Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard – summary and rhetorical analysis (p. 123)
Summary
Derek Bok, a past president of Harvard University, presents his argument in defense of
free speech at Harvard in “protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard. Bok introduces
the problem with an incident at Harvard when two students hung Confederate flags in
public view and describes students’ reactions. While some students urged that Harvard
requires the removal of symbols, others considered those symbols a form of free speech,
and one student protested the flags by displaying a swastika. Bok proceeds with his
argument by providing background of how different universities have resolved similar
conflicts in different ways, by enacting codes or refusal to impose such restrictions. The
major premise of his argument is that “the display of swastikas or Confederate flags
clearly falls within the protection of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
Thus, though he regrets that the students involved behaved in this fashion, Bok claims
that censorship is dangerous and goes against the value of communication and American
principles of democracy. He concludes his argument by suggesting that instead of
enforcing codes, and thus violating the right to free speech, it would be better either to
ignore such communications or to speak with those who perform insensitive acts.
Rhetorical analysis
Derek Bok organizes his argument by first describing the problem, then presenting both
sides of approaches to resolving it, and finally explaining his personal stand on the issue.
The rhetorical structure of such approach allows Bok present the argument fairly by
conceding to the proponents of speech code enforcement that display of Confederate
flags or swastikas is indeed insensitive and offensive. This pattern of organization also
allows Bok to distinguish between the appropriateness of such communications and their
status under the First Amendment. Though it seems that Bok constructs a well-organized,
fair, and effective argument, the precedent he uses to start his speech immediately
weakens his persuasiveness, while his qualifiers and diction further ruins not only his
appeal to ethos but the strength of the argument as a whole. Overall, the impression Bok
creates with his speech is that of a cautious lawyer treading unsure waters and hiding his
true feelings behind carefully selected words in an attempt not to antagonize either part of
his listeners.
Comments
To illustrate the points, I’ll start my essay with the precedent Bok uses (118) commenting
that when speaking about the Universities who have “enacted codes to protect their
communities from forms of speech that are deemed to be insensitive to the feelings of
other groups” Bok appears to imply that these Universities actually ignore or even violate
the First Amendment. Moreover, the very comparison of Harvard to the institutions that
enacted codes to protect students also implies that Harvard is more concerned with the
interpretation of the Law than with the feelings of offended Harvard students.
Bok further weakens his argument by his appeal to ethos and the qualifiers he uses to do
it. Instead of taking a strong stance on the incident, he says, “I share this view and
regret…” instead of showing strong emotions like “outraged,” “angered, etc. Not only he
creates an image of a person who hates to offend anyone’s feelings, but also of a person
who is very careful with his diction: “ as I read them…,” “ I suspect…,” “I have
difficulty understanding… “ Moreover, while discussing the consequences of enforcing
codes and limiting any exhibition of freedom of speech, another qualifier, “I suspect”
further weakens Bok’s argument as well as destructs the appeal to ethos he attempts to
establish in the beginning of his reasoning. Instead of further strengthening his position
by various qualifiers and playing on the appeal to ethos he uses earlier, Bok uses caution
when he explains his personal understanding of Confederate flags and swastikas as
symbols protected by the First Amendment while ignoring the fact that such position
affects another issue of democracy, such as respect for diversity both in American society
and on campus. A qualifier like “as I read them” in regards to court’s ruling, weakens
Bok’s position on the very basis of his argument.
While his logical reasoning which employs cause-and effect strategy helps Bok explain
his reasons against prohibition of any kind of communication, his word choices, such as
“I suspect, “rather than” still do not allow him to demonstrate his firm stand on the issue.
The mild tone Bok uses while discussing both sides of the controversy and suggesting
solutions to resolve the conflict to both parties satisfaction weakens his persuasiveness
even more. The tone also suggests sooner conciliatory position than a call for hard
decisions which could offend one of the parties. Bok’s tone sounds almost apologetic and
thus ruins the major warrant of his claim.