Lindsey Moshell
April 16, 2002
Dr. Hocks
Eng. 1103
“How Leftists ‘Debate’”
The right to free speech, open expression and sharing
of ideas is almost solely what the U.S. is founded on.
The
fault behind letting anyone say anything lies with the fact
that what they say doesn’t have to be fair. It is easy to
present only one side of an argument or to write in a
biased tone. Nothing causes biasness or one-sidedness more
than a controversial issue. In the U.S., race
discrimination is most definitely steeped in controversy.
The ongoing debate about race in the U.S. will probably
always be just that, ongoing. The struggle is really about
information. The winning side of this debate, if there ever
is one, will be the one that can provide the most
information to the largest amount of people.
Whether or
not that information is fair and correct is a different
issue altogether.
Many advocates for or against affirmative action use
the most extreme examples, not only to get their point
across, but also because the extreme examples offer us a
more unbelievable scenario.
as the norm or as common.
These scenarios are presented
Jeff Jacoby does this exactly in
his argumentative article “How Leftists ‘Debate’”. The
article is a summary of two events, one being a speech
given by Ward Connerly, an opponent of affirmative action
and chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute at the
Univ. of Tex. School of Law, and a controversial move by
Duke Univ. to offer a major in Hindi.
Jacoby uses language that obviously shows his stance
on the subject. When writing about Connerly’s speech, he
speaks of the protestors as “A gang of bullies… [that]
resorted to the usual thuggish tactics, yelling insults,
pounding the walls, stomping their feet, waving placards”
(687).
This account is very different than the account
given by Laura Offenbacher in her article entitled
“Connerly Booed at Talk”.
She simply states that “Nearly
50 people gathered to protest Connerly outside the entrance
of the auditorium” (677). Unlike Jacoby, Offenbacher
clarifies that those protesting had views that were not
commonly shared by all of those at the Univ. of Tex.
Jacoby only offers how he saw the event, not an unbiased
account of what actually happened.
The next incident Jacoby tells about is that of two
freshmen at Duke Univ. that both wrote letters in protest
of Duke’s decision to offer a major in Hindi. Two valid
arguments are made; one about the existing Hindi classes
being 72 percent empty, and the other about Duke not
offering a major in statistics, an accredited science.
What detracts from both of these valid arguments is the
manner in which they are made.
The two opinionated
freshmen, as well as Jacoby, insult India and Hindu
culture.
Part of their argument is that Hindi “... is a
language spoken in a Third World country overwrought by
disease and poverty” (687).
If they are correct, India is
the only Third World country that has nuclear weapons.
After much hate mail and threats, the two students respond,
adding fuel to the fire. One of the freshman writes “The
values of the West—the power of reason, the sanctity of
individual rights, and the unfettered pursuit of happiness—
are superior to the values of a primitive, impoverished
country like India” (688).
Jacoby describes the incident as if the two freshmen
insulting an entire people were not at fault for the result
of their letters. Jacoby tells of how intolerant people at
Duke were when it came to opinions. He completely discards
the fact that the two freshmen he is defending didn’t just
give their opinions, but did it in a mean, insulting, and
Eurocentric way.
Why were the two advocates against the
Hindi major so surprised when they received the reaction
they did? Nobody can expect to be so blatantly and
profusely offensive and then have no heated reaction.
In both accounts of both events, Jacoby only gives a
one sided view of what happened.
He picks his side and
then writes of how wonderful and innocent his side his
while insulting and resorting to name calling to berate the
opposing side.
The only reason for him to do this, the
only advantage, is to rile up his allies or to try to
convince those that are sitting on the fence to side with
him.
Jacoby definitely isn’t the only culprit of this
biased writing style. There are surely some opposing Jacoby
that do the same thing.
ever stop?
But when will it stop?
Will it
There will probably always be someone that will
write unfairly, and all we can do is to try to limit the
unfairness by governing ourselves individually.
Only by
recognizing the equality and validity of everyone’s stand
point will we begin to understand each other and find
solutions to our disagreements. Until that day comes, we
will just have to take it with a smile.
Bibliography
Jacoby, Jeff. “How Leftists ‘Debate’”. Everything’s an
Argument. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2001
Offenbacher, Laura. “Connerly Booed at Talk”. Everything’s
An Argument. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2001