Hedrick 1
Kay Hedrick
Prof. Kay M. Hedrick
ENG 100
October 12, 2012
A Friend to All is a Friend to None
Universities strive to lead students to contemplate all things as they relate to learning and life.
Unfortunately, many minorities in college settings are unable to do this because they must focus on
survival, due to the vicious words of other members of these communities. Speech Codes were created
in many of these populations in an effort to prohibit these verbal assaults and allow inquiry and learning
to excel. Aristotle, a proponent of learning through inquiry once said, “The ultimate value of life
depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival.” This
assertion is echoed by New York Times national education correspondent and author, Ethan Bronner, in
his article “Big Brother is Listening,” as he questions the necessity for speech codes. His purpose is to
alert readers to both the benefits and problems created by such codes in academic communities. He
adopts a didactic tone in order to encourage the general public to consider and query the diverse
consequences speech codes produce on all affected populations. Ethan Bronner, in his article “Big
Brother is Listening” makes an undeniably compelling case against speech codes through his use of
diction, emotional, ethical, and logical appeals, and rhetorical question.
Bronner begins his article by introducing the topic of speech codes and the controversy they
have sparked in contemporary society. He uses an anecdote, telling of the ensuing debate taking place
at the University of Wisconsin, in order to draw the reader in and allow them to visually participate in
the issue. His description of the setting — “the pale blue faculty senate room in Bascom Hall” — sets
the stage for the debate. The use of word choice, or diction, here invites the reader into the room as a
Hedrick 2
witness to what is occurring. Descriptions such as “pale blue” and “Bascom Hall” help the audience feel
that this scene is not grand or filled with the glamour often associated with controversial issues they
may read about in the New York Times. One senses that this is quite a normal place, a classroom-like
environment you might find on any college campus. He continues to paint the quaint picture normality
as he describes the college with words such as “lakeside campus” and descriptions of the educational
values that most academic entities strive to embrace. This strengthens his argument that the general
population must pay attention to this issue because it is one found commonly in our society (261).
Bronner then introduces the problem, itself, by addressing the dispute. Once again, he uses
strong diction to present the need for the audience to consider the impact of speech codes. The debate
is addressed with “passion” and has been “simmering for generations.” The use of such words supports
his assertion that we need to question the use of speech codes. They obviously spark strong emotions
when discussed. He goes on to address the actual conflict the speech codes generate. As the “plaque
on the building’s entrance celebrates freedom of inquiry,” Bronner shows that questioning and inquiry
are a necessary component of learning, as it is recognized by educational communities. The conflict
arises when this “inquiry” and “freedom” to pursue it interfere with “creating a diverse and tolerant
nation” (261). Bronner’s use of diction, here, clearly shows the dichotomy that he wants to present to
the audience. The reader is left with two portraits of arguably good things — learning and tolerance.
However, the reader also can now see that, while both pursuits are worthwhile, when used in
conjunction in this environment, they may contradict one another.
For this reason, Bronner moves on to show the two sides that this controversy creates. He uses
pathos to show the costs of speech codes as he reveals consequences such as punishment through
“suspension, expulsion or firing” (261). The use of diction here implies a very negative connotation,
making the reader have negative outlook on this point of view. But, he contends these acts work to
Hedrick 3
assure those “vulnerable” that they will not suffer at the hands of abuse. This moves the reader to feel
for both those who have lost their “freedom of speech” and have faced the consequences above, while
at the same time empathizing with the groups speech codes are intended to protect. He continues
using pathos and diction to show that the costs affect everyone as he states, “The harm is
immeasurable.” His use of words such as immeasurable, create a sense of urgency in the readers,
making them feel they must know more about the topic in an effort to understand (261).
Accordingly, Bronner progresses into the effects of these divisive circumstances. He creates
overwhelming ethos as he cites several knowledgeable sources to add reliability to his argument. In
quoting those familiar with the effects such as student, Jason Shepherd, University of Pennsylvania
professor, Alan Charles Kors, and Boston lawyer, Harvey A. Silverglate, Bronner guides his readers to
view all contingencies. Additionally, he uses statistical data showing that “between 1987 and 1992,
about a third of the nation’s colleges and universities enacted codes of conduct that covered offensive
speech,” to establish authority and credibility regarding the topic. This creates trust in his audience that
he is presenting them with an accurate assessment of the issue at hand and that he is objectively
educating them about the matter (261-262).
Bronner then corroborates his findings by providing multiple examples of this conflict in action.
He effectively uses emotional appeals or pathos to establish that individuals and groups have suffered
on both sides of the controversy. The case of Eden Jacobowitz demonstrates that the diversity of our
cultures can create a “need” for speech codes. Jacobowitz, a Jew, used “Hebrew . . . slang” to make
commentary about a group of women of campus, which they viewed offensive. During the “highly
publicized hearing before an administrative board” the subsequent review of his plea regarding the
cultural implications of his comments and their lack of intent as a racial slur, were found to show his
innocence and Jacobowitz’ “charges were dropped” (262). In this case, the audience is led to feel the
Hedrick 4
injustice that Jacobwitz experienced and relate to the harmful manner in which speech codes can
implicate unduly.
Bronner then provides evidence to the contrary. Again, the reader’s emotions are twisted to
feel sympathy for those that speech codes serve to protect. In this case, the subject is identified only as
“Ms. Rideau, a 20-year old junior . . . and a vice president of the Wisconsin Black Student Union” (262).
She was offended first by misunderstanding the use of the word “niggardly” by her college professor in
the course of a lecture. After approaching the professor and gaining understanding that the word was
used in an inoffensive manner, due to its definition, she was then humiliated by the professor in a
subsequent lecture, as he addressed the use of the word by continually using it (262-263). The reader
feels the pain of the student and longs to advocate speech codes in an effort to prevent future students
from having similar experiences. At the same time, Bronner presents evidence that due to the fact that
the professor indeed used the language correctly and inoffensively in its original context, the speech
codes in place, cannot always act as they are meant to do —“there was no way any code could be
enacted that would bar a professor from using” such language (263).
Bronner shifts his rhetoric to question whether or not speech codes should be abolished
altogether. He uses logical appeals, in the form of specific examples and reasoning to substantiate his
claim. He begins by showing that our mindsets have evolved, no longer necessitating the need for
speech codes as “campuses report few bias-related incidents” now. “While there are occurrences
involving hate e-mails or posters with racial slurs and intimidation of homosexuals, university officials
say campuses are not plagued with the problems of a decade ago, when the codes were drafted” (264).
The reader can reason that as times have changed, people’s ideas about minority groups have become
more tolerant, as well.
Hedrick 5
While giving several examples of how speech codes have allowed universities to enforce
penalties against violators, Bronner illustrates that these cases are infrequent in current academic
circles. Changing times have unified Conservatives and Liberals as they “joined forces . . . to condemn all
speech codes” (265). These facts work to make the reader reevaluate the need for such codes at all. He
continues by presenting the reasoning of a member of a minority group, University of Wisconsin student
and gay man, Mr. Shepherd. “Pursuit of knowledge requires us to ask tough questions and when we do
so, people feel uneasy. There is no way around that” (265). In using the logic of a minority who the
speech codes are created to protect, to negate the need and benefit of speech codes, Bronner produces
inquiry in the minds of his listeners, effectively developing their analysis of the topic at hand.
Finally, Bronner uses more emotional, logical and ethical appeals in combination with the use of
rhetorical question to push the audience into further consideration of the matter. Previously mentioned
Kors and Silverglate attack the problem in The Shadow University when they state that “the victims . . .
are those who are not a part of it.” They contend that “There is no question that the codes did . . .
influence and create more appropriate attitudes . . . but this was at the cost of instilling fear of
intellectual honesty” (266). The readers are forced to recognize that speech codes had their place in the
past, but with a price. Bronner’s use of this material creates both logical and emotional reactions in the
reader. The information presents a reasoned case against speech codes in current theory while invoking
feelings of doubt about its continued use. This combination also serves to create a certain trust in the
author’s argument. He ends his argument by asking, “Who knows what minority will arrive
tomorrow?” (266). The use of this rhetorical question leaves the reader with many thoughts regarding
the implications of speech codes in the future.
Aristotle once said, “A friend to all is a friend to none,” which leads to a few final questions. Is
this what speech codes are attempting to do in our schools—befriend all at that expense of inquiry, thus
Hedrick 6
befriending none? Should speech codes be abolished or do they protect those in need of security on
modern campuses? Do speech codes impede free speech and learning? Ethan Bronner forcefully
maintains that they should be abolished. Through his instructive article he cleverly uses style and
appeals to moralize this topic, leaving his readers to do just what he intended them to do, question the
validity and obligation of speech codes in university and college settings.
Word Count = 1,827 words
Hedrick 7