Megan Little's Instructor Page

Q: Horowitz, explains and expands his discussion of his methodology in this article. He describes the process of visiting several schools and talking with thousands of students. He also explains that he had limited access to classes. Does this additional information make his use of evidence more credible?

Q: Horowitz justifies his approach as “prima facie”; does this justify his use of evidence?

Q: Horowitz claims that his example of the women’s studies class “is not untypical” of experiences of behavior in classrooms. Is this a good use of evidence?

Q: Is Horowitz’s use of Alan Wolfe good evidence? Why or why not?

As we continue working on the paper for unit 3, we will practice planting a "naysayer" in our arguments. Here are some quotes from your papers we'll use:

***

However, I think Mr. Longaker falters when he follows with a character attack, accusing Horowitz of being motivated solely by the opportunity for monetary gain that his contributions to this movement might elicit. On its face, a character attack can seem like a good move—why would anyone listen to someone they don’t respect as a person? I believe, though, that the fact of a person’s good character or bad has little or no bearing on the quality of their ideas. Neitzche was psychotic, Hemmingway was a drunk, and Polanski is wanted in the US for indecency with a child. None of these things have an impact on the purely academic or artistic contributions that these imperfect originators made. The only real benefit I can see is to fire up the reader, giving those who agree with Longaker more fuel for their passionate refutations, which is indeed a valuable aspect of argument as long as it’s not the argument in its entirety.

What does ideology mean, anyhow?

Today we're having a peer review workshop for the formal paper for unit 2. You can print this out or fill it out online and email it to your partner. Either way, make sure your name and your partner's name is on it, and turn in the peer review you receive with your formal paper on Thursday.

Here's a link that Chance thought the class might enjoy. It raises some interesting questions about the role of the media in modeling responsible public discourse, and the degree of complexity that is even possible in "Hardline" or "Crossfire" or similar type news format.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11TaDDUVcGQ

This week, we'll be comparing different approaches to representing the complexity of the statue controversy on campus. In reading response #5, compare the way two articles address (or attempt to address) the complexity of this issue (for example, by retracing history, through personal narrative, through humor, even listing out conflicting values, etc.) In this comparison, you might also address: Which one do you personally find more compelling? How would different audiences react to these articles? What significant information may be omitted by both?

Today the class will post some of their observations and reflections on the epideictic rhetoric of the Chavez statue ceremony. See our class forum.

Today my students will be partnered up with students from Manor. They will respond to posted introductions here .

Today we're going to have a peer review workshop. I get to sit back and let y'all do the work.

In our second writing workshop, we'll look at samples of student writing. Our goal is to take a look at quoting strategies and think of ways to integrate rhetorical analysis and interpretation into quoting and summarizing.