it goes against the constitution. I believe that expressing your opinion is a great right to have whether your opinion is controversial or not.
If people are going to express themselves then they should be aware of the possible affects it is going to have on the people around them. Free speech may be protected by the First Amendment but it does not make it right to be disrespectful to others. This country is a combination of diverse cultures, ethnicities, and traditions and limiting a right that is granted to us by the constitution would go against what this country was built on; freedom.
[...] Thursday, Feb 5 [...]