Kristi Feucht
June 8, 2007
Title: John Irvings title "Wrestling with Title IX", gives the impression that there is something amiss with Title IX. He tells that his topic will revolve around Title IX. He also ties in "wrestling" with many of his examples throughout the essay.
Thesis: Irving states in his thesis that "Title IX may be in for an overhaul" in the very first sentence of his essay. He doesn't explain what he personally would like changed until the second paragraph.
Purpose: Irvings purpose in this essay is not to get rid of Title IX, but to go back to the original meaning of it. Congress passed Title IX in 1972 to "put an end to sex discrimination in schools."
Method: Irving uses many examples throughout his essay of schools that have had to cut men's programs in order to keep it equal with women's programs to comply with Title IX. He has pointed out how some schools have tried to go to drastic measures to provide new women's sports instead of cutting men's sports. He also points out how many male students don't have the oppurtunity to play at college level because of the gender inequality of sports.
Persona: Irving comes across as a regular law abiding citizen. He also shows how he stays involved in politics and is not afraid to stand by his decisions regarding touchy subjects such as abortion.
Closing Paragraph: In Irving's closing paragraph he uses a personal quote from an umpire. It is a small but powerful quote that can be applied to many things, including this essay.
Impressions: The feelings I get from this essay are that Irving is correct. The law is being misinterpreted. Congress needs to reevaluate the original meaning of Title IX and then create a new law pertaining to gender equality among sports if so needed. I personally feel there should be no such law. Going back to the essay about Arizona State University trying to create a women's rowing team in a state where there is no water is ridiculus that a school would have to go to those measures to keep a program in their school from being cut. I agree with Irving and the Little League umpire, "Play fair!"
Friday, June 8, 2007
Wrestling with Title IX
Wrestling with Title IX
John Irving
Title: From the title of this essay, readers can already gather that there is going to be some type of argument going on. Irving uses the word wrestling, which would mean going back and forth on Title IX. Because Title IX is also included in the title, readers know that Irving will know a little about what Title IX is, and will explain his position on it. We can't conclude just from the title Irving's thoughts on Title IX without reading the essay. Because we don't know his thoughts just yet, the title doesn't portray any persona. What we can conclude, though, is that we know his thesis and topic will probably be about Title IX.
Thesis: In the first paragraph, Irving gives a hint to what his thesis is going to be about. "Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal assistance, may be in for an overhaul." (193). Irving keeps giving information on what Title IX is before he gets to his point. He states that there are two Title XI's. One that was the original in 1972 and a re-evaluation of it in 1979. By the fourth paragraph, Irving makes it clear that the re-interpreted Title XI requires proportionality, "but in order to acieve gender proportionality, men's collegiate sports are being undermined and eliminated." (194).
Purpose: Irving makes it clear that he is trying to persuade his readers to go along with his views on why the enforcement of proportionality is wrong. He tries to make it seem like men are being discriminated against when it comes to this law. He wants his readers to agree with him, and he does this by supporting his argument.
Method: The way in which Irving supports his argument is through statistics and examples. If I was just reading this essay with no examples or any kind of numbers that show statistics, I would think he is making stuff up aboout men's athlete programs being eliminated because I haven't heard of anything about it. He gives a good definition of what the interpreted rule is, "the ratio of male to female athletes be proportionate to the ratio of male to female students at a particular college." (194). He then goes on to say that "on average, females make up about 56% of the college enrollment, males 44%. This means more than half the athletes on team rosters must be women." (194). Because of this, men's teams are being cut. Irving tells of wrestling teams that are arguing about being discriminated against and why they are so upset. He says that wrestling has been a rapidly growing sport at the high school level and backs this up with a cited statistic of a wrestling projects director. "In 2001, there were 244,984 athletes wrestling in high school; only 5,966 got to wrestle in the N.C.A.A." (195). He goes on to give examples of teams being dropped even with their finances are in order, meaning the only other reason the sport was dropped was to comply with gender proportionality.
Irving uses negative words to help his argument. He uses words such as wrong, lazy. discrimination, dropped, ludicrous, etc. These all help his readers to identify with his negative feelings about the new Title IX.
Persona: After reading this essay, it is clear that Irving presents himself as a supporter of men's athletics and that the new Title IX isn't right. Even though he is a man, he clearly states that he is a woman's advocate and doesn't have hostile feelings toward women, but that he just wants to eliminate discrimination against male athletes. He does a good job of proving this when he gives the example of the ASU rowing team that tried to create more opportunites for women rather than cutting male collegiate sports.
Closing Paragraph: In Irving's last attempt to try and persuade his readers, he includes a short story about what an umpire said before a baseball game. He relates that to Title IX by saying, "Keep Title IX; eliminate proportionality. Play Fair." (197). This does a good job of wrapping up thoughts and leaving the audience with something to think about. This creates a united feeling that discrimination isn't fair and shouldn't be objected to.
Impressions: After reading this essay, I think that Irving is right about his view on the re-evaluated Title IX. Men should not be discriminated against just because they are more interested in college sports than women are. They are more involved in athletics all around, and should not have to suffer because female interest isn't there. I thought Irving did a good job on backing up his views with all of his examples that he gave. He really made me think about this issue in detail and why a rule like this is even in existence. I agree with eliminating proportionality and letting males compete.
Brittany Lake
John Irving
Title: From the title of this essay, readers can already gather that there is going to be some type of argument going on. Irving uses the word wrestling, which would mean going back and forth on Title IX. Because Title IX is also included in the title, readers know that Irving will know a little about what Title IX is, and will explain his position on it. We can't conclude just from the title Irving's thoughts on Title IX without reading the essay. Because we don't know his thoughts just yet, the title doesn't portray any persona. What we can conclude, though, is that we know his thesis and topic will probably be about Title IX.
Thesis: In the first paragraph, Irving gives a hint to what his thesis is going to be about. "Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal assistance, may be in for an overhaul." (193). Irving keeps giving information on what Title IX is before he gets to his point. He states that there are two Title XI's. One that was the original in 1972 and a re-evaluation of it in 1979. By the fourth paragraph, Irving makes it clear that the re-interpreted Title XI requires proportionality, "but in order to acieve gender proportionality, men's collegiate sports are being undermined and eliminated." (194).
Purpose: Irving makes it clear that he is trying to persuade his readers to go along with his views on why the enforcement of proportionality is wrong. He tries to make it seem like men are being discriminated against when it comes to this law. He wants his readers to agree with him, and he does this by supporting his argument.
Method: The way in which Irving supports his argument is through statistics and examples. If I was just reading this essay with no examples or any kind of numbers that show statistics, I would think he is making stuff up aboout men's athlete programs being eliminated because I haven't heard of anything about it. He gives a good definition of what the interpreted rule is, "the ratio of male to female athletes be proportionate to the ratio of male to female students at a particular college." (194). He then goes on to say that "on average, females make up about 56% of the college enrollment, males 44%. This means more than half the athletes on team rosters must be women." (194). Because of this, men's teams are being cut. Irving tells of wrestling teams that are arguing about being discriminated against and why they are so upset. He says that wrestling has been a rapidly growing sport at the high school level and backs this up with a cited statistic of a wrestling projects director. "In 2001, there were 244,984 athletes wrestling in high school; only 5,966 got to wrestle in the N.C.A.A." (195). He goes on to give examples of teams being dropped even with their finances are in order, meaning the only other reason the sport was dropped was to comply with gender proportionality.
Irving uses negative words to help his argument. He uses words such as wrong, lazy. discrimination, dropped, ludicrous, etc. These all help his readers to identify with his negative feelings about the new Title IX.
Persona: After reading this essay, it is clear that Irving presents himself as a supporter of men's athletics and that the new Title IX isn't right. Even though he is a man, he clearly states that he is a woman's advocate and doesn't have hostile feelings toward women, but that he just wants to eliminate discrimination against male athletes. He does a good job of proving this when he gives the example of the ASU rowing team that tried to create more opportunites for women rather than cutting male collegiate sports.
Closing Paragraph: In Irving's last attempt to try and persuade his readers, he includes a short story about what an umpire said before a baseball game. He relates that to Title IX by saying, "Keep Title IX; eliminate proportionality. Play Fair." (197). This does a good job of wrapping up thoughts and leaving the audience with something to think about. This creates a united feeling that discrimination isn't fair and shouldn't be objected to.
Impressions: After reading this essay, I think that Irving is right about his view on the re-evaluated Title IX. Men should not be discriminated against just because they are more interested in college sports than women are. They are more involved in athletics all around, and should not have to suffer because female interest isn't there. I thought Irving did a good job on backing up his views with all of his examples that he gave. He really made me think about this issue in detail and why a rule like this is even in existence. I agree with eliminating proportionality and letting males compete.
Brittany Lake
A Blog for Flogging
Title - Jeff Jacoby's Essay; "Bring Back Flogging" grabs the readers attention right away with some very visual descriptions of Puritan flogging. Jeff Jacoby's title; Bring Back Flogging, right away lets the reader know what the topic of his essay is and gives the reader some insight as to what his thesis is.
Thesis - By the end of the second paragraph, readers should be aware that Jeff Jacoby's thesis is; flogging is just as humane as prison and more effective; both mentally and fiscaly. Jacoby makes this distiniction clear wih the last sentence in his second paragraph; "Now we practice a more enlightened, more humane way of discipling wrongdoers: We lock them up in cages."
Purpose - Jacoby's purpose is very clear in that he wants readers to realize that our system of imprisioning first-time non violent criminals could be better dealt with by corproal punishment; more specifically public corpoal punishment. Jacoby while making an argument, does not prsent his writing with the typical verbage that you might expect from a stright forward argument. Jacoby manages to blend enough verbage and statistics to make you really think about his argument; regardless of your political position.
Method - Jacoby uses quite a few diffrent statistics and quotes from a least one expert to present his argument. Jacoby does this with great pose and profesionallism. A good example of this is in paragraph 6 and 7 where Jacoby states the cost of housing one inmate is $30,000 a year and a painful and humiliating paddling is far less expensive and probably more effective. Jacoby also points out that Prison has become a "status symbol" for many people and going to prison is considered a right of passage so to speak for some people. Jacoby does take note to make sure and make the distinction that in modern society we would not punish people for blasphemy or adultry. Nor would we use hot irons to pierce people's tounges as a form of punishmnet. It was crucial that Jacoby made this statement in his essay, had he not I believe his essay would have met with harsher critisicim then it already did.
Persona - Jeff Jacoby presents himself as a very serious, yet fair individual. He recognizes that some crimes are worthy of prison, but we need to re-evaluate sending so called small time crooks to hang out with murders and rapists. Jacobys use of plenty of statistics helps to present himself as a veryknowledgable individual.
Closing Paragraph - Jacoby closes very simply by letting peopel know that maybe we can leran a few things from our forefathers. Their methoid of punishmnet while embarassing and painful was effective both mentally and financialy.
Impression - I was very intrigued by Jacoby's essay. At first reading I thought this was ridiculous and out of the question, but after re-reading and thinking about it, Jacoby presents some very valid points. The number of inmates raped every year is one of those. Over two hundred thousand inmates raped without guard knowledge! Subjecting thieves and small time crooks to this danger clearly seems more cruel then a public whipping. Teh cost to house one inmate per year, are small time crooks worth this amount? I beleive Jacoby opens the door to a very powerful topic and some very interesting debates.
Matthew Smith
Blog Assignment week 4
Thesis - By the end of the second paragraph, readers should be aware that Jeff Jacoby's thesis is; flogging is just as humane as prison and more effective; both mentally and fiscaly. Jacoby makes this distiniction clear wih the last sentence in his second paragraph; "Now we practice a more enlightened, more humane way of discipling wrongdoers: We lock them up in cages."
Purpose - Jacoby's purpose is very clear in that he wants readers to realize that our system of imprisioning first-time non violent criminals could be better dealt with by corproal punishment; more specifically public corpoal punishment. Jacoby while making an argument, does not prsent his writing with the typical verbage that you might expect from a stright forward argument. Jacoby manages to blend enough verbage and statistics to make you really think about his argument; regardless of your political position.
Method - Jacoby uses quite a few diffrent statistics and quotes from a least one expert to present his argument. Jacoby does this with great pose and profesionallism. A good example of this is in paragraph 6 and 7 where Jacoby states the cost of housing one inmate is $30,000 a year and a painful and humiliating paddling is far less expensive and probably more effective. Jacoby also points out that Prison has become a "status symbol" for many people and going to prison is considered a right of passage so to speak for some people. Jacoby does take note to make sure and make the distinction that in modern society we would not punish people for blasphemy or adultry. Nor would we use hot irons to pierce people's tounges as a form of punishmnet. It was crucial that Jacoby made this statement in his essay, had he not I believe his essay would have met with harsher critisicim then it already did.
Persona - Jeff Jacoby presents himself as a very serious, yet fair individual. He recognizes that some crimes are worthy of prison, but we need to re-evaluate sending so called small time crooks to hang out with murders and rapists. Jacobys use of plenty of statistics helps to present himself as a veryknowledgable individual.
Closing Paragraph - Jacoby closes very simply by letting peopel know that maybe we can leran a few things from our forefathers. Their methoid of punishmnet while embarassing and painful was effective both mentally and financialy.
Impression - I was very intrigued by Jacoby's essay. At first reading I thought this was ridiculous and out of the question, but after re-reading and thinking about it, Jacoby presents some very valid points. The number of inmates raped every year is one of those. Over two hundred thousand inmates raped without guard knowledge! Subjecting thieves and small time crooks to this danger clearly seems more cruel then a public whipping. Teh cost to house one inmate per year, are small time crooks worth this amount? I beleive Jacoby opens the door to a very powerful topic and some very interesting debates.
Matthew Smith
Blog Assignment week 4
Flogging vs. Jail Time
Sara Tillman
June 8, 2007
Why is it that most people follow rules in life? The answer to this question is simple; with every wrong doing there is a consequences. In the 1600's the consequences was termed "flogging" as Jeff Jacoby tells in his essay "Bring Back Flogging". Jacoby tells about how flogging was used as a means of punishment in the 1600's versus our penal system today. With flogging the person breaking the law would be physically punished or publicly humiliated He asked, should our country bring back flogging as punishment instead of putting law breakers in jail. Jacoby makes many good points in his essay, but fails to go into detail about how harsh the jail system really is. American jails are filled with gangs that physically torture each other. Furthermore, some of the torture is not only physical, but it is also mental. Flogging would not be successful today because there are so many people in America that would turn around and sue the judicial system for their punishment. Flogging may have worked a couple hundred years ago, but times are very different now and this form of punishment would not be successful in America.
In Jacoby's essay he makes is seem like the jail system is basically a training camp for criminal to perfect their talents. Furthermore, we are paying for this training with our tax paying dollars. Jacoby makes a point, but these prisoners turn out this way because of all of the torture that they have endured will they are serving their prison time. Jails are filled with gangs that spend most of their time in jail fighting with other gangs. Jacoby's idea of flogging is a one time, harsh punishment, but in jail the punishment can last a life time. Prisoner can have years to think about their wrong doing, while the victims of flogging may be able move on with their lives since the are not confined following their persecution.
Not only do prisoners in jail receive physical abuse, they are also psychologically abused. Many prisoners live in constant fear of what is going to happen to them next. There is a fear that one may be beaten severely, rapped by other inmates, or even killed by the abuse. This like flogging is a form of torture that would make any person scared to return to jail.
In jail inmates receive some sort of torture whether or not it is physical or emotional, but this abuse is not by the prison guards or other members of the judicial system it is done by the prisoner's peers. The main reason that flogging would not work in today's society is that the judicial system would have to worry constantly about victims of flogging suing for physical or emotional damages. In Jacoby's article he states that the amount that we spend "is $30,000 per inmate per year" that they are in jail. If a person decided to sue from the damages of flogging they would very likely sue for millions versus thousands. So we would not only be putting criminal back into society, but they would also have money to live their corrupt life.
Jacoby's point that our penal is not perfect, but his idea of using flogging as a punishment system also has its downfalls. Putting criminals into jail give the inmates time to think about what they did, but also is a form of torture like flogging is. There is physical and psychological elements to deal with, but these inmates have no need to sue for damages from this torture because it was done by their peers. Furthermore, will theses prisoners are serving their time in jail they are off the streets and this means that the streets are safer.
June 8, 2007
Why is it that most people follow rules in life? The answer to this question is simple; with every wrong doing there is a consequences. In the 1600's the consequences was termed "flogging" as Jeff Jacoby tells in his essay "Bring Back Flogging". Jacoby tells about how flogging was used as a means of punishment in the 1600's versus our penal system today. With flogging the person breaking the law would be physically punished or publicly humiliated He asked, should our country bring back flogging as punishment instead of putting law breakers in jail. Jacoby makes many good points in his essay, but fails to go into detail about how harsh the jail system really is. American jails are filled with gangs that physically torture each other. Furthermore, some of the torture is not only physical, but it is also mental. Flogging would not be successful today because there are so many people in America that would turn around and sue the judicial system for their punishment. Flogging may have worked a couple hundred years ago, but times are very different now and this form of punishment would not be successful in America.
In Jacoby's essay he makes is seem like the jail system is basically a training camp for criminal to perfect their talents. Furthermore, we are paying for this training with our tax paying dollars. Jacoby makes a point, but these prisoners turn out this way because of all of the torture that they have endured will they are serving their prison time. Jails are filled with gangs that spend most of their time in jail fighting with other gangs. Jacoby's idea of flogging is a one time, harsh punishment, but in jail the punishment can last a life time. Prisoner can have years to think about their wrong doing, while the victims of flogging may be able move on with their lives since the are not confined following their persecution.
Not only do prisoners in jail receive physical abuse, they are also psychologically abused. Many prisoners live in constant fear of what is going to happen to them next. There is a fear that one may be beaten severely, rapped by other inmates, or even killed by the abuse. This like flogging is a form of torture that would make any person scared to return to jail.
In jail inmates receive some sort of torture whether or not it is physical or emotional, but this abuse is not by the prison guards or other members of the judicial system it is done by the prisoner's peers. The main reason that flogging would not work in today's society is that the judicial system would have to worry constantly about victims of flogging suing for physical or emotional damages. In Jacoby's article he states that the amount that we spend "is $30,000 per inmate per year" that they are in jail. If a person decided to sue from the damages of flogging they would very likely sue for millions versus thousands. So we would not only be putting criminal back into society, but they would also have money to live their corrupt life.
Jacoby's point that our penal is not perfect, but his idea of using flogging as a punishment system also has its downfalls. Putting criminals into jail give the inmates time to think about what they did, but also is a form of torture like flogging is. There is physical and psychological elements to deal with, but these inmates have no need to sue for damages from this torture because it was done by their peers. Furthermore, will theses prisoners are serving their time in jail they are off the streets and this means that the streets are safer.
Wrestling with Title IX: When Fair Become Unfair
Title: John Irving’s essay entitled Wrestling with Title IX poses a great argument and example of discrimination being discriminated against in society. The title of his essay is enticing and very creative, especially for his argument later on in the essay.
Thesis: Everyone is always trying to define what’s fair and determined as just within society. However, no matter how hard one tries, someone always claims and disagrees with a decision being made, accusing a new law as unfair and unjust itself. Irving argues against Title IX as a law used to enforce equal rights within the college and high school athletic setting, but the law in turn goes from a law advocating women’s rights to a law of violation to men’s rights, especially in wrestling.
Purpose: Irving goes about his essay in trying to get the reader to recognize what fairness really is and to persuade his readers to recognize the discrimination being experienced by men. The key to fairness is defining what is fair and just and realizing to learn to accept the fact that no matter where one goes or how hard one tries, fair is not always fair.
Method: Irving strongly demonstrates his knowledge as not only an excellent writer, but as someone who understands and knows his stuff. Irving establishes great credibility in his argument from the beginning when he gives knowledge to the reader that he himself was involved with the wrestling programs and therefore knows the rights and violations being administered first hand. The question posed from his reading is when does a law reach a level of fairness that is going to be accepted by all? Women’s rights have been a strong milestone that many advocates have had to oversee in the past decades. In fighting for their rights, Irving points out that once the law of Title IX was passed it has become a violation of men’s rights and their rights to equal opportunities in sports especially at the collegiate level.
College poses a great opportunity for anyone that decides to attend. It’s a place to make new friends, pursue your goal in whatever career field you decide to take on, and most importantly allows you to participate in new opportunities, especially sports. Conversely, not all students are being given that opportunity because of Title IX. In a country that allows for equal rights and equality through everything, Irving demonstrates that Title IX discriminates against men’s rights to play collegiate sports and does not give everyone the full opportunity to take on something new in their lives. Title IX states that colleges must meet one of three criteria, but Irving points out that in striving to meet those standards, men are being short changed. How are men supposed to have equal opportunity in sports when women are not as interested in intramurals or playing athletics at the college level as men? Why should men be punished because of a lack of participation by women? Not only do these pose strong questions, but Irving also supports his argument by pointing out that females make up about 56 percent of the college enrollment while men make up about 44 percent. In addition to that, men outrank women 4-1 or 3-1 in regards to intramural participation. In the middle of his argument, Irving poses an important question, “Can you imagine this rule being applied to all educational programs-classes in science, engineering, accounting, medicine or law? What about dance, drama or music-not to mention women’s studies”? With that in mind what would the point of getting an education be if that did happen? We would be right at the beginning of where we started with equal employment opportunities.
Persona: As mentioned before, Irving lets it be known to the reader his knowledge as a coach in wrestling and how Title IX has affected his life. By making the reader known of this, his argument is more credible and what he has to say is given a lot more respect from myself as a reader.
Closing Paragraph: I have one word for Irving’s closing paragraph: INSPIRING!! I was really impressed with the way in which he ended his essay because of how he pointed out that it’s not just at the collegiate level that people are trying to make things fair, but also for the younger age groups, even with Little League. Fairness is Irving’s main point that he’s trying to get across to his reader, and he does that by using his example of Little League involvement at the end of his essay.
Impression: Having cheered for wrestling in high school for two years I strongly agree and recognize how important of a sport it is to many men; and of course some women. As of right now I have a friend overseas wrestling for the junior Olympics in Bulgaria and Turkey and I’ve recognized how important this sport is to his life. So, why should men like my friend not be given that opportunity to continue to pursue something that he loves because of the ratio of women to men at his college could at one point in time become not fair. Honestly define fair? Is it fair to men that women have a lack of interest in sports? In the latter part of Irving’s essay he points out that although the number of high school wrestlers is high, the number of men allowed to wrestle at the collegiate level is extremely low, due to the ratio criterion. So, let’s take into perspective a different question. What are the men who aren’t allowed to wrestle doing with their time? Maybe they are the students who instead of taking time out of their day to go to wrestling practice, are the ones who are getting wasted on a school night, skipping classes the next day, hanging with the wrong crowd, and eventually flunking out of school. All because they were denied the right to participate in a sport that they love. Society often recognizes the importance of being involved in athletics and the opportunities that it gives to many students and college sports are no different.
Thesis: Everyone is always trying to define what’s fair and determined as just within society. However, no matter how hard one tries, someone always claims and disagrees with a decision being made, accusing a new law as unfair and unjust itself. Irving argues against Title IX as a law used to enforce equal rights within the college and high school athletic setting, but the law in turn goes from a law advocating women’s rights to a law of violation to men’s rights, especially in wrestling.
Purpose: Irving goes about his essay in trying to get the reader to recognize what fairness really is and to persuade his readers to recognize the discrimination being experienced by men. The key to fairness is defining what is fair and just and realizing to learn to accept the fact that no matter where one goes or how hard one tries, fair is not always fair.
Method: Irving strongly demonstrates his knowledge as not only an excellent writer, but as someone who understands and knows his stuff. Irving establishes great credibility in his argument from the beginning when he gives knowledge to the reader that he himself was involved with the wrestling programs and therefore knows the rights and violations being administered first hand. The question posed from his reading is when does a law reach a level of fairness that is going to be accepted by all? Women’s rights have been a strong milestone that many advocates have had to oversee in the past decades. In fighting for their rights, Irving points out that once the law of Title IX was passed it has become a violation of men’s rights and their rights to equal opportunities in sports especially at the collegiate level.
College poses a great opportunity for anyone that decides to attend. It’s a place to make new friends, pursue your goal in whatever career field you decide to take on, and most importantly allows you to participate in new opportunities, especially sports. Conversely, not all students are being given that opportunity because of Title IX. In a country that allows for equal rights and equality through everything, Irving demonstrates that Title IX discriminates against men’s rights to play collegiate sports and does not give everyone the full opportunity to take on something new in their lives. Title IX states that colleges must meet one of three criteria, but Irving points out that in striving to meet those standards, men are being short changed. How are men supposed to have equal opportunity in sports when women are not as interested in intramurals or playing athletics at the college level as men? Why should men be punished because of a lack of participation by women? Not only do these pose strong questions, but Irving also supports his argument by pointing out that females make up about 56 percent of the college enrollment while men make up about 44 percent. In addition to that, men outrank women 4-1 or 3-1 in regards to intramural participation. In the middle of his argument, Irving poses an important question, “Can you imagine this rule being applied to all educational programs-classes in science, engineering, accounting, medicine or law? What about dance, drama or music-not to mention women’s studies”? With that in mind what would the point of getting an education be if that did happen? We would be right at the beginning of where we started with equal employment opportunities.
Persona: As mentioned before, Irving lets it be known to the reader his knowledge as a coach in wrestling and how Title IX has affected his life. By making the reader known of this, his argument is more credible and what he has to say is given a lot more respect from myself as a reader.
Closing Paragraph: I have one word for Irving’s closing paragraph: INSPIRING!! I was really impressed with the way in which he ended his essay because of how he pointed out that it’s not just at the collegiate level that people are trying to make things fair, but also for the younger age groups, even with Little League. Fairness is Irving’s main point that he’s trying to get across to his reader, and he does that by using his example of Little League involvement at the end of his essay.
Impression: Having cheered for wrestling in high school for two years I strongly agree and recognize how important of a sport it is to many men; and of course some women. As of right now I have a friend overseas wrestling for the junior Olympics in Bulgaria and Turkey and I’ve recognized how important this sport is to his life. So, why should men like my friend not be given that opportunity to continue to pursue something that he loves because of the ratio of women to men at his college could at one point in time become not fair. Honestly define fair? Is it fair to men that women have a lack of interest in sports? In the latter part of Irving’s essay he points out that although the number of high school wrestlers is high, the number of men allowed to wrestle at the collegiate level is extremely low, due to the ratio criterion. So, let’s take into perspective a different question. What are the men who aren’t allowed to wrestle doing with their time? Maybe they are the students who instead of taking time out of their day to go to wrestling practice, are the ones who are getting wasted on a school night, skipping classes the next day, hanging with the wrong crowd, and eventually flunking out of school. All because they were denied the right to participate in a sport that they love. Society often recognizes the importance of being involved in athletics and the opportunities that it gives to many students and college sports are no different.
"Bring Back Flogging"
Michelle Horner
Blog Post Week 4
6/7/07
Analysis of Jacoby’s Essay “Bring Back Flogging”
Title The manner in which Jacoby will be conducting his essay is clear from the title. This title, “Bring Back Flogging” immediately grabs the readers attention, lets the reader know the thesis of the article and gives the reader a sense for the author’s stand on the subject. This is a powerful way to begin his essay.
Thesis I think the general thesis is given in the title of the essay. It gives us the view of the author: reinstating flogging as a punishment in our society. It is also good that Jacoby states his purpose so early on, before the essay is actually read! I think a more specific thesis is stated in the last sentence of the essay: “Maybe we should readopt a few.” This statement more clearly lets the reader know that it is not just suggested that we bring it back, but that we implement flogging back into our criminal justice system.
Purpose Although Jacoby does not use terms implying proof or drawing conclusion he does make it clear that this essay is persuasive. This can be seen, for example, with his us of rhetorical questions to make the reader think of the other points of view. He has presented these questions in such a way so that it would be absurd for the reader to agree with any other point than the one he is trying to make: to “bring back flogging.” Jacoby does make a clear distinction between the flogging of Puritans, and the manner in which he would use it in modern society. The line that Jacoby draws is at “corporal punishment that doesn’t maim or mutilate.” This is an important distinction for him to make in order to gain support for his thesis.
Methods Jacoby uses a variety of methods to gain the readers’ support. He uses a plethora of examples as well as quotes from credible authorities. His article begins with examples of punishments given by the Puritans. These examples point to the harshness of flogging in the past. He uses these examples to contrast with our current society’s standard of imprisonment. Jacoby refers to the term “cages” multiple time throughout his article to help persuade the reader to see punishment from his view. He also makes good use of authorities that have expertise on the subject of criminal justice such as “a noted Princeton criminologist.” Jacoby uses statistics throughout his essay to explain to the reader the horrors of our current punishment system. He uses these statistics to draw on the readers’ sympathy for the criminal who is put in a “cage” and has a high probability of being “beaten, raped, or murdered.” Finally, Jacoby uses rhetorical questions to draw the reader in and make them see that there is no other way besides brining back corporal punishment to deter these offenders and stop the “horrors” these inmates are subjected to. Some of these points may be slightly exaggerated; however, they do help to relate his point to the reader.
Persona Jacoby presents himself as an average man; however, he does have strong convictions. Jacoby uses his language to relate to the reader and to come across as one of “us.” He wants us to believe that he is just one of us, and that he is looking out for us as a society. Jacoby portrays himself in a way as to show us that he is trying to protect us from the “out of control” crime rate that is plaguing our society. It is almost as if he is sweeping in like a hero to save us.
Closing Paragraph I particularly think that the way in which Jacoby uses the term “enlightened” throughout his essay yet with wholly different meanings. Toward the beginning of his essay he describes our current system as “enlightened” since the Puritan age. He then proceeds to list the ways in which we are contrary to this view and arguably less humane than we were in the Puritan age. He then brings the essay to a close returning to the idea of enlightenment. He uses the term this time, to indicate that it was the Puritans that were, in fact, “enlightened.”
Impressions As a criminal justice major, I find Jacoby’s argument quite intriguing. Corporal punishment is a topic that is discussed quite frequently in criminal justice classes. I have had discussions regarding physical punishment and fines. It seems to me the underlying question is how much money, or how much physical punishment is each crime worth. In the case of fines for example, how do we determine how much money a life is worth in the case of murder? It is a question that I have wrestled with in my thoughts and in my classes, and I have never been able to formulate a clear set of punishments in that way. My classes have also taught me the value of proper treatment. I think that the best way to rehabilitate criminals is to provide a combination of treatment and punishment. Jacoby has a good point; punishment is not as effective as we would have hoped for. We need something else to help deter future crime. This is where proper treatment would come in. Notice my use of the word proper. Treatment will not be effective for all people, and it definitely will not be effective if the offender does not want it. There must be a balance of the two in order to make our criminal justice system effective. After all, our Eighth Amendment right protects us from “cruel and unusual punishment.” I do believe that flogging and public humiliation would fall into this category.
Blog Post Week 4
6/7/07
Analysis of Jacoby’s Essay “Bring Back Flogging”
Title The manner in which Jacoby will be conducting his essay is clear from the title. This title, “Bring Back Flogging” immediately grabs the readers attention, lets the reader know the thesis of the article and gives the reader a sense for the author’s stand on the subject. This is a powerful way to begin his essay.
Thesis I think the general thesis is given in the title of the essay. It gives us the view of the author: reinstating flogging as a punishment in our society. It is also good that Jacoby states his purpose so early on, before the essay is actually read! I think a more specific thesis is stated in the last sentence of the essay: “Maybe we should readopt a few.” This statement more clearly lets the reader know that it is not just suggested that we bring it back, but that we implement flogging back into our criminal justice system.
Purpose Although Jacoby does not use terms implying proof or drawing conclusion he does make it clear that this essay is persuasive. This can be seen, for example, with his us of rhetorical questions to make the reader think of the other points of view. He has presented these questions in such a way so that it would be absurd for the reader to agree with any other point than the one he is trying to make: to “bring back flogging.” Jacoby does make a clear distinction between the flogging of Puritans, and the manner in which he would use it in modern society. The line that Jacoby draws is at “corporal punishment that doesn’t maim or mutilate.” This is an important distinction for him to make in order to gain support for his thesis.
Methods Jacoby uses a variety of methods to gain the readers’ support. He uses a plethora of examples as well as quotes from credible authorities. His article begins with examples of punishments given by the Puritans. These examples point to the harshness of flogging in the past. He uses these examples to contrast with our current society’s standard of imprisonment. Jacoby refers to the term “cages” multiple time throughout his article to help persuade the reader to see punishment from his view. He also makes good use of authorities that have expertise on the subject of criminal justice such as “a noted Princeton criminologist.” Jacoby uses statistics throughout his essay to explain to the reader the horrors of our current punishment system. He uses these statistics to draw on the readers’ sympathy for the criminal who is put in a “cage” and has a high probability of being “beaten, raped, or murdered.” Finally, Jacoby uses rhetorical questions to draw the reader in and make them see that there is no other way besides brining back corporal punishment to deter these offenders and stop the “horrors” these inmates are subjected to. Some of these points may be slightly exaggerated; however, they do help to relate his point to the reader.
Persona Jacoby presents himself as an average man; however, he does have strong convictions. Jacoby uses his language to relate to the reader and to come across as one of “us.” He wants us to believe that he is just one of us, and that he is looking out for us as a society. Jacoby portrays himself in a way as to show us that he is trying to protect us from the “out of control” crime rate that is plaguing our society. It is almost as if he is sweeping in like a hero to save us.
Closing Paragraph I particularly think that the way in which Jacoby uses the term “enlightened” throughout his essay yet with wholly different meanings. Toward the beginning of his essay he describes our current system as “enlightened” since the Puritan age. He then proceeds to list the ways in which we are contrary to this view and arguably less humane than we were in the Puritan age. He then brings the essay to a close returning to the idea of enlightenment. He uses the term this time, to indicate that it was the Puritans that were, in fact, “enlightened.”
Impressions As a criminal justice major, I find Jacoby’s argument quite intriguing. Corporal punishment is a topic that is discussed quite frequently in criminal justice classes. I have had discussions regarding physical punishment and fines. It seems to me the underlying question is how much money, or how much physical punishment is each crime worth. In the case of fines for example, how do we determine how much money a life is worth in the case of murder? It is a question that I have wrestled with in my thoughts and in my classes, and I have never been able to formulate a clear set of punishments in that way. My classes have also taught me the value of proper treatment. I think that the best way to rehabilitate criminals is to provide a combination of treatment and punishment. Jacoby has a good point; punishment is not as effective as we would have hoped for. We need something else to help deter future crime. This is where proper treatment would come in. Notice my use of the word proper. Treatment will not be effective for all people, and it definitely will not be effective if the offender does not want it. There must be a balance of the two in order to make our criminal justice system effective. After all, our Eighth Amendment right protects us from “cruel and unusual punishment.” I do believe that flogging and public humiliation would fall into this category.
"Bring Back Flogging"
Taylor Effling
6/8/07
Title: Jacoby's title "Bring Back Flogging", grabs the attention of the reader with his use of the term "flogging". It is a word that brings with it connotations of a past time in history. Many readers will associate the word "flogging" with the punishment style of earlier centuries. So according to Jacoby’s title, "Bring Back Flogging", we know he supports physical punishments as a form of discipline for criminals . The title also gives us hints to his persona: He is a no nonsense guy, someone who seeks immediate results, and has no sympathy for criminals.
Thesis: The Thesis of Jacoby's essay simply stated is that he wants to bring back corporal forms of punishment. By the end of the fourth paragraph his readers know Jacoby believes that imprisonment, the present form of punishment used by the criminal justice system, is ineffective in deterring crime.
Purpose: The purpose of Jacoby's essay is to persuade the reader to adopt his view that using jail time as punishment for most crimes is costly and ineffective. Jacoby's essay does not show it is argumentative or persuasive by using any of the usual key terms. None of his statements are labeled "my reason" or "my conclusion". He never uses "therefore" or "because" to connect any sentences or clauses in his essay. Jacoby uses no key verbs such as verifies, accounts, confirms, disproves, or implies.
The argumentative nature of his essay is uncovered by the statement he makes at the beginning of paragraph five: "We cage criminals at a rate unsurpassed in the free world, yet few of us believe that the criminal justice system is a success."
Method: Jacoby's first method of argument is to cite examples of corporal punishment used by our forefathers, the Puritans. He gives no sources for these instances, but most people are aware that corporal punishment was used by certain groups of people in early American history. Jacoby uses these examples in the hope that the reader will see our forefathers' wisdom in choosing this method of punishment. Jacoby does not provide the reader with evidence that corporal punishment deterred crime.
When comparing todays method of punishment to corporal punishment, Jacoby uses sarcasm when he says, "Now we practice a more enlightened, more humane way of disciplining wrongdoers: We lock them up in cages." He wants the reader to question the humanity of incarcerating criminals. Society would like to believe that human kind has advanced not only technologically, but also in terms of human interaction.
Another method of argument Jacoby uses is to appeal to the readers emotion of fear. He cites statistics that say, "Fifty-eight percent of all murders do not result in prison term. Likewise 98 percent of all burglaries." He gives no source for these statistics, but Jacoby is relying on the reader being outraged by criminals receiving no punishment. Jacoby does add credibility to his argument by quoting a noted criminologist, John Dilulio, who states, " About three of every four convicted criminals are on the streets without meaningful probation or parole supervision." Jacoby raises the issue of the cost of incarceration. He uses to his advantage the adage, "If you want someones attention, hit them in the pocketbook." Jacoby puts the price tag of incarceration at around $30,000 per inmate per year. He counting on the reader to be outraged at such a high cost. He then reminds the reader that corporal punishment is much less expensive, and may be a more effective deterrent of some crimes. He compares the cost of incarceration to a whipping, which would cost almost nothing. Jacoby appeals to the reader's human nature of wanting something for the least amount of money.
Jacoby uses a retrial question in paragraph 12 as his last argument. Jacoby asks,
"Why is it more brutal to flog a wrongdoer than to throw him in prison--where the risk of being beaten, raped, or murdered is terrrifyingly high?" He does support the issue of rape with a statistic from the Globe, that stated, "more that two hundred thousand prison inmates are raped each year." Jacoby hopes the reader will realize that a quick flogging may be more humane than a prison term, which can result in the ongoing brutal physical abuse of prisoners.
Persona: Jacoby presents himself as a no-nonsense, conscientious, tax paying citizen. He gains the readers respect by appearing knowledgeable and concerned. This persona does not add authority, but rather he appears as an average American citizen presenting a suggestion to his fellow Americans.
Closing Paragraph: In the closing remarks of Jacoby's essay, he again asks the reader to question the effectiveness and humanity of incarceration. He wants the reader to conclude that the present way of doing something is not always the best, and sometimes we can learn from our past experiences.
Impressions: Jacoby's essay made me question our present justice system. The daily news is filled with stories of criminals getting minimal sentences or no jail time. It makes me angry when I think about the cost of incarcerating one prisoner for a year. There are many Americans who make less than that a year. If we spent less on our penal system, our government would have the funds to help more Americans. I would be in favor of corporal punishment, but it would be difficult to decide for which crimes corporal punishment would be most effective. If our penal system adopted any form of corporal punishment, it would raise an enormous amount controversy among the American public.
6/8/07
Title: Jacoby's title "Bring Back Flogging", grabs the attention of the reader with his use of the term "flogging". It is a word that brings with it connotations of a past time in history. Many readers will associate the word "flogging" with the punishment style of earlier centuries. So according to Jacoby’s title, "Bring Back Flogging", we know he supports physical punishments as a form of discipline for criminals . The title also gives us hints to his persona: He is a no nonsense guy, someone who seeks immediate results, and has no sympathy for criminals.
Thesis: The Thesis of Jacoby's essay simply stated is that he wants to bring back corporal forms of punishment. By the end of the fourth paragraph his readers know Jacoby believes that imprisonment, the present form of punishment used by the criminal justice system, is ineffective in deterring crime.
Purpose: The purpose of Jacoby's essay is to persuade the reader to adopt his view that using jail time as punishment for most crimes is costly and ineffective. Jacoby's essay does not show it is argumentative or persuasive by using any of the usual key terms. None of his statements are labeled "my reason" or "my conclusion". He never uses "therefore" or "because" to connect any sentences or clauses in his essay. Jacoby uses no key verbs such as verifies, accounts, confirms, disproves, or implies.
The argumentative nature of his essay is uncovered by the statement he makes at the beginning of paragraph five: "We cage criminals at a rate unsurpassed in the free world, yet few of us believe that the criminal justice system is a success."
Method: Jacoby's first method of argument is to cite examples of corporal punishment used by our forefathers, the Puritans. He gives no sources for these instances, but most people are aware that corporal punishment was used by certain groups of people in early American history. Jacoby uses these examples in the hope that the reader will see our forefathers' wisdom in choosing this method of punishment. Jacoby does not provide the reader with evidence that corporal punishment deterred crime.
When comparing todays method of punishment to corporal punishment, Jacoby uses sarcasm when he says, "Now we practice a more enlightened, more humane way of disciplining wrongdoers: We lock them up in cages." He wants the reader to question the humanity of incarcerating criminals. Society would like to believe that human kind has advanced not only technologically, but also in terms of human interaction.
Another method of argument Jacoby uses is to appeal to the readers emotion of fear. He cites statistics that say, "Fifty-eight percent of all murders do not result in prison term. Likewise 98 percent of all burglaries." He gives no source for these statistics, but Jacoby is relying on the reader being outraged by criminals receiving no punishment. Jacoby does add credibility to his argument by quoting a noted criminologist, John Dilulio, who states, " About three of every four convicted criminals are on the streets without meaningful probation or parole supervision." Jacoby raises the issue of the cost of incarceration. He uses to his advantage the adage, "If you want someones attention, hit them in the pocketbook." Jacoby puts the price tag of incarceration at around $30,000 per inmate per year. He counting on the reader to be outraged at such a high cost. He then reminds the reader that corporal punishment is much less expensive, and may be a more effective deterrent of some crimes. He compares the cost of incarceration to a whipping, which would cost almost nothing. Jacoby appeals to the reader's human nature of wanting something for the least amount of money.
Jacoby uses a retrial question in paragraph 12 as his last argument. Jacoby asks,
"Why is it more brutal to flog a wrongdoer than to throw him in prison--where the risk of being beaten, raped, or murdered is terrrifyingly high?" He does support the issue of rape with a statistic from the Globe, that stated, "more that two hundred thousand prison inmates are raped each year." Jacoby hopes the reader will realize that a quick flogging may be more humane than a prison term, which can result in the ongoing brutal physical abuse of prisoners.
Persona: Jacoby presents himself as a no-nonsense, conscientious, tax paying citizen. He gains the readers respect by appearing knowledgeable and concerned. This persona does not add authority, but rather he appears as an average American citizen presenting a suggestion to his fellow Americans.
Closing Paragraph: In the closing remarks of Jacoby's essay, he again asks the reader to question the effectiveness and humanity of incarceration. He wants the reader to conclude that the present way of doing something is not always the best, and sometimes we can learn from our past experiences.
Impressions: Jacoby's essay made me question our present justice system. The daily news is filled with stories of criminals getting minimal sentences or no jail time. It makes me angry when I think about the cost of incarcerating one prisoner for a year. There are many Americans who make less than that a year. If we spent less on our penal system, our government would have the funds to help more Americans. I would be in favor of corporal punishment, but it would be difficult to decide for which crimes corporal punishment would be most effective. If our penal system adopted any form of corporal punishment, it would raise an enormous amount controversy among the American public.
Bring Back Flogging ..... It's a great idea!!!!
Title. The title of Jeff Jacoby’s “Bring Back Flogging” caught my attention and made me wonder what this was going to be about? Jacoby makes it quite clear with this title that he is going to attempt to persuade the reader to see his point of view on the subject. Some readers may find the title a little confusing as flogging is not common terminology these days.
Thesis. Jacoby’s thesis is that there needs be reform within the criminal justice system. He makes the point that flogging should be reintroduced as a form of corporal punishment to deter crime and that imprisonment for all offenses is ineffective.
Purpose. The purpose of Jacoby’s essay is clearly to persuade the reader that in some instances, public flogging for crime is a better for of punishment that prison. He points out the many crimes are nonviolent in and that imprisonment subjects the offender to an environment that is quite violent in nature and therefore an unjust and harmful punishment.
Method. Jeff Jacoby makes his argument by beginning with a short history lesson and then moving on to write about how we administer punishment today. He explains that in many cases, a quick and decisive administration of corporal punishment would be more effective than a lengthy prison stay. Jacoby goes on to explain some of the cost analysis of imprisonment and finishes up with the statement of “perhaps the Puritans were more enlightened than we think” (p.185). The entire point is designed to persuade the reader into agreeing with the writer’s opinion on corporal punishment.
Persona. The persona that Jacoby conveys is that of a prepared and well educated man that can relate facts and statistics to the average Joe. He does not go overboard with technical language and lays out the facts of his argument in clear easy to read writing.
Impression. My impression of “Bring Back Flogging” is that the author has done a great job at presenting his side of the argument in an attempt to persuade the reader. I rather agree with him that the current criminal justice system is in need of an overhaul and he has convinced me that this might be the route to go. I feel that Jacoby has done a good job with the use of statistics, facts and the use of an expert in an essay that doesn’t seem to bog down with too much information while you read it.
Thesis. Jacoby’s thesis is that there needs be reform within the criminal justice system. He makes the point that flogging should be reintroduced as a form of corporal punishment to deter crime and that imprisonment for all offenses is ineffective.
Purpose. The purpose of Jacoby’s essay is clearly to persuade the reader that in some instances, public flogging for crime is a better for of punishment that prison. He points out the many crimes are nonviolent in and that imprisonment subjects the offender to an environment that is quite violent in nature and therefore an unjust and harmful punishment.
Method. Jeff Jacoby makes his argument by beginning with a short history lesson and then moving on to write about how we administer punishment today. He explains that in many cases, a quick and decisive administration of corporal punishment would be more effective than a lengthy prison stay. Jacoby goes on to explain some of the cost analysis of imprisonment and finishes up with the statement of “perhaps the Puritans were more enlightened than we think” (p.185). The entire point is designed to persuade the reader into agreeing with the writer’s opinion on corporal punishment.
Persona. The persona that Jacoby conveys is that of a prepared and well educated man that can relate facts and statistics to the average Joe. He does not go overboard with technical language and lays out the facts of his argument in clear easy to read writing.
Impression. My impression of “Bring Back Flogging” is that the author has done a great job at presenting his side of the argument in an attempt to persuade the reader. I rather agree with him that the current criminal justice system is in need of an overhaul and he has convinced me that this might be the route to go. I feel that Jacoby has done a good job with the use of statistics, facts and the use of an expert in an essay that doesn’t seem to bog down with too much information while you read it.
Wrestling with Title IX
Carrie Egging
Jen Moskowitz
June 8, 2007
Analysis
Title: John Irving grabs the attention of readers immediately with his title “Wrestling with Title IX. This title gives away a little of what the essay is going to talk about. It introduces that Irving is going to discuss Title IX and that there is some sort of drama involved with this law. It is also interesting that he uses the word wrestling when he uses the sport of wrestling numerous numbers of times in his essay.
Thesis: The main point of Irving’s essay is that Title IX has become blown out of proportion and instead of discriminating again women it almost discriminates against men because of the proportionality laws that have been put in place.
Purpose: The purpose of Irving’s essay is obviously to persuade people that Title IX with is proportionality law has far overstepped its original purpose of allowing women to be able to compete in athletics. He says “good for the original Title IX!” in response to the law Congress passed in 1972 to end sex discrimination in schools. He argues that with the proportionality laws placed on Title IX, now the men are discriminated against.
Method: The principle method that Irving uses in his essay is giving examples. Through the examples that he used he really able to clarify his point and show to people what he is talking about. Although he doesn’t cite his sources, it would be easy to check them because he stated what schools his examples came from. He also used a sport that he was very familiar with and very passionate about. Thus giving him a little more authority on that subject.
Irving also suggests different ways that Title IX with the proportionality laws could be gotten around. Here he argues that there is no set way to determine how Title IX is supposes to be used and that it is unfair how men who want to compete are unable to because of these new laws.
Irving also uses a statistical method to help drive home his point of how the laws are unfair. He gives percentages of women in school and women who actually want to compete at a college level, compared to men in school and men who want to compete at the collegiate level.
Persona: Irving presents himself as a former athlete who has suffered from these new proportionality laws. He argues from a standpoint that he has lived through it and doesn’t think that people should have to. That it is not fair to men or women athletes to have these sorts of restrictions put on their love of athletics.
Closing Paragraph: In Irving’s closing paragraph he leaves it very short and concise. He says, “Keep Title IX: eliminate proportionality. Play fair.” This summarizes that he believes that Title IX was a good law when it was first drafted in 1972, but with its revisions in 1979 and 1996 it is not addressing its original purpose. It summarizes the part of the law that he thinks needs to be removed thus being proportionality. He also adds in a little spirit of his personality and again ties in the athletic theme when he adds on the words “play fair.”
Jen Moskowitz
June 8, 2007
Analysis
Title: John Irving grabs the attention of readers immediately with his title “Wrestling with Title IX. This title gives away a little of what the essay is going to talk about. It introduces that Irving is going to discuss Title IX and that there is some sort of drama involved with this law. It is also interesting that he uses the word wrestling when he uses the sport of wrestling numerous numbers of times in his essay.
Thesis: The main point of Irving’s essay is that Title IX has become blown out of proportion and instead of discriminating again women it almost discriminates against men because of the proportionality laws that have been put in place.
Purpose: The purpose of Irving’s essay is obviously to persuade people that Title IX with is proportionality law has far overstepped its original purpose of allowing women to be able to compete in athletics. He says “good for the original Title IX!” in response to the law Congress passed in 1972 to end sex discrimination in schools. He argues that with the proportionality laws placed on Title IX, now the men are discriminated against.
Method: The principle method that Irving uses in his essay is giving examples. Through the examples that he used he really able to clarify his point and show to people what he is talking about. Although he doesn’t cite his sources, it would be easy to check them because he stated what schools his examples came from. He also used a sport that he was very familiar with and very passionate about. Thus giving him a little more authority on that subject.
Irving also suggests different ways that Title IX with the proportionality laws could be gotten around. Here he argues that there is no set way to determine how Title IX is supposes to be used and that it is unfair how men who want to compete are unable to because of these new laws.
Irving also uses a statistical method to help drive home his point of how the laws are unfair. He gives percentages of women in school and women who actually want to compete at a college level, compared to men in school and men who want to compete at the collegiate level.
Persona: Irving presents himself as a former athlete who has suffered from these new proportionality laws. He argues from a standpoint that he has lived through it and doesn’t think that people should have to. That it is not fair to men or women athletes to have these sorts of restrictions put on their love of athletics.
Closing Paragraph: In Irving’s closing paragraph he leaves it very short and concise. He says, “Keep Title IX: eliminate proportionality. Play fair.” This summarizes that he believes that Title IX was a good law when it was first drafted in 1972, but with its revisions in 1979 and 1996 it is not addressing its original purpose. It summarizes the part of the law that he thinks needs to be removed thus being proportionality. He also adds in a little spirit of his personality and again ties in the athletic theme when he adds on the words “play fair.”
Jacoby's Analysis
Kelsey Webb
June 8, 2007
Title: Jeff Jacoby’s title, “Bring Back Flogging,” served as an attention-getter as I read it the first time. Although this may be different for other readers, I found myself wondering what exactly “flogging” was and hoped that Jacoby would define it throughout his essay. As I hoped, Jacoby does refer to flogging as a method of punishment for criminals. This method is much more extreme than methods used to day, but Jacoby uses hints of sarcasm in his title, asking to “bring back flogging.”
Thesis: Jacoby doesn’t deliberately state his thesis as the first sentence or even within the first paragraph, instead he makes the reader infer the idea he is trying to present. Paragraph 3 begins to present the thesis and by paragraph 8 is clear that perhaps flogging wasn’t the worst form of punishment. Perhaps it should be used again to stop the crimes today, rather than the threat of being “locked in a cage.”
Purpose: Jacoby holds two purposes throughout his essay. The first is to inform the reader of flogging and the evolution of crimes today. The second purpose is to persuade the reader to conform to his belief. Like the example, Jacoby doesn’t state his “reasons” or his “conclusion,” however, he presents evidence to show the reader the problem of crimes and the punishment from the criminal justice system and how the method today is expensive and not necessarily successful.
Method: Jacoby’s method is to entice the reader with a tasteful introduction, present examples of flogging, and then hook the reader with his evidence. He shows statistics and uses statements by qualified professionals in the related field. He refutes the opposing point that cities have become safe (paragraph 5) with more evidence about the “odds of actually being arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.” Like the example, Jacoby uses specific language to build to the strength of his thesis. He uses derogatory remarks to show the negative use of corporal punishment that was used by the Puritans, like “whipt, branded, peirct.” He also uses derogatory remarks to criticize today’s criminals, calling them “punks” and “thugs.” Jacoby also uses rhetorical questions throughout the essay (paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 13). This offers evidence that supports Jacoby’s claim without having to thoroughly explain.Basically, Jacoby presents evidence through statistics and qualified statements to show that the criminal system is imperfect and needs to be adjusted. Although flogging may be extreme, something needs to be done.
Persona: Jacoby’s writes from a couple of angles. He shows himself as a concerned citizen (although he states that keeping inmates in prison is an estimated $30,000 each year per inmate, he agrees that “the cost to society of turning many inmates loose would be even higher”). He also takes on the role of an irritated critic. “‘Too degrading,’ some will say. ‘Too brutal.’ But where is it written that being whipped is more degrading than being caged?” He shows that he is concerned but also upset with the ordeal at the same time. He does this in a ‘straight-edged, serious with sarcastic references’ kind of way.
Closing Paragraph: Jacoby ends with a straight forward idea and suggestion. In just three short sentences, he summarizes his thesis and has a call to action that isn’t meant to be taken seriously but to create some kind of thought process. Once again Jacoby is saying that something needs to be done to adjust the criminal justice system and maybe using the Puritan method would be such a bad idea.
Impressions: Jacoby’s essay hit close to home because I also believe that there are many issues within the criminal justice system. Although I can’t suggest whipping a drug dealer or piercing the tongue of a thief (because with today’s standards, he/she probably already has some form of tongue jewelry!), locking a criminal up in a cage doesn’t always fix the problem. Corporal punishment is a touchy subject that most Americans would oppose but who knows, maybe a slap on the wrist should devolve back to a whip on the back to teach some “thug or punk” a lesson.
June 8, 2007
Title: Jeff Jacoby’s title, “Bring Back Flogging,” served as an attention-getter as I read it the first time. Although this may be different for other readers, I found myself wondering what exactly “flogging” was and hoped that Jacoby would define it throughout his essay. As I hoped, Jacoby does refer to flogging as a method of punishment for criminals. This method is much more extreme than methods used to day, but Jacoby uses hints of sarcasm in his title, asking to “bring back flogging.”
Thesis: Jacoby doesn’t deliberately state his thesis as the first sentence or even within the first paragraph, instead he makes the reader infer the idea he is trying to present. Paragraph 3 begins to present the thesis and by paragraph 8 is clear that perhaps flogging wasn’t the worst form of punishment. Perhaps it should be used again to stop the crimes today, rather than the threat of being “locked in a cage.”
Purpose: Jacoby holds two purposes throughout his essay. The first is to inform the reader of flogging and the evolution of crimes today. The second purpose is to persuade the reader to conform to his belief. Like the example, Jacoby doesn’t state his “reasons” or his “conclusion,” however, he presents evidence to show the reader the problem of crimes and the punishment from the criminal justice system and how the method today is expensive and not necessarily successful.
Method: Jacoby’s method is to entice the reader with a tasteful introduction, present examples of flogging, and then hook the reader with his evidence. He shows statistics and uses statements by qualified professionals in the related field. He refutes the opposing point that cities have become safe (paragraph 5) with more evidence about the “odds of actually being arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.” Like the example, Jacoby uses specific language to build to the strength of his thesis. He uses derogatory remarks to show the negative use of corporal punishment that was used by the Puritans, like “whipt, branded, peirct.” He also uses derogatory remarks to criticize today’s criminals, calling them “punks” and “thugs.” Jacoby also uses rhetorical questions throughout the essay (paragraphs 9, 11, 12, and 13). This offers evidence that supports Jacoby’s claim without having to thoroughly explain.Basically, Jacoby presents evidence through statistics and qualified statements to show that the criminal system is imperfect and needs to be adjusted. Although flogging may be extreme, something needs to be done.
Persona: Jacoby’s writes from a couple of angles. He shows himself as a concerned citizen (although he states that keeping inmates in prison is an estimated $30,000 each year per inmate, he agrees that “the cost to society of turning many inmates loose would be even higher”). He also takes on the role of an irritated critic. “‘Too degrading,’ some will say. ‘Too brutal.’ But where is it written that being whipped is more degrading than being caged?” He shows that he is concerned but also upset with the ordeal at the same time. He does this in a ‘straight-edged, serious with sarcastic references’ kind of way.
Closing Paragraph: Jacoby ends with a straight forward idea and suggestion. In just three short sentences, he summarizes his thesis and has a call to action that isn’t meant to be taken seriously but to create some kind of thought process. Once again Jacoby is saying that something needs to be done to adjust the criminal justice system and maybe using the Puritan method would be such a bad idea.
Impressions: Jacoby’s essay hit close to home because I also believe that there are many issues within the criminal justice system. Although I can’t suggest whipping a drug dealer or piercing the tongue of a thief (because with today’s standards, he/she probably already has some form of tongue jewelry!), locking a criminal up in a cage doesn’t always fix the problem. Corporal punishment is a touchy subject that most Americans would oppose but who knows, maybe a slap on the wrist should devolve back to a whip on the back to teach some “thug or punk” a lesson.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Bring Back Flogging
Title: Jeff Jacoby writes about how we should "Bring Back Flogging", which is the title of the essay. He is not fond of the punishment people are given for crimes in the United States. His title says exactly what he thinks our governement should do about the bursting penal system. His opinion is to use a different form of punishment, such as one dated back to the early days of our country. Jacoby wants flogging to be a practice one again.
Thesis: Jacoby's argument is how our punishment for criminals is just not working anymore. Crime rates are going up and prisions are too full. He sees the problem and wants a solution. Jeff Jacoby believes the penal system is not an effective punishment anymore because it is a such a humane, easy punishment, and that our nation needs to have corporal punishment again.
Purpose: Jacoby's purpose in this essay to persuade the reader. He wants the reader to realize the prisions are bursting and because of that criminals are getting reduced sentences. Jacoby has the message he needs to get out: crime rates are going up because the punishment is just not horrible enough. The number of people behind bars has skyrocketed and something needs to be done. Jacoby wants the public to see just how bad it is because so many people lack the knowledge of the situation. Too many politicans say towns are becoming "safer". He wants people to know that crime rates are not getting any better and prisions cannot handle anymore. He wants to persuade people to want corporal punishment back.
Method: Jacoby's essay method is done through using statistics and facts about the punishment of criminals and other details which are very important. He informs and then tries to persuade with the facts. He also uses his opinion in many parts of the essay so the reader knows he feels very strongly about this subject and wants that to come across to the reader as serious. He uses the examples of corporal punishment from the 1600's and how it worked. His examples, facts, and details of the truth are an effective method. His opinion only strengthens what is said.
Persona: Jacoby can be made out to be a man whos opposes what our country does. He hates the juidical system, at least sounds like he does, from what he claims. He hates to see the crime rate going up so the reader can tell he cares about the common wellfare of our country. Jacoby could be said to be old-fashioned and strict.
Closing: Jacoby is not a fan of the current punishment system for criminals. He wants to see a change in the crime rate and the prisions getting to not be so full and bursting. A man of the truth, he sees what is happening with criminals and wants the best for the country. He might be seen as strict because of this essay, but his argument is effective and should catch the attention of our government.
Impressions: I see Jacoby as a smart man with his words. I like to see how his method is done with the use of examples and facts. I enjoy reading his opinion because I do agree to a large extent with what he says. The prision system is just not effective and he sees a possible solution that could just do the right change our country needs. I hate to see the crime rates going up like Jacoby does. Something needs to happen: Too many people get off the hook with punishment.
Thesis: Jacoby's argument is how our punishment for criminals is just not working anymore. Crime rates are going up and prisions are too full. He sees the problem and wants a solution. Jeff Jacoby believes the penal system is not an effective punishment anymore because it is a such a humane, easy punishment, and that our nation needs to have corporal punishment again.
Purpose: Jacoby's purpose in this essay to persuade the reader. He wants the reader to realize the prisions are bursting and because of that criminals are getting reduced sentences. Jacoby has the message he needs to get out: crime rates are going up because the punishment is just not horrible enough. The number of people behind bars has skyrocketed and something needs to be done. Jacoby wants the public to see just how bad it is because so many people lack the knowledge of the situation. Too many politicans say towns are becoming "safer". He wants people to know that crime rates are not getting any better and prisions cannot handle anymore. He wants to persuade people to want corporal punishment back.
Method: Jacoby's essay method is done through using statistics and facts about the punishment of criminals and other details which are very important. He informs and then tries to persuade with the facts. He also uses his opinion in many parts of the essay so the reader knows he feels very strongly about this subject and wants that to come across to the reader as serious. He uses the examples of corporal punishment from the 1600's and how it worked. His examples, facts, and details of the truth are an effective method. His opinion only strengthens what is said.
Persona: Jacoby can be made out to be a man whos opposes what our country does. He hates the juidical system, at least sounds like he does, from what he claims. He hates to see the crime rate going up so the reader can tell he cares about the common wellfare of our country. Jacoby could be said to be old-fashioned and strict.
Closing: Jacoby is not a fan of the current punishment system for criminals. He wants to see a change in the crime rate and the prisions getting to not be so full and bursting. A man of the truth, he sees what is happening with criminals and wants the best for the country. He might be seen as strict because of this essay, but his argument is effective and should catch the attention of our government.
Impressions: I see Jacoby as a smart man with his words. I like to see how his method is done with the use of examples and facts. I enjoy reading his opinion because I do agree to a large extent with what he says. The prision system is just not effective and he sees a possible solution that could just do the right change our country needs. I hate to see the crime rates going up like Jacoby does. Something needs to happen: Too many people get off the hook with punishment.
Bring Back Flogging
Kristin Gebel
Jen Moskowitz
7 June 2007
Analysis
Title: Jacoby starts off his essay with an immediate demand to “Bring Back Flogging.” Already within the title, Jacoby is protesting to change the criminal justice system back to the way it used to be during the time of our forefathers.
Thesis: The main point Jacoby is trying to get across is the idea that Boston’s Puritan forefathers did not put up with miscreants and neither should we in this day and age.
Purpose: The purpose of Jacoby’s essay is in no doubt to persuade his audience to believe that something has to be changed in the punishment system and the way to fix it is to bring pack the public humiliation methods.
Method: Jacoby uses a number of different methods, but his most used method is where he cites numerous examples of past happenings. He includes how people were punished back in the 1600’s and for what reasons. He finds the most painful situations to talk about to make a statement that because this happened the crime rates stayed way down.
Something else that Jacoby does to make is point is that he states our way of punishing criminals in this day and age. He mocks the way that no matter what a person has done, they will end up being put behind bars and caged for a certain amount of time. He laughs at the idea that we are not punishing anyone; we are just placing them in areas away from the public.
Another method of Jacoby’s is using rhetorical questions. An example of this is when he says, “Why is it more brutal to flog a wrongdoer than to throw him in prison – where the risk of being beaten, raped or murdered is terrifyingly high?” Jacoby uses the rhetorical questions to twist around and compare the two punishments. By doing this he is able to show he downsides of both and asks the audience to decide which method of punishment is the most suitable.
Of course he has already pointed his finger in the right direction and causes the audience to assume that if the young criminals were whipped in public, fewer of them would become life time felons. These types of assumptions give the audience little time to make up their own minds about how others would react to being publicly humiliated.
The final method that Jacoby uses is the cost issue. No matter the situation there is a cost factor to take in and in this protest he brings out the point that at this time it is costing $30,000 per inmate per year just to keep the criminals behind bars. Knowing this fact it makes it easy to manipulate the readers in believing that they are spending their hard earned money on keeping criminals off the streets. This price seems to be extravagant for felons and therefore makes cheap punishment that much more appealing.
Persona: Jacoby never really describes how he is presented among others. All that can be drawn from his essay is that he is a person with a strong will to defend what he believes, in his right mind, to be the best way fit. He protests strongly and proves himself and his ideas through past examples and factoids.
Closing Paragraph: Jacoby finishes up his essay with a simple fact that the Puritans were more enlightened than we thought and even though their punishments were humiliating and painful, they were also quick and cheap. This last potion of being “quick and cheap” draws in Jacoby’s audience because after explaining how expensive it is to be to keep the felons behind bars the readers begin to look for a better way to punish criminals without having holes burnt in their pockets.
Jen Moskowitz
7 June 2007
Analysis
Title: Jacoby starts off his essay with an immediate demand to “Bring Back Flogging.” Already within the title, Jacoby is protesting to change the criminal justice system back to the way it used to be during the time of our forefathers.
Thesis: The main point Jacoby is trying to get across is the idea that Boston’s Puritan forefathers did not put up with miscreants and neither should we in this day and age.
Purpose: The purpose of Jacoby’s essay is in no doubt to persuade his audience to believe that something has to be changed in the punishment system and the way to fix it is to bring pack the public humiliation methods.
Method: Jacoby uses a number of different methods, but his most used method is where he cites numerous examples of past happenings. He includes how people were punished back in the 1600’s and for what reasons. He finds the most painful situations to talk about to make a statement that because this happened the crime rates stayed way down.
Something else that Jacoby does to make is point is that he states our way of punishing criminals in this day and age. He mocks the way that no matter what a person has done, they will end up being put behind bars and caged for a certain amount of time. He laughs at the idea that we are not punishing anyone; we are just placing them in areas away from the public.
Another method of Jacoby’s is using rhetorical questions. An example of this is when he says, “Why is it more brutal to flog a wrongdoer than to throw him in prison – where the risk of being beaten, raped or murdered is terrifyingly high?” Jacoby uses the rhetorical questions to twist around and compare the two punishments. By doing this he is able to show he downsides of both and asks the audience to decide which method of punishment is the most suitable.
Of course he has already pointed his finger in the right direction and causes the audience to assume that if the young criminals were whipped in public, fewer of them would become life time felons. These types of assumptions give the audience little time to make up their own minds about how others would react to being publicly humiliated.
The final method that Jacoby uses is the cost issue. No matter the situation there is a cost factor to take in and in this protest he brings out the point that at this time it is costing $30,000 per inmate per year just to keep the criminals behind bars. Knowing this fact it makes it easy to manipulate the readers in believing that they are spending their hard earned money on keeping criminals off the streets. This price seems to be extravagant for felons and therefore makes cheap punishment that much more appealing.
Persona: Jacoby never really describes how he is presented among others. All that can be drawn from his essay is that he is a person with a strong will to defend what he believes, in his right mind, to be the best way fit. He protests strongly and proves himself and his ideas through past examples and factoids.
Closing Paragraph: Jacoby finishes up his essay with a simple fact that the Puritans were more enlightened than we thought and even though their punishments were humiliating and painful, they were also quick and cheap. This last potion of being “quick and cheap” draws in Jacoby’s audience because after explaining how expensive it is to be to keep the felons behind bars the readers begin to look for a better way to punish criminals without having holes burnt in their pockets.
Bring back flogging
Glen Drew
June 7
Title
"Bring back flogging" is a very catchy title. Readers are intrigued and want to know what the author really means. This title is directly related to his thesis and the point he is trying to make. He probably doesn't literally mean flogging, but some sort of punishment similar to it. Most Americans believe the prison system is messed up, and would like a fresh alternative.
Thesis
Jacoby's thesis is that America needs more forms of punishment than simply imprisonment. Imprisonment is used across the board for every type of crime. It is costing American taxpayers too much money to just lock everybody up. Doing time should not be the only punishment for criminals.
Purpose
Jacoby's purpose is to persuade the reader that our current prison system needs to be changed somehow. He uses old Puritan methods to illustrate that different crimes were met with different punishments. His other purpose is to show the reader that we are letting violent prisoners go because our prisons are being pushed beyond capacity. The costs of running a prison are also staggering and affecting the taxpayers. Jacoby wants corporal punishment brought back as an option to imprisonment. It may be degrading and brutal, but sodomy in prison isn't.
Method
Jacoby's method is very persuasive. He uses points that most Americans would tend to agree with. "We cage criminals at a rate unsurpassed in the free world, yet few of us believe that the criminal justice system is a success" (184). He also uses good sources: John DiIulio, a noted Princeton criminoligist. When using the point of public beatings, Jacoby does not make them seem to be that farfetched. He is not talking about chopping off hands or anything that would mutilate, just punishment that would hurt and humiliate the criminal. He also uses the fact that prison life has it's fair share of brutality already. "In 1994, more than two hundred thousand inmates were raped" (185). Jacoby offers the reader several persuasive arguments to agree with his point of view.
Persona
Jacoby's persona is that of a well educated man that knows what he is talking about. To back up his opinion, he uses statistics, a criminoligist, prison costs (economy), and a report from the Globe. He does not simply rely on what he knows. I like his persona. He is smart enough to bring up the fact of prison rape, which few reports do. He does not seem to be hiding anything in this essay.
Closing Paragraph
His closing paragraph reiterates the fact that Puritans using corporal punishment was a good idea. It makes us feel that we need to adopt a new way to treat our criminals. Since our methods are obviously not deterring crime, we should try some new ones. We need cheaper and quicker methods of punishment than just imprisonment.
Impression
I liked how he grabbed the reader's attention with bringing back the flog. He used history to present what worked in the past. His arguments that prison doesn't work and is costing too much money made me side with him. To end his argument, he brought up the fact that prisons are already brutal. So in the end, we're just being brutal to the prisoner in public and it may save us lots of time and money.
June 7
Title
"Bring back flogging" is a very catchy title. Readers are intrigued and want to know what the author really means. This title is directly related to his thesis and the point he is trying to make. He probably doesn't literally mean flogging, but some sort of punishment similar to it. Most Americans believe the prison system is messed up, and would like a fresh alternative.
Thesis
Jacoby's thesis is that America needs more forms of punishment than simply imprisonment. Imprisonment is used across the board for every type of crime. It is costing American taxpayers too much money to just lock everybody up. Doing time should not be the only punishment for criminals.
Purpose
Jacoby's purpose is to persuade the reader that our current prison system needs to be changed somehow. He uses old Puritan methods to illustrate that different crimes were met with different punishments. His other purpose is to show the reader that we are letting violent prisoners go because our prisons are being pushed beyond capacity. The costs of running a prison are also staggering and affecting the taxpayers. Jacoby wants corporal punishment brought back as an option to imprisonment. It may be degrading and brutal, but sodomy in prison isn't.
Method
Jacoby's method is very persuasive. He uses points that most Americans would tend to agree with. "We cage criminals at a rate unsurpassed in the free world, yet few of us believe that the criminal justice system is a success" (184). He also uses good sources: John DiIulio, a noted Princeton criminoligist. When using the point of public beatings, Jacoby does not make them seem to be that farfetched. He is not talking about chopping off hands or anything that would mutilate, just punishment that would hurt and humiliate the criminal. He also uses the fact that prison life has it's fair share of brutality already. "In 1994, more than two hundred thousand inmates were raped" (185). Jacoby offers the reader several persuasive arguments to agree with his point of view.
Persona
Jacoby's persona is that of a well educated man that knows what he is talking about. To back up his opinion, he uses statistics, a criminoligist, prison costs (economy), and a report from the Globe. He does not simply rely on what he knows. I like his persona. He is smart enough to bring up the fact of prison rape, which few reports do. He does not seem to be hiding anything in this essay.
Closing Paragraph
His closing paragraph reiterates the fact that Puritans using corporal punishment was a good idea. It makes us feel that we need to adopt a new way to treat our criminals. Since our methods are obviously not deterring crime, we should try some new ones. We need cheaper and quicker methods of punishment than just imprisonment.
Impression
I liked how he grabbed the reader's attention with bringing back the flog. He used history to present what worked in the past. His arguments that prison doesn't work and is costing too much money made me side with him. To end his argument, he brought up the fact that prisons are already brutal. So in the end, we're just being brutal to the prisoner in public and it may save us lots of time and money.
Irving: Title IX
John Irving titled his essay "Wrestling with Title IX". This title incorporates a cute pun to grab the reader's attention while acknowledging the difficulty of the issue.
Irving's thesis is that while Title IX began as a great piece of legislation that discouraged discrimination against women's sports, subsequent interpretations in 1979 and 1996 have turned title IX into a quota law and is discriminatory in practice towards men's sports teams.
Irving's purpose in writing the essay is to bring to light the harmful results of the implementation of title IX, and persuade the reader that title IX needs to be reformed.
He begins the essay with a short history of title IX and states that it is now functioning as a "quota law" (Irving 194). Irving offers a short explanation on how the implementation of the law has hurt men's sports, and then offers an overwhelming amount of facts, examples, anecdotes and statistics. His final section of the essay is an attempt to address the accusation that he is "anti-feminist". Irving attempts to refute this accusation with a list of feminist causes that he supports. Unfortunately the paragraph comes across a little shallow, but it does serve to diffuse some of the anti-women claims. Irving ends with an appeal to "play fair" (Irving 197). This is a simple tactic used to calm down the reader's emotions, who can argue against a desire to "play fair". Irving's solution to the problem is to simply reword/reinterpret the legislation to eliminate proportionality.
My impressions of the article were generally favorable. I agree that title IX needs to be fixed and is hurting men's and women's sports, however many of his arguments focus on the extreme examples and the solution he offers is rather simplistic for such a nuanced problem.
Irving's thesis is that while Title IX began as a great piece of legislation that discouraged discrimination against women's sports, subsequent interpretations in 1979 and 1996 have turned title IX into a quota law and is discriminatory in practice towards men's sports teams.
Irving's purpose in writing the essay is to bring to light the harmful results of the implementation of title IX, and persuade the reader that title IX needs to be reformed.
He begins the essay with a short history of title IX and states that it is now functioning as a "quota law" (Irving 194). Irving offers a short explanation on how the implementation of the law has hurt men's sports, and then offers an overwhelming amount of facts, examples, anecdotes and statistics. His final section of the essay is an attempt to address the accusation that he is "anti-feminist". Irving attempts to refute this accusation with a list of feminist causes that he supports. Unfortunately the paragraph comes across a little shallow, but it does serve to diffuse some of the anti-women claims. Irving ends with an appeal to "play fair" (Irving 197). This is a simple tactic used to calm down the reader's emotions, who can argue against a desire to "play fair". Irving's solution to the problem is to simply reword/reinterpret the legislation to eliminate proportionality.
My impressions of the article were generally favorable. I agree that title IX needs to be fixed and is hurting men's and women's sports, however many of his arguments focus on the extreme examples and the solution he offers is rather simplistic for such a nuanced problem.
Analysis of Jacoby
Katie Rupp
6/7/2007
Analysis of “Bring Back Flogging”
Jeff Jacoby’s title, “Bring Back Flogging,” grabs the reader’s attention. It is such an intriguing title, it really interests the reader. Jacoby and the title are not sympathetic or apologetic.
Jacoby’s thesis is plainly stated. From the title to the end of the third paragraph Jacoby is clear. Jacoby would like to bring back a few of the Puritans disciplinary styles, particularly flogging.
Jacoby method of argument begins with the four examples of Puritan justice. Although Jacoby admits that a few are ridiculous, he does agree with public flogging for non-violent criminals. Jacoby uses numerous statistics and quotes. Jacoby uses these statistics and quotes to convince the reader flogging would be quicker, cheaper, and more effective than locking up criminals.
Jacobys persona seems well educated and prepared. This essay is to the point, backed up with real evidence, Jacoby did his homework.
Jacoby’s closing paragraph ends the essay with stating that maybe Puritans were more enlightened than we think. Jacoby tries one last time to persuade by defending the “degrading “and “brutal” punishments by proclaiming, “but they’re quick and cheap.”
I believe Jacoby has valid points. Maybe flogging would detour a youth from robbing again. Jacoby uses good statistics about prisons. Violent offenders are getting out only because there isn’t enough room. I thought Jacoby had a well thought out essay, he did a good job persuading. It made me stop and think about it.
6/7/2007
Analysis of “Bring Back Flogging”
Jeff Jacoby’s title, “Bring Back Flogging,” grabs the reader’s attention. It is such an intriguing title, it really interests the reader. Jacoby and the title are not sympathetic or apologetic.
Jacoby’s thesis is plainly stated. From the title to the end of the third paragraph Jacoby is clear. Jacoby would like to bring back a few of the Puritans disciplinary styles, particularly flogging.
Jacoby method of argument begins with the four examples of Puritan justice. Although Jacoby admits that a few are ridiculous, he does agree with public flogging for non-violent criminals. Jacoby uses numerous statistics and quotes. Jacoby uses these statistics and quotes to convince the reader flogging would be quicker, cheaper, and more effective than locking up criminals.
Jacobys persona seems well educated and prepared. This essay is to the point, backed up with real evidence, Jacoby did his homework.
Jacoby’s closing paragraph ends the essay with stating that maybe Puritans were more enlightened than we think. Jacoby tries one last time to persuade by defending the “degrading “and “brutal” punishments by proclaiming, “but they’re quick and cheap.”
I believe Jacoby has valid points. Maybe flogging would detour a youth from robbing again. Jacoby uses good statistics about prisons. Violent offenders are getting out only because there isn’t enough room. I thought Jacoby had a well thought out essay, he did a good job persuading. It made me stop and think about it.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Analysis of David Coles Five Myths of Immigration
David Cole’s “Five Myths about Immigration” draws an analogy between the alarmist attitude towards immigrants in the mid-nineteenth century and those towards immigration at the dawn of the 21st century. Most of us had ancestors who immigrated to this country as Cole does, and he reminds us that his forebears were immigrants in the 1860’s. A political movement Cole refers to as the “Know Nothings” have at one time or another blamed every wave of immigration for every problem in American society. The “We’s” that were already here blaming society’s problems on “Them” that entered until after a period of time the “Them’s” were “We’s” and a new crop of “Them’s” were responsible for our society woes. We are in the midst of another period where “We” are alarmed by “Them” who are immigrating and according to Cole we have always been a nation of immigrants and he lists the five myths that distort public debate and government policy concerning this new wave of immigrants.
The first myth is that we are being overrun with immigrants. According to Cole foreign- born people make up less of our population than prior immigrations. He states that 70-80 percent of those who immigrate are refugees or immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. What he fails to mention is how easy it is to claim refugee status compared to the past. We are in the midst of the third amnesty being considered for aliens who are here illegally. The two prior amnesties made all illegal aliens legal. Cole omitted that fact when he mentioned 70-80 percent being relatives of U.S. citizens. And how refreshing to find someone who really knows how many immigrants we actually have. He makes little or no distinction between legal or illegal immigrants.
Cole’s second myth is that there is virtually no evidence to support the allegation that immigrants take jobs from U.S. citizens, in fact they create more jobs from U.S. citizens, and in fact they create more jobs than they fill. My International Economics teacher must have been mistaken when he taught us that when a poor economic nation assimilates with a more prosperous nation that the national average wage drops in the more affluent country, or that the second highest Gross Domestic Product of Mexico is money sent home by immigrants working in the United States. Cole didn’t mention what kinds of jobs were created. Is the $3.5 billion from federal programs meted out to states or is that actually net taxes from a large portion of immigrants who don’t even have a green card yet?
Immigrants are a drain on society’s resources is Cole’s third myth, and generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services. These 1994 figures are in total contradiction with figures in which me and four other colleagues did for a research paper on immigration in 2005. Overcoming the language barrier alone cost a fortune in teachers and new schools. Cole’s statement those except for education, health care, and aid to poor women and children, immigrants are ineligible for social programs. To deny immigrants of these basic needs, when our own citizens lack for them is inhumanely callous according to Cole.
Cole’s fourth myth is that aliens refuse to assimilate, and are depriving us of our culture and political unity. His point is well made that this is not a legitimate reason to limit immigration. If racism by both sides can be eliminated I agree with Cole that this diversity of cultures for the most part enhance our lives. No figures or percentages are added to the material with little or no substantiation. He just makes a convincing argument to falsify the myth.
The last myth is that immigrants are not entitled to constitutional rights. No distinction is made between legal and illegal immigrants. Apparently Cole thinks that the U.S. should be the only country who grants full rights to a person residing in a country who is not a citizen.
Cole stated early in his essay that there have always been “Know Nothings” who were critical of every preceding wave of immigration, but with time the outsiders were accepted, and we were all the better off for it. But maybe the time has come where we have more people than resources. We still have legal means of immigration available to welcome a number of immigrants that we can successfully handle. Could we go to any of their native countries and enter in vast numbers and expect to have the same rights, education, and healthcare as their citizens? Cole sets no limits on immigration and seems to believe we can sustain it forever.
The first myth is that we are being overrun with immigrants. According to Cole foreign- born people make up less of our population than prior immigrations. He states that 70-80 percent of those who immigrate are refugees or immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. What he fails to mention is how easy it is to claim refugee status compared to the past. We are in the midst of the third amnesty being considered for aliens who are here illegally. The two prior amnesties made all illegal aliens legal. Cole omitted that fact when he mentioned 70-80 percent being relatives of U.S. citizens. And how refreshing to find someone who really knows how many immigrants we actually have. He makes little or no distinction between legal or illegal immigrants.
Cole’s second myth is that there is virtually no evidence to support the allegation that immigrants take jobs from U.S. citizens, in fact they create more jobs from U.S. citizens, and in fact they create more jobs than they fill. My International Economics teacher must have been mistaken when he taught us that when a poor economic nation assimilates with a more prosperous nation that the national average wage drops in the more affluent country, or that the second highest Gross Domestic Product of Mexico is money sent home by immigrants working in the United States. Cole didn’t mention what kinds of jobs were created. Is the $3.5 billion from federal programs meted out to states or is that actually net taxes from a large portion of immigrants who don’t even have a green card yet?
Immigrants are a drain on society’s resources is Cole’s third myth, and generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services. These 1994 figures are in total contradiction with figures in which me and four other colleagues did for a research paper on immigration in 2005. Overcoming the language barrier alone cost a fortune in teachers and new schools. Cole’s statement those except for education, health care, and aid to poor women and children, immigrants are ineligible for social programs. To deny immigrants of these basic needs, when our own citizens lack for them is inhumanely callous according to Cole.
Cole’s fourth myth is that aliens refuse to assimilate, and are depriving us of our culture and political unity. His point is well made that this is not a legitimate reason to limit immigration. If racism by both sides can be eliminated I agree with Cole that this diversity of cultures for the most part enhance our lives. No figures or percentages are added to the material with little or no substantiation. He just makes a convincing argument to falsify the myth.
The last myth is that immigrants are not entitled to constitutional rights. No distinction is made between legal and illegal immigrants. Apparently Cole thinks that the U.S. should be the only country who grants full rights to a person residing in a country who is not a citizen.
Cole stated early in his essay that there have always been “Know Nothings” who were critical of every preceding wave of immigration, but with time the outsiders were accepted, and we were all the better off for it. But maybe the time has come where we have more people than resources. We still have legal means of immigration available to welcome a number of immigrants that we can successfully handle. Could we go to any of their native countries and enter in vast numbers and expect to have the same rights, education, and healthcare as their citizens? Cole sets no limits on immigration and seems to believe we can sustain it forever.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
An Analysis of Jeff Jacoby's "Bring Back Flogging"
Melanie Woldt
June 3, 2007
An analysis of Jacoby’s “Bring Back Flogging”
Jeff Jacoby starts off his essay with a clear argument. His title “Bring Back Flogging” states clearly what he is trying to persuade his readers. In fact, I could go as far as to say that his thesis is directly in his title. His title is eye-catching and draws the reader in.
Jacoby’s thesis is strongly stated in the title. His thesis is simply to: bring back the puritan style of flogging as capital punishment. By starting off so clearly, it gives the reader a better understanding of what to look for in Jacoby’s essay that will support his thesis. His thesis is easily found and is supported by the main points of the essay.
The purpose of Jacoby’s essay is to persuade the reader that flogging is a better capital punishment than sending criminals to prison. Jacoby states that many of the offenders in prison are there for nonviolent crimes, yet they are subjected to the prison life where they are “beaten, raped, or murdered.” His point is simply to bring back the Puritan style of flogging a person for his or her first offense and chances are more likely than not that the offender will change his or her ways quickly.
Jacoby’s method of argument is to first give examples of the puritan style of punishment, then to bring in facts that supports the evidence that it would be a better method of punishing offenders. He gives some examples of punishments that were popular over 150 years ago. Jacoby then goes on to say specific statistics about the cost of imprisoning a person and how imprisonment affects an offender. Jacoby assumes that the reader knows that the rate of crimes has gone up since the puritan days. He assumes that it is due to our method of punishment.
Jacoby presents himself as a professional. His language is clear, but very professional. He states a multitude of facts and statistics to persuade his readers. He writes as though he is an expert of this field of study. This being the case, it is easier to take his opinion more seriously. The knowledge he presents is very understandable.
Jacoby’s closing paragraph restates his thesis. It is not stated the same way, but it implies the overall gist of the thesis. Jacoby’s concluding paragraph is wrapped up nicely with his ending sentence, “Maybe we should readopt a few,” leaves the reader thinking and considering his ideas. My personal impression is that Jacoby knows his stuff. He understands the need to express himself in a manner that is easy to understand and read. By doing this, he is able to more easily persuade a person to his side of thinking. I am not a fan of the public flogging, or private flogging for that matter, but I agree that the capital punishment needs to be rethought. Jacoby expresses his opinion in a way that enables me as the reader to understand his point of view. Jeff Jacoby’s essay was easy to read and understand.
Judy Brady "I Want a Wife" Question #6
Michelle Horner
Blog Post Week 3
6/1/07
When first reading this essay, an image of an advertisement for a vacuum cleaner with a 1950s style housewife showing how much easier it makes her life popped into my head. This essay made me stop to think about what life was like in the early 1970s as compared to what it is like now. Thinking about the current times, I think that times have changed and so have marital roles, but wholly, Brady is not too far off. As far as the time that Brady was living in, I think that “allowing for some serious playfulness” (Barnet 118) she was accurate in her assessment of the wifely duties.
This essay inspired me to spark up a conversation with my mother, a 1971 high school graduate, on the issue of marital roles of the past. She, at first, she was upset by the essay, claiming that a woman should stand up for herself. After explaining to her the time period that the essay was written in she was, for the most part, in agreement. She explained to me that, while she was growing up, her mother was rarely home because she worked outside of the home. When my grandma would return home, she was always busy keeping up the house, laundry, dinner, etc. My grandpa, when not working, was doing leisurely activities such as playing golf or watching television. She also explained to me what my step aunt and uncle did to maintain an income and allow them each to have a college education. My aunt stayed home with the children and worked while my uncle attended college and once he was done, the roles switched. I think their example demonstrates the change that came with the rise of feminism.
The marital roles have changed since the 1970s; however, I don’t think that they have changed as drastically as we may have hoped for. Women are going to college and creating careers for themselves more now than they have in the past. This has caused the rise in age of childbearing but, it has also caused an increase of males helping in the household. More men are accepting the “position” of a stay at home dad while they allow their wives to enhance their education or career. While my mom and I were discussing the current status of wives, we concluded that not much has changed. Women are taking on more responsibilities than ever before, yet keeping many of their original duties. Wives are now having a career instead of just working a job, there are also more duties involved with keeping up with the children and the house. It is not uncommon for a child to be a participant in various sports and have to go from school to dinner to practice and then keep up with chores and homework afterwards. Some children are so busy they don’t have time to help with chores leaving more for the parents to do. While men are helping out more and more around the house, women are taking on more and more opportunities.
Overall, I think that Brady did a good job poking fun, yet in a serious way, of the various tasks that wives are expected to accomplish. I think that times have changed, but only to create more duties for the wife with new, yet minimal, help from the husband.
Blog Post Week 3
6/1/07
When first reading this essay, an image of an advertisement for a vacuum cleaner with a 1950s style housewife showing how much easier it makes her life popped into my head. This essay made me stop to think about what life was like in the early 1970s as compared to what it is like now. Thinking about the current times, I think that times have changed and so have marital roles, but wholly, Brady is not too far off. As far as the time that Brady was living in, I think that “allowing for some serious playfulness” (Barnet 118) she was accurate in her assessment of the wifely duties.
This essay inspired me to spark up a conversation with my mother, a 1971 high school graduate, on the issue of marital roles of the past. She, at first, she was upset by the essay, claiming that a woman should stand up for herself. After explaining to her the time period that the essay was written in she was, for the most part, in agreement. She explained to me that, while she was growing up, her mother was rarely home because she worked outside of the home. When my grandma would return home, she was always busy keeping up the house, laundry, dinner, etc. My grandpa, when not working, was doing leisurely activities such as playing golf or watching television. She also explained to me what my step aunt and uncle did to maintain an income and allow them each to have a college education. My aunt stayed home with the children and worked while my uncle attended college and once he was done, the roles switched. I think their example demonstrates the change that came with the rise of feminism.
The marital roles have changed since the 1970s; however, I don’t think that they have changed as drastically as we may have hoped for. Women are going to college and creating careers for themselves more now than they have in the past. This has caused the rise in age of childbearing but, it has also caused an increase of males helping in the household. More men are accepting the “position” of a stay at home dad while they allow their wives to enhance their education or career. While my mom and I were discussing the current status of wives, we concluded that not much has changed. Women are taking on more responsibilities than ever before, yet keeping many of their original duties. Wives are now having a career instead of just working a job, there are also more duties involved with keeping up with the children and the house. It is not uncommon for a child to be a participant in various sports and have to go from school to dinner to practice and then keep up with chores and homework afterwards. Some children are so busy they don’t have time to help with chores leaving more for the parents to do. While men are helping out more and more around the house, women are taking on more and more opportunities.
Overall, I think that Brady did a good job poking fun, yet in a serious way, of the various tasks that wives are expected to accomplish. I think that times have changed, but only to create more duties for the wife with new, yet minimal, help from the husband.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)