Rhetorical Analysis Of 'NO FEDERAL FUNDS?'

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.

With a wide variety of people on colleges campuses, it is almost impossible to please everybody; whether it comes to class times, bus schedules, or grading rules, somebody is upset. As well as these smaller issues, more controversial arguments come into play. One of these arguments is against free speech zones on college campuses. These zones restrict speech to a specific area on campus, however, still allowing any type of group to express their beliefs to anybody passing. Some claim these zones as unconstitutional because it restricts a student’s right to free speech. However, others view the zones as helpful in controlling protests and current tensions on campus. Open speech across campus is incredibly difficult to monitor because of the enormous size of current day campuses and the immense amount of different views. In the past, there have been situations relating to violent protesting and negative speech across campuses. Because of this, campuses have begun enforcing free speech zones in which students and faculty may verbally express their beliefs.

Thomas Paine writes a series of persuasive essays called “The crisis”. Paine writes “The Crisis Volume 1” to talk about how King George's tyranny must be stopped. The United States have suffered enough from being under King George's control. America has to go out and fight even though it will be hard in the beginning. Paine uses the rhetorical strategies such as an aphoristic style and analogy.

Despite their opinions, free speech was a great way in this situation for students to rally together and publically inform the rest of campus of their beliefs. In the school newspaper, The Daily Emerald, CJ Ciaramelle wrote “About 300 students from across the campus community — student unions, Greek Life, the ASUO, the Survival Center, the Women’s Center — showed up at the meeting to protest the Forum” (1). Although the majority of people protested against the forum the right to free speech, it is important because it allows students to make decisions on their own and invite students to do the same.

The University decide who can write what where does negatively impact the first amendment right of students. However, I also believe that the way they showed their support for Trump can be found as offensive to some. In this case, more political correctness may have limited the negative light shined on this situation.

“Free Inquiry? Not on Campus” by John Leo is an important essay that shows exactly how important it is to protect people's political views and opinions. In Leo's essay, he elaborates how times have changed and how we live in more of a liberal left-wing society and because of this everyone has to be more politically correct. Leo talks about the social change universities and colleges on how they used to promote free speech, but now are more like the speech police telling us what's opinions you should have on any given subject and any other opinion is considered wrong. Leo gives an example of this and writes “in October 2007, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group.The students shouted they have no right to

Moreover, Bok cannot be considered as a credible source simply because of his familiarity with Harvard University. Although he was educated and served as president of Harvard, one cannot deem him an expert on the topic of freedom of expression. Bok does not make a single reference to any work he has completed that would make him any more qualified, to speak about this topic, than any other person. On the other hand, Bok successfully incorporates both sides of the argument and attempted to explain why his way of going about the issue was the most beneficial overall. For example, he describes the incident as “a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community based on mutual respect.” With this, he refers to people’s desire to say what they please while keeping it appropriate for anyone to hear. The reader is convinced by his reference to both sides of the argument. Further, he goes into detail regarding why people should and should not regulate or restrict their First Amendment rights. In turn, the reader is slightly convinced of the author’s argument because he accurately conveyed the positions of whom he disagrees with.

Lawrence sheds light upon the very turbulent issue of the First Amendment right to the Freedom of speech in contrast to the inequality caused by its misuse through racially bias speech. The author states that the University officials should endorse some sort policy that will protect the rights of those who are victimized by this “racial nuisance,” while at the same time not censoring our constitutional right of free speech, “I am troubled by the way the debates has been framed in response to the recent surge of racist incidents on college and university campuses and in response universities attempts to regulate harassing speech” (Lawrence，65). Continually, Lawrence defines the set of ideals that the First Amendment was based on, particularly; equality. He goes on to show the audience that this very balance is

Authors of both articles disagree the suppressing and censoring of free speech observed in some universities. While Rampell is disheartened by violent reactions of students upon reading a conservative essay written by a ‘moderate conservative’ in a student newspaper, Stone and Creeley are worried, in general, about the broader measures of censoring free speech across universities. Rampell, in particular, had direct access to the writer of the conservative essay, which gave her a deeper understanding of the actual reactions and subsequent happenings. Stone and Creeley had off hand access to the past happenings of three individual cases of censoring free speech expressions by teaching faculties. In one case, a university dissented to a faculty member’s published essay on

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

In “On the Want of Money”, a 19th century text, William Hazzlit presents a strong position on the role of currency in society and the ironic relationship between man and his status through use of rhetoric; such as but not limited to syntax, repetition, and imagery. In doing so, Hazzlit strengthens his argument and gives more weight to his claims that support the idea that in possession of money and lack thereof man is miserable in his ways. Ownership leaves man alienated from friends and family, to be commemorated by a lonely, seldom frequented monument of massive proportions. Austerity dictates lives, limiting those in pursuit of wealth to a constant, consuming search. In summation, the concept of money is hopeless

Free speech on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

The Harvard faculty did not react to the incident that happened on the campus until President Bok 's speech on March 12. Derek Bok, he was the president of Harvard University, he implied that he is not the supporter for both sides. When he stood up for the justice and solved the disagreements that have risen up within the Harvard community, he appeared to imply carefully and rethink as a highly educated lawyer. His ideas and suggestions for resolving the problem, unlike the other universities and colleges, they were peaceful and properly conducted. Bok comments that when speaking about the universities who have “enacted codes to protect their communities from forms of speech that are deemed to be insensitive to the feelings of other groups” Bok created caution that these universities actually ignored or even violated the First Amendment.

In Carol Costello’s article “At Berkeley, don’t feed the provocateurs” she states that University of Cal. Berkeley is being use as a political platform for professional provocateurs to stir up trouble and cause clashing political views to riot and act out against each other. Part of me agrees with what she has to say because there are constant riots at Berkeley due to Conservatives being labeled as white supremacists. I do not understand why an extremely Liberal university keeps hosting staunch conservative speakers. Furthermore, having Milo Yiannopoulos come speak at Berkeley is just asking for trouble. After countless riots anyone would think that they would let the angered anti-fascists and fascists cool down. But, that is not the case

An online petition signed by 2,000 observed that UCI administration did little to protect the students from the hateful comments and death threats directed toward them on our school’s official Facebook page. Instead of protecting and supporting vulnerable students, the school administration issued a statement denouncing the six students that supported the resolution. They asserted that the ban was somehow the work of a fringe group of students, not part of a student-elected body of government with the power to set such policies in place. The school chancellor, Howard Gillman, added fire to the flame, claiming that “it was outrageous and indefensible that they would question the appropriateness of displaying the American flag on this great campus”. Instead of supporting the students’ exercising their freedom of speech, the official campus response was criticize the students who were already being put under attack by the public at