Caitlin Flanagan That's Not Funny Summary

As American universities and colleges grow their demographics, diversity and ideas there is a continued and an accelerated debate regarding freedom of speech within these higher education institutions. College campuses are struggling to simultaneously provide a learning environment that is inclusive to traditionally unrepresented students while also providing an environment that allows for ideas to be challenged and debated no matter how offensive or controversial.

It is made clear that college students are quick to form an opinion which doesn’t expand knowledge and can show unintelligence. Many people, more specifically protesters, believe one side and won’t open up and listen to the other side. Frank Bruni, an Op-Ed Columnist for the New York Times and the author of 3 New York Times best sellers in 2015, 2009, and 2002, tells us that the college protesters are wrong. His argument states that the college students need to be educated more on the whole subject because lacking education can essentially lead to being biased or sticking with the one side you believe in. The students were protesting a guest speaker, Charles Murray, who is identified as anti-gay, racist, and sexist. Although the guest speaker’s beliefs are terrible, the students should hear what he has to say. Frank Bruni’s “The Dangerous Saftey of College” presents an effective logical appeal; however, it lacks clear and concise evidence along with not presenting an emotional appeal to connect with the audience.

A college education is valuable and its quality is of the highest importance to most Americans. In his essay, “On the Uses of a Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students,” Mark Edmundson utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos to effectively deliver his argument that the current educational system, especially in college, revolves around consumerism which in turn has negatively impacted students, teachers, and universities in general. However, although Edmundson presents an overall logically sound argument, there are few instances throughout the article that may hinder the reliability of his claims to the audience.

Caitlin starts talking about the college campus comedy and what comedians need to have in them to perform at college shows. She also describes on what a budding comedian has to go through at the National Convention for Campus Activities (NACA) where agents from over 300 colleges attend and what adjustments the comedian has to make to get paid a thousand dollars a show. Caitlin emphasizes on how some college students tend to react when comedians joke about rape and sexism. She also describes about other

Published in Harper's Magazine’s September 1997 issue, Mark Edmundson’s essay, “On the Uses of Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students,” presents a very personal argument for an apparent crisis in liberal education–the lack of passion in students. According to Edmundson, a professor at the University of Virginia, “liberal-arts education is as ineffective as it is now…[because] university culture, like American culture writ large, is, to put it crudely, ever more devoted to consumption and entertainment, to the using and using up of goods and images” (723). He believes that consumer culture is responsible for students’ dispassionate attitude towards his class because they view liberal education as a paid service or product that should cater to their wishes. Further, he writes that universities feed into consumer culture, maintaining a “relationship with students [that] has a solicitous, nearly servile tone” (725). In this way, Edmundson lays out the reasons for why he thinks liberal education is failing.

In the New York Times article “I Owe It All to Community College: Tom Hanks on His Two Years at Chabot College” published January 2015, the author Tom Hanks talks about his experience in Community College. The article being published in the New York Times was directed at an older group of people. Hanks begins the article effectively persuading the reader that Community College changes the lives of the students who attend. Hanks addressed his experience at a two-year junior college in Hayward, California with positive critique. Hanks’ succeeds with his claims of community college being a alternative to students in search of a afforable higher education, through his use of ethos, pathos, and logos.

It is always important to think back to the Buddhist and Stoic beliefs about thinking clearly and working through emotions (Lukianoff and Haidt 6). The college students mentioned in “The Coddling of the American Mind,” need to learn these crucial principles in order to live a life where they can positively overcome discomfort and offendedness. People need not be punished for causing minor emotional inconveniences. Once cognitive

Modern society allows humorists to touch upon offensive topics without receiving much criticism. As Alain de Botton claimed in his 2004 book, Status Anxiety, humorists’ role is not merely to entertain but “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” De Botton’s argument proves legitimate. Many humorists, such as cartoonists and television hosts, decide to use their humor as a tool to prove an idea or express a belief that cannot be voiced candidly in public.

“A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukianoff and Haidt 44). Colleges are sheltering their students from words and ideas that students do not like or are found to be offensive. Affecting their education and cognitive skills, scientists are warning colleges to refrain from coddling the students and allowing other viewpoints to be spoken. People are speaking their minds, saying their own views; however, some people are over sensitive and take these viewpoints offensively. In the article “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt successfully argues using rhetorical questions, specific examples, and affective visuals that protecting college students from words and ideas deteriorates their education and mental health.

Mark Edmundson, the author of “On the Uses of a Liberal Education”, is an English teacher at the University of Virginia who expresses his concerns about the trajectory of the universities and colleges in America. Edmundson depicts how college students today have “little fire, little passion to be found,” towards their classes (4). In an effort to find the source of this lack of passion, Edmundson describes contacting other professors about this issue while refining his own ideas. Ultimately, Edmundson comes to a conclusion. He believes that the consumer mindset of college students has hindered American universities as a whole. My target audience is my professor, Professor Chezik. Looking closely at his wording, formation of sentences, and idea structure, one can see a recurring theme throughout Edmundson’s essay. Edmundson uses fragments, specifically at the beginning of his paragraphs, to start his point, pose counter arguments, and to have a poetic refrain.

I found Dave Barry’s article to be very funny, but true. Throughout this article Dave Barry states his bias opinion on the way he views college. He is basically making fun of the education system. Dave Barry uses his humor in a way of arguing the concept of how we are learning things that we will never use in life. I think this article is similar to the other articles we have read, but uses a different tone to express it.

“Neither a Wallflower Nor a Paris Geller Be” by Rebecca Schuman is a witty article about classroom participation in college lectures. This article is primarily directed towards college students around ages 18 to 25. This is obvious through Schuman’s references to professors from the student viewpoint and through direct addresses to the students who are reading the article. She also uses the pronoun us to refer to herself as a professor and to speak on behalf of college professors in general. Additionally, in an attempt to relate to students, Schuman references the struggle that students face when it comes to shyness, overbearing classmates, and completing reading assignments. These college students are of all genders and all races/ethnicities.

This time around, it is middle America enjoying the circus on their wide-screen televisions in the privileged privacy of their dens and theater rooms. As the vast array of freaks in the popular media reveals, the circus, defined by Rosemary Thomson, in her book, Extraordinary Bodies, as a “cultural space of seemingly infinite license” (5), has us mesmerized: dwarfs, plastic surgery addicts, tattooed people, fatties and living skeletons, cross-dressers and child beauty contestants, to name a few. The world of so-called reality television, which appears to be a modern manifestation of the carnival

In his editorial, “The Year of the Imaginary College Student,” Hua Hsu asserts that “alarm about offense-seeking college students say[s] more about critics than the actual state of affairs.” Hsu begins his article by discussing James O’Keefe’s attempt at Vassar College to depict that college students are as politically sensitive as they appear. He goes on to demonstrate that college students are getting increasingly more “hypersensitive.” Hsu then questions the “surge of interest in campus life,” wondering why people who are not in college are questioning the behavior of those in college. Next, Hsu states that this panic about “offense-seeking college students” says more about the people criticizing rather than the system. Elucidating, he

It is not unseasonable to believe that because stereotypes are appearing so commonly in comedy, they will reinforce those stereotypes rather than help society rid itself from them. Extinguishing stereotypes is impossible. Researchers have determined that the creation of stereotypes is a natural function of the brain (Paul, par. 2). In attempt to make light of a problematic issues, comedians use stereotypes to denounce stereotypes. The first thing that we should understand is that comedy is comedy. This does not mean that it should not be taken seriously as frequently advised. Comedy should be embraced and takes seriously but not in the