I'm Not *Qualified* to Talk About This, but...

I’m not very good at reading dense works.

I lose focus, my eyes wander away from the text, and suddenly I find myself thinking “gee I wonder what it would be like if people could independently move every hair on their bodies”.

… yeah I know that’s weird but that’s just how my brain is sometimes. Try not to dwell on that too much (trust me, it leads to even weirder questions).

Moving on from that, I found Teresa Thonney’s work “Teaching the Conventions of Academic Discourse” to be… challenging. Of course, it was targeted at and intended for academics and scholarly folks who can actually read or listen to things like this without letting their minds wander to strange places. For some college students it’s pretty challenging to sit down and avidly read this kind of text without simultaneously playing music or videos as background noise, or stopping every few minutes to check their phones even when they know there’s been absolutely no change.

Yes I am guilty of this.

No it’s not bad if you are too.

But for me personally, I could still find interest in Thonney discussed because I love to write. I’m more of a fictional writer myself, occasionally doing some social commentaries or poems, or whatever else I’m in the mood for (and those are all just for fun). Talks about writing of any kind manage to pique my interest about ⅔ of the time, primarily because I’m always looking to improve my writing. I mean seriously, if I can find tips on how to write consistently or overcome writer’s block I shoot over the moon.

You’d understand my sentiments if you had 5 or so stories that haven’t moved–

For 3

YEARS.

But enough about that, let’s get back to Thonney.

It was a difficult read, but a good read. However, for college students who need to be able to put out essays and reports of a high academic level, a reading like this which explains some of the fundamentals of being an academic writer could be crucial to writing higher level papers that their professors may expect of them. Despite the difficulties that come with an academic text like this, it was made a little easier to read as Thonney broke paragraphs down to make the text less dense, and formatted it to create a sort of outline for what would be addressed when. For me, doing these made it a bit easier to read and process, which I liked.

Some of the academic writers and works she referenced throughout the text also helped to make it a little more interesting, as they provided examples for what she herself explained.

The text is most basically broken down into 7 sections, 6 of the 7 focusing on things academic writers do, and the last providing a list of tips and advice for students.  One of these sections was on acknowledgement of different positions. Nowadays, when the idea of freedom of speech and expression are constantly perpetuated and defended, allowing for most everyone to have and form their own opinions, it’s important for writers of any level to understand that others will not always agree with them, and that’s entirely normal. To address the possibility of disagreements, most writers make use of qualifiers to subtly include other perspectives, or at least acknowledge their existence.

In fact, I just used one there. “Most writers”. Because of course not every writer will use qualifiers, but for the most part academics will.

Using qualifiers can be crucial to students, especially when making claims or arguments about aspects of society, humanity, or another potentially controversial topics. It’s important to know how to structure any statements you make so they don’t lose their effectiveness by making an argument that wrongly makes a blanket statement over the whole of the topic.

For example, saying that feminists are women would be a weak claim since it assumes that all feminists are women. A much stronger statement would be to say that a majority of feminists are women, since this acknowledges that not every feminist is a woman, but that many are.

… I’m taking women’s studies ok? Got feminism on the brain.

And I see qualifiers used often in the texts we read for the course. They’re used often, and very effective when used correctly. Qualifiers could create pathos or logos appeals, depending on which topics they're being used for and which qualifiers are used. Ultimately it's all a matter of fact and opinion, and differentiating between the two.

In my opinion Thonney's piece was a tough read, but I also think it was worth reading.

Savings over Solidarity

Another day, another blog post, another discussion of the American education system, because I’ve somehow become obsessive about the topic after reading this book.

Thanks Chomsky.

But really, I appreciate the validation of some ideas that had briefly passed my mind many times in the past. Public schools get attacked, education is constructed in a way that builds up memorization more than actual learning and development of skills, and kids are drugged up to increase their performance like body-builders trying to increase their muscle mass. And of course any children who can’t meet the standards are funneled into lower level jobs because that’s all anyone believes they can accomplish.

So here we are now in Chapter 5, talking about solidarity in relation to public education. Chomsky asserts that “We see it in the attack on public schools. Public schools are based on the principle of solidarity.” (66). In other words, public schools are run on the principle of caring for others, since public schools are run by government funding, which is derived from taxes on citizenry. When people pay their taxes, they fuel public schools so children can continue to get their education. But, unfortunately, the idea of solidarity is not ingrained in the mind of every tax payer, so America ends up with a group that supports privatization of education so that they don’t have to pay taxes to fuel kids that aren’t their own.

There’s a loss of certain human emotions that leads people to have these self-centered ideas. “I don’t have kids in public schools so my tax money shouldn’t go to public schools.” This is the sentiment that has begun to develop, according to Chomsky (no those are not his words but this is the basic idea).

Since education is such a major aspect of the American Dream which Chomsky seems to believe is dead or dying, the knowledge that it’s come under attack in recent years reflects pretty negatively on the dream. Using examples, rhetorical questions, and clever implementation of irony, he puts emphasis and support into the idea that public education, and in a larger scope the American Dream, are being attacked.

Through exemplification on page 66, Chomsky creates a sort of pathos appeal by drawing out feelings of anger, frustration, even betrayal for some. With the hypothetical american perspective presented, where an average citizen suddenly thinks ‘“I don’t have kids in school. Why should I pay taxes? Privatize it,”’ (66), youths who have just come out of that school system or are still in that school system would likely be hurt by such thoughts.

I mean, how could they not care about our education? They’re just so selfish, aren’t they?

And how about that ending statement, “That’s one of the jewels of America.” (67). How ironic that a growing wish for privatization of education to cut down some taxes would be likened to a jewel. A precious gem. Something that should bring thoughts of beauty to our minds.

Gotta love irony and sarcasm!

And so our passions are ignited; passions for a system of solidarity, of selflessness and support for our fellow man. Our eyes are opened to the brokenness of the current system and we find ourselves wishing for a solution. By creating these emotional appeals and drawing out hidden sentiment Chomsky garners support for this claim. 

After all, who wouldn’t agree with something after becoming so emotional about it?

An Emotional Tirade Over American Education

Don’t you just love it when people are willing to speak the truth about American institutions like the educational system, the economic system, and our system of government? When people speak out against various wrongs and injustices in our system without sugarcoating anything?
    Me too!
    And thank goodness for a guy like Noam Chomsky who does just that.
    In his book Requiem for the American Dream, he makes bold statements about everything wrong with American democracy and, well, America in general. Statements that, until you see or hear them, tend to go right over your head because you think “Nooo, America is waaaay better than that! Educational systems aren’t that shallow. Systems aren’t that corrupt.”
    It’s a hard pill to swallow but yes, my friends, it is that corrupt (score one for the pessimists).
    Let’s start with a glance at his views of the educational system, which I’d say is most relevant to us since we’re college students. Looking back, you can see the indoctrination he sheds light on from pages 19 to 21, as well as on pages 30 to 31. It starts in grade school, where students are tailored to memorize a certain set of skills that help them pass a test rather than learning concepts and skills that can actually be applied to life. At this time some are still allowed the youthful creativity that comes with being a child.
    Then middle school and high school hit you, and suddenly your creativity is sapped away. It becomes all about taking higher level classes, achieving higher test scores to make the school rank highly, being a super-student getting involved in school and sports and outdoor activities all while balancing the need to complete busywork so you can get straight A’s.
    Because B’s will never be good enough.
    Because C’s and D’s imply that the system is working just fine but you aren’t.
    Now in that, I understand that there are kids who just don’t try, hence the poor grades, but perhaps their unwillingness to put in the effort is also a reflection of a broken educational system. After all, if there are “doctors who give drugs to children in impoverished areas to try to improve their performance, knowing perfectly well that there’s nothing wrong with the children–there’s something wrong with the society,” (21). If a child has to be pumped full of drugs just to succeed in school, perhaps that school isn’t structured in a way to help them succeed through their own abilities. Perhaps society has purposely created an educational natural selection to weed out the kids who can’t stack up so only the “best” students get to achieve what every student is meant to achieve; so that the supposedly damaged kids who can’t perform will be sorted into menial jobs that nobody wants while the straight A’s and honor students get a shot at greatness.
    I know because I’ve lived it. I’ve seen friends expelled because they couldn’t fit into the schools standards; intelligent people flunking out of high school or college because they couldn’t meet the school's expectations.
    Because in American schools our intelligence and skills are most often not measured. It is our ability to follow orders that is tested.
    We continue to support a system that doesn’t support all of us; some still live with the remnants of the “separate but equal” clause because the majority of America is too slow and complacent to acknowledge that it’s still an issue today; kids can no longer aspire to be artists or musicians or dancers or anything creative because those occupations do not meet the American expectations.
    Why do I find this so problematic?
    Why is it that broken educational systems and stymied creativity are so important to me?
    This is my life. This was my dream, to pursue the arts in the country where I believed as a child that I could.
    Here I am now, pursuing environmental engineering because I was told artists can almost never be successful. Because I was made to feel like my art and writing wasn’t good enough to stack up to the greats.
    Here I am unable to get my creative juices to flow as they did 10, 8, even 5 years ago.
    I know what Chomsky says about the broken system is true, but despite my mostly pessimistic outlook on life I hope for a day where my future children won’t live with this.
    I want to believe that one day, we can change the systems that control us for the better.

FALLACIES FALLACIES FALLACIES!

    Did ya’ll know there are wild parrots in Pasadena that just fly around in little flocks like it’s no big deal? Or that there’s a street in the same area filled with peacocks that just casually walk around or chill on top of people’s houses like they own the place?
    Weird right?
    Having these strange, exotic, colorful birds living in neighborhoods that aren’t even rich enough to afford such luxurious animals as pets makes you think of them as being out of place, right?
    And so brings on the topic of fallacies, which are essentially faulty reasoning in arguments that can render said arguments invalid. Fallacies, like these exotic birds in Pasadena, really don’t belong in arguments. Rebecca Jones in her essay “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic” identifies them as problems within argument. But why are fallacies so problematic? According to Jones a fallacious argument “can result in a standoff rather than a solution,” and “pose real ethical problems” (pg 18, pdf).
    For example: I once voiced my opinions on suicide and mental issues online. As you can probably predict, it didn’t go well. I tried to be an advocate for a group of people being rudely insulted and harassed, and rather than engaging in a conversation of course those doing the harassing turned on me and met my arguments with fallacies. They didn’t care what points I made or raised, they simply insulted me in whatever ways they could.
    “I bet you’re autistic just like these (insert curse word here because cursing on this blog post might be a bad idea)”
    “You’re only defending them because you’re as retarded as they are.”
    “You only spoke up because you want people to think you’re better than us. You speak the way you do because you do think you’re better than us!”
    There was plenty more where that come from but you get the idea. This, my friends, is ad hominem, a type of fallacy that addresses the person rather than the argument the person makes. If you need another example think of two politicians debating only to resort to negatively commenting on each other’s appearances.
    It makes you seem a little weaker, don’t you think? Like you can’t meet the level of argument they make so you fall back on cheap tactics to try to bring them down to your level.
    Let’s consider another one. I once heard a story of a woman going to a metal concert and being verbally harassed by some… well, creeps (not even going to try to sugar coat that one). When she wasn’t looking one of them pulled her top down and shoved her into a huge group of  large, intense looking metal heads. You’d see this and automatically assume most of them would either join in on the action and jump her, stand by and watch it happen as they oggle her, or not pay attention and basically stomp on her. But the exact opposite happened; they helped her up and covered her, with one even helping her fix her shirt; what’s more, two of the gentle giants asked who did it and proved to be not so gentle in dealing with him.
    If that doesn’t restore some or your faith in humanity I don’t know what else to tell you.
    Now, the fallacy I gave an example of was simply known as jumping to conclusions. “Since they’re male metalheads, and metalheads often have tough looking appearances, they must be violent.” Making such assumptions with little to no reason behind them makes for weak arguments and major ethical issues. It’s proven to be quite offensive to. A more extreme example would be assuming that every illegal immigrant from Mexico is a rapist, murderer, or drug-pusher.
    Offensive.
    These are just two of many possible fallacies that people use daily. At times, fallacies can be harmless, like in wrongly jumping to the conclusion that maroon isn’t dark red because maroon isn’t called dark red. But as Jones says about one of Aristotle's works, “he claims that everything good can be used for harm, so rhetoric is no different from other fields.” Arguments can be used for good, and are used for good, but even they are subject to misuse by humanity. The fact that they are intangible doesn’t make them immune to humanity's ability to turn something good into an instrument for harm. We’ve seen it used throughout history for bad intentions; during times of war and peace, when the country is unified or divided, through racism, sexism, classism, and whatever other isms I can’t think of at this moment, arguments have been used for the good and not-so-good.
    Humanity as a whole will never progress if we continue to use argument this way, especially since argument is so essential in a civilized society. So, how do we fix it?
    How do we get rid of these fallacies and other harmful tools within argument?
    It starts with families; with parents teaching their kids that making harsh and baseless assumptions is wrong; with parents making sure their kids know that people will have different opinions and that is perfectly acceptable; with parents teaching their kids little by little how to be civil and not insulting.
It starts in schools teaching students how to debate and argue properly; with teachers showing students the rights and wrongs in argument and reinforcing those teachings; with students engaging with each other in friendly conversation; with students and staff creating a safe environment where opinions can be voiced without fear of judgement or attack.
    It starts with us, breaking the cycle.