Table of Contents

1. Writing in the Science-Technology Sphere 

• Accommodating to the Masses: Scientific Writing for the Public 
• Sci/Tech Blog 
• Comparison of Jonah Lehrer and David Disalvo Blogs 

2. Arguing without Editorializing: The Policy Argument

• Blogging as Social Action And Beyond 
• Policy Argument 
• Say it, But Just a Little Better: Editing Policy Arguments 

3. Where Do We Stand? Writing and Editing for the Present and Beyond 

• The Perks and Problems of the Internet 
• Analytical Essay 
• "Is Society Dumbing Down?"

4. What the Heck is the Deal with Wikipedia? 

• Zittrain Gives A Lesson in Wikipedia 
• Wikipedia Project 

The Rhetoric of Rape on a College Campus

Image: New York Times

Tallahassee is the textbook definition of a college town. Despite being Florida’s state capitol, it doesn’t have much going on other than that and FSU. Living in Tallahassee is like living in a strange microcosm, which glorifies nothing above its young, talented athletes. Football players are raised to a level of apotheosis as we refer to our star quarterback as “Jameis Christ” and disregard every crime he may commit in the name of his football stardom. Just as big as the problem of rape itself is the harmful rape culture perpetuated rhetorically by the media, but even more importantly by students on social media.

FSU students and fans are biased by definition when it comes to discussing anything concerning FSU football, but just as in is typical in most it has proved difficult for them to admit to being so. The Lazere piece on biasness discusses how difficult it is to “recognize the biases in ourselves and sources of information that support any group we identify with- in contrast to how easy it is to recognize biases of other individuals and supporters of other groups.” Football fandoms are perhaps one of the most ruthlessly biased groups today, and have found a home within social media.

Florida State University football has a strong Twitter presence, more so than any other aspect on on-campus culture. There are several twitter accounts dedicated solely to tweeting FSU football news and other miscellaneous tweets. The FSU community is united, and informed through the Twitter world, and during Jameis Winston’s year long sexual assault investigation, it was a controversial mess of victim shaming slander.

Any person who thought Jameis Winston may be guilty was a “traitor” to Florida State, a school whose football winnings have recently constructed an “unconquered” prideful atmosphere. In a city so heavily driven by not only the cultural, but economic impact of its college football team, justice often gets lost in the cleat dust.

This controversy has become subject to vast disagreement across different platforms. This is to be expected however, because as the Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadson piece “Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation” discusses, “controversies are more complicated than disagreements between two parties,” the issue of rape culture on college campuses is without a doubt a complex one.

Image- Phil Sears/associated press

As is customary in many modern rape cases, the victim was blamed in the Jameis Winston case. The victim of Winston’s sexual assault case’s name was leaked on an anonymous website called FSUacb, a forum ran by members of the Greek community. After her name was released, her sorority received bomb threats, she received death threats and was forced to transfer universities for her own safety. And Winston was given a trophy and a national championship. College football is a powerful motivator, which can drive fans to put somebody in danger for simply reporting a rape case. But this all is perpetuated and strengthened by social media platforms allowing users to share information that can potentially harm another student.

In addition to stealing crab legs, soda cups, and shooting squirrels with a BB gun ironically enough on a trial popularly known across campus as “the rape trail,” days before the FSU game against Clemson, Jameis Winston was reported by several student’s Twitter accounts to have stood up on a table in the student union shouting “fuck her right in the pussy!” This expression, which quotes a popular Internet meme, is obviously inappropriate for a person who has been investigated for rape to shout at all, let alone in such a public area. Due to the indisputable evidence of his action, Winston was, for the first time in his entire history of offenses, suspended from a football game. To say the reaction to Winston’s actions across social media outlets was negative would be an understatement. The students who tweeted about Jameis’ actions were chastised by other angry students via various social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, and the newly popular anonymous app Yik Yak. Winston’s actions yet again contributed to the harmful construction of rape culture across the FSU campus. Students were outraged at Winston’s suspension, claiming that he’s “just a normal college student” and that “anybody would have done that.” Students even popularized the phrase “fuck Clemson right in the pussy” across social media and made signs referencing it on national television for ESPN’s College Game Day.

Image: Bjorn Morton/ Tallahassee Democrat

These actions construct Florida State’s student body as nothing more than an immature mass of bumbling football fans, who prioritize football over nearly everything. As discussed in the Lazere piece on avoiding oversimplification, it is easy to fall into the habit of overlooking an issue of which one has a strong emotional investment. “Wishful thinking and authoritarianism block us from developing the mindset needed to question the validity of our culturally conditioned assumptions.” In this, football fans are less of a villainous mass and more of a culturally conditioned body too set in societally implemented prejudices to see any error in their thinking.

Recently, social media has erupted with claims from FSU fans that the media (ESPN, New York Times, USA Today) hates Florida State, Jameis Winston, and is in effect doing everything in its power to destroy FSU’s image. Considering the teams’ success on field, and Jameis Winston’s shenanigans off the field, it would be naïve to believe that the media would leave FSU alone. But this hasn’t stopped fans from rebelling against any news source that does anything but praise the university. As a result of the hyper-focus on FSU the media has been showing, FSU fans launched the “Blame Jameis” hashtag, which was regarded as many on social media as “the funniest thing I’ve ever seen.” The joke in the hashtag essentially claims that Jameis Winston, a person was in fact responsible (or allegedly responsible) for every single incident he’s been criticized for, is unfairly blamed for everything. Thus launched the viral meme which included jokes further trivializing rape such as “got a D on my chemistry final #blamejameis” or “ebola #blamejameis.” What obviously was intended at a joke is more than anything a reflection on the misinterpretation FSU students have about severity of sexual assault.

           

FSU recently discontinued a campaign called “FSU Men Measure Up” which drew its statistics from a voluntary online survey of FSU’s men about sexual consent. The campaign proudly plastered posters showcasing statistics like “91% of FSU men believe that if a woman has her clothes off, she still has the right to say no to sex.” To put this into perspective FSU was essentially bragging that amongst its student body of 40,000+ students, which is about half men, only 9% of those 20,000 or so men might rape somebody. That’s 1800+ students, and that number is terrifying. What’s even more frightening is the appropriation of this as a brag-worthy fact.

                        Image: original FSU Men Measure Up campaign

In October, FSU’s Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity (PIKE) was suspended due to several reports of sexual assault within the frat house. This wasn’t the first time a frat at FSU has been subject to investigation of sexual assault, and when the suspension was announced it seemed that perhaps the climate was changing for the university’s treatment of these cases. This hope was promptly shattered when the fraternity was reinstated after less than a week of suspension and no charges were filed against any brother. There was however, an eruption of discourse concerning the Pike fraternity on social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, and the newly popular anonymous app Yik Yak. Unfortunately most of this discourse was more focused around the hatred of the fraternity itself, rather than the allegations towards them.

Victim blaming is by far the biggest issue facing the detrimental culture of rape culture. We live in a society that teaches women how to not be raped, rather than teaching men not to rape. We shrug off the notion of sexual violence, saying “well boys will be boys,” or “she was asking for it,” and even make jokes about rape, tweeting things like “Noles are gonna fuck Clemson right in the pussy.” Rape culture in a college environment is rapidly perpetuated through the misinterpretation of what constitutes assault as well as the harmful rhetoric used not only by the media but also by individuals on social media. When discussing a sexual assault case we ask “Was the victim drunk?” “What was she wearing?” “Did she give off signs?” And more often than not we get into a Twitter argument over it. This is not okay. If somebody’s house was robbed, it wouldn’t matter if the owner was drunk, left the door open, or even had a sign on the front door reading “I’m not home.” It would be a crime, regardless of the circumstance that it was committed. So why isn’t sexual assault looked at with the same objectivity? Rape jokes, as a whole have become a popular and even appropriate way to express one’s football allegiances. Rape is therefore locally trivialized as nothing more than a punch line on the way to Florida State University’s next National Championship. This is a detrimental cultural flaw of not only this university, but also colleges nationwide who continue to prioritize football winnings over justice. This culture is perpetuated to an incredibly worrisome extent on social media platforms, wherein rape is constructed rhetorically as a minor offence, fit for jokes and victim blaming. Until universities can show that rape culture is unacceptable, it will be in turn very difficult for students to rhetorically do the same.

Works Cited:

1. Bogdanich, Walt. "Errors in Inquiry on Rape Allegations Against FSU’s Jameis Winston." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

2. Brennan, Christine. "Florida State Gives Way to 'Jameis State'" USA Today. N.p., 15 Oct. 2014. Web.


3. Kook, Christian, and Lisa S. Villadson, eds. "Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation." Rhetoric and Democratic Deliberation (n.d.): n. pag. Print.

4. Lazere, Donald. "Avoiding Oversimplification and Recognizing Complexity." Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy (n.d.): n. pag. Print.


5. Lazere, Donald. "Viewpoint, Bias, and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertainty." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.


6. Mcintire, Mike, and Walt Bogdanich. "At Florida State, Football Clouds Justice." The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.

Analytical Essay

The modern construct of education is a topic yielding much debate and controversy amongst educators, administration, students, and several other demographics of people. While almost none would argue that modern education is ineffective, some scholars have disclosed their opinions pertaining to what exactly should be valued in education. Noam Chomsky recently discussed his concerns in a Skype session adapted into a piece entitled “How America's Great University System Is Getting Destroyed.” Chomsky argues that the business side of education is currently wrecking a once effective system. In relative similarity, Michael Bérubé vaguely addresses some of his own concerns with the education system in a piece called “The Humanities, Declining? Not According to the Numbers,” but these claims are outshined by his far more prominent argument that the current statistics claiming that humanities majors are down are inaccurate. Although they do so through starkly contrasting viewpoints, both authors demonstrate an intense desire to construct an epideictic argument in which their audience will be inspired to take action, or to change their current opinions concerning higher education, although one does so far more effectively and appropriately.

Chomsky’s argument is saturated to appeal to the ethos of his audience, which is most likely comprised of a community of higher education. He addresses a very prominent issue in the university system- the hiring of graduate students whom he describes as “cheap, vulnerable labor.” Graduate students work for very little, but strive to achieve a lot at the same time. In this respect, they are ideal candidates for the economic manipulation Chomsky believes the modern American university system feeds off of. He describes a corporate business model, wherein administrators are given virtually unchecked power while subordinates tread water, struggling to even make the surface. Chomsky adds, "All of this is perfectly natural within corporate business models. It's harmful to education, but education is not their goal.” Chomsky is upset with the disgusting irony, which categorizes the business of education, and rhetorically constructs his argument with the epideictic purpose of inspiring change within his audience. Chomsky discusses at length the indoctrination of young people, namely through indebting them with student loans, which he says are even worse and harder to pay off than credit card debt. Students and Graduate students are mutually indoctrinated, as graduate students are given little control or say over what they teach, large class numbers, and a large amount of extracurricular work coupled with almost no job security. Just in case that wasn’t enough, Grad students are also given sparing rights when it comes to being a part of any sort of legislative decision that will absolutely affect their lives as educators. This predictably, further disenfranchises them from the purity of teaching, and adds to their job insecurity. Therefore, they are less of an educator.

As a result, the authenticity of education suffers, as does the individual experience of each student and graduate student. But this is cheap, and in an education system fueled not by the desire to learn but the necessity to make money, it has become all too normal. Chomsky makes the drastic, but rhetorically effective point that this model of education is almost identical to that of a “tyrannical ideas.” Chomsky attempts to further massage his audience’s ethos appeal by discussing a philosophy originated during the enlightenment, which is in essence it “doesn’t matter what we cover, but what you discover.” This is the purest purpose of education as argued by Chomsky in this piece, that “It's not to pour information into somebody's head which will then leak out but to enable them to become creative, independent people who can find excitement in discovery and creation and creativity at whatever level or in whatever domain their interests carry them.” This of course, is an incredibly liberal view of education, one that as argued by Chomsky, definitely needs somebody to stand up for it these days, which he urges his audience to do at the end of his argument. While Chomsky’s argument is matted in ethical charm, it is not immune from certain biases that may contribute to the weakening of his argument. It is evident that Chomsky is very opinionated on this subject matter, and as Rebecca Jones discusses in her piece “Finding the Good Argument,” “one of the rules of a good argument is that participants agree on a primary standpoint and that individuals are willing to concede if a point is proven wrong.” (Jones, 158) Chomsky’s opinionated argument does not strike the audience as something that would be willing to back down if proven wrong.

Michael Bérubé’s piece, “The Humanities, Declining? Not According to the Numbers,” is equally concerned with the rhetorical construction of modern education in America, but for different reasons than Chomsky. Bérubé is less concerned with the authenticity of education and the validation and security of educators, but more with refuting and redefining the phony statistics that have been used to construct the argument that humanities programs are a dying breed on the cusp on educational extinction. He references specific statistics and in a significantly snarky tone refutes them with different, as he claims more accurate statistics. Personally, I had trouble trusting this author’s argument. While he did include specific facts to backup his claims, these statistics were really no different than the preceding statistics he gave from different sources. The piece was published online and even included a fairly active comment section, wherein readers could construct their own discourse situation pertaining to his argument. In the Rebecca Jones’ piece “Finding the Good Argument,” she discusses what exactly makes a good argument, while also providing examples of situations wherein logic tends to be flawed. In these situations, “what is often missing from these discussions is research, consideration of multiple vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic.” (Jones, 158) While it is conceivable that Bérubé’s piece was constructed using a basis of logic, it seems to be almost negated through his clear bias and sardonic tone. It is of course easy to fall into this construct of forming an argument, especially when one hold personal allegiance to the specific topic he or she is arguing for or against. This concept is discussed at length in the Lazere piece “Viewpoint, Bias, and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertaint.” While it is easy to become jaded to one’s own bias, it is even easier “for us to recognize biases in other individuals and supporters of other groups.” (Lazere, 128.)

Due to the clear web competence of this article, it would not be too much to ask for hyperlinks to these alleged studies. Perhaps, more details as to why exactly they were flawed. Another issue I found with the credibility of this argument was the author’s almost cryptically sarcastic tone, which at times was confusing and out of place for such a serious subject matter. He seemed pompous, but not at all willing to admit that his argument was anything but sound. This of course, is detrimental to a good argument. Lazere says, an argument is more credible when they are out front in admitting to their own subjective viewpoint, possible biases, and special pledging.” (Lazere, 129) Bérubé’s argument does not do this and as a result even encroached upon pettiness at times, like when the author referenced the opposing work of his colleague whose work he “never liked and who is probably undermining the English major as I type.” (A good argument should not be saturated in personal attacks, but matted in careful facts and rhetorical strategies to affect and convince one’s audience of something. The author’s stance on the humanities is hard to pinpoint throughout his argument. His sarcastic tone leads one to believe that he is not in support of them, describing them as "useless degree programs that won't get you a job and that you will have to explain to your parents." Despite his clear distrust for the rationality of getting a humanities degree, Bérubé does note that he finds it interesting that today, in juxtaposition to all the rhetoric constructing the jobless future of humanities majors, as well as the “sell out” complex that many once creatively driven students face in college, the number of humanities majors has remained just about the same as it was in the 1970s.

A bit of a curveball is thrown at the reader in Bérubé’s final paragraph wherein he directly states that there is a problem in the humanities, but “it is a crisis in graduate education, in prestige, in funds, and most broadly, in legitimation.” For the first time in his argument we are given a more supportive approach to the humanities in this final argument, an utterance that is not unlike the liberal construction of Chomsky’s argument about the destruction of the American education system. But unlike Chomsky, Bérubé is far less concerned with this than he is with the misinterpretation of statistics concerning it, which I believe weakens his argument and portrays him as an unreliable source. This is of course evident whenever one is attempting to argue for or against a topic that he or she is very passionate about, which in both author’s cases definitely applies to their viewpoints towards higher education. Chomsky and Bérubé construct their arguments differently, yielding them different levels of credibility, but the core of their argument maintains its purity in that it is primarily concerned with the issue of improving modern higher education.

Works Cited: 

Bérubé, Michael. "The Humanities, Declining? Not According to the Numbers." The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle Review, 1 July 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

Chomsky, Noam. "How America's Great Education System Is Getting Destroyed." AlterNet. N.p., 1 Mar. 2014. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.

Jones, Rebecca. "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?"Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Vol. 1. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2010. 156-79. Print

Lazere, Donald. "Viewpoint, Bias, and Fairness: From Cocksure Ignorance to Thoughtful Uncertainty." Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: A Critical Citizen's Guide. N.p.: Paradigm, n.d. 125-38. Print.