Rhetorical Analysis Of Frank Bruni's The Dangerous Safety Of College

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.

Colleges and universities are places of higher education and learning. Part of this learning comes from listening and understanding opposite views from your own. Positively, these zones have allowed students to avoid any ideas they may not want to hear; however, avoidance is not the way around life. Another positive outcome of free speech on campuses is that students are able to bind together

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.

Brandon Hart Professor Brines ENG 101.14 19 January 2018 An Analysis of "What’s College Good For?” by Bryan Caplan

In a May 2003 persuasive article published by USA Today titled “College isn’t for Everyone”, the author W.J. Reeves states “about 15 million people in America are enrolled in college.” This is a staggering amount considering the fact that many people are in college for all the wrong reasons. About half of the Americans enrolled in college are there because they feel they owe it to their families. Only a small number of Americans in college actually feel it is necessary for successful lives. In this article, Reeves recollects on his experiences as a college English professor at an institution in New York. He speaks of how he believes that many students truly do not want to be in college. You can tell this by his stories of tardiness,

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.

He suggests in order to reverse these trends of colleges, and help restore the freedom in society, the audience should actively come together and require that Congress outlaw discrimination based on college degrees. College cannot truly make all people equal as many people face barriers of achieving a higher education, which then creates a division of class due to a lack of opportunity. Banning the use of degrees to evaluate skill and talent will go a long way toward opening up more genuinely equal opportunities. This amendment would help create more fair opportunities to those who don’t have a degree but do have certain skills. As Blank states “there are far more too many people who “take” French than who “talk” French. There are far too many people who “pass” history than understand it” (Blank 265). This suggests that most college courses don’t really help students actually learn and retain the skills they “master” because students mainly worry about actually “passing” rather than “learning”. Blank argues that this issue is becoming more and more of a problem as it is “converting the educational system into a training facility” (265). In trying to become multi-purpose, dispersed, and culturally aware, colleges are becoming the opposite as they lose the essence of compulsory schooling and become more curriculum based

“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.

On January 13th, 2017, Chancellor Ralph Hexter of UC Davis emailed students in response to Martin Shkreli and Milo Yiannopoulos not being allowed speak at a campus event due to heated protests. The controversial Yiannopoulos is a open critic of many social justice movements, like feminism and Black Lives Matter. He’s specifically said during his events at his tour that muslims are rapists, publically yelled at a muslim for wearing a hijab, and promotes Blue Lives Matter. ('I Just Want to Burn It down') Additionally, Shkreli is a businessman who is now a convicted felon. So in response, many students were outraged and deeply upset by this organized event. In the email the Chancellor quoted the ACLU, explaining that we “can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.” However this will cause violence and make many feel patronized by the words spurred out by public speakers, like Yiannopoulos and Shrekli. Even though inviting people of different views seems like unifying people from all backgrounds, when people are content with their hatred and speak them out openly, it causes more complication. The opposite side wants to cover their ears and find the nearest exit. To be realistic, any young student won’t be welcoming with open arms to close minded speakers, especially if it seems as the main thing they desire is to get a rise out of you. The most efficient way to unify people is being respectful

“Over the years, courts have ruled that college officials may set up reasonable rules to regulate the ‘time, place and manner” that the free speech can occur, as long as the rules are “content neutral,’ meaning they apply equally to all sides of issues” (Fisher, 2008). Speech codes and free speech zones on campus do exist for many reasons: many of the causes or topics that students or others looking to interact with students take up are controversial and can frequently take on less of an academic or social justice overtone and more of a hateful one. Hate speech is the greatest threat to freedom of speech on college campuses, and the limitations colleges and universities put on student’s verbal freedoms are largely in place as efforts to avoid it. Religion, in particular, is a hot topic on campuses and it has an unfortunate tendency to become more aggressive and argumentative than universities would like. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.

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

After experiencing the keynotes, workshops, and lectures in our Summit on Human Dignity, it makes sense that Brophy would feel more connected to the issues that the Summit addresses. However, many students respond in a way that shows distrust and neglect toward a certain political group by expressing their opposite opinion in an inappropriate way, rather than taking in the message of The Summit. Stemming from our past election, defiance creates a divide and causes students to take sides and this creates a disconnect in The Summit’s impact because of people wanting to be correct rather than open to growth. Having these predetermined sides established, there is a sense of not wanting to partake in the ideals of the opposite party. The Summit

Biology teaches that any given stimulus will elicit some sort of response. Similarly, Isaac Newton taught us that one force provokes another, in direct opposition to it. Although various life experience may “elicit” a response, our emotions tend to gravitate towards the laws of physics rather than biology. It may seem counterintuitive, but the pressure of provocation is arguably the best method of impelling us to act. Adversity, after all, stimulates, coerces, and sharpens people in ways that prosperity simply cannot. Indeed, it allows us to test the boundaries of our assumptions, to expand our knowledge of diverging opinions, but ultimately, to help us determine where our truth lies. Similarly, in her belligerent manifesto entitled, “The Unconstitutional 40 Year War on Students,” Maureen ‘Moe’ Tkacik deliberately infuriates her audience—25 to 35 year old college graduates frustrated with their mounting student debt—through her sarcastically crafted narrative of an elitist opposition in order to incite revolutionary fervor; Tkacik does not simply request a response—she demands one.

Then further on, 76 percent of those who did answer the survey, were students believing that the media should have rights to cover a college protest. However, roughly half wanted to tilt the reports in their favor, be left alone during protests, and to tell their own stories online on their social media. This number increased for African Americans in college. (Simon) It seems today we have infantilized our future youth into being mindless adults incapable of holding rational, logical debates. Just an emotional outcry of what could be or what appears to be, senseless censorship by colleges and universities. Most of which are under the government’s control.