FALL 2019

ENGL 205

Textual Analysis #1

The tennis community has created a culture which is represented as couth; however, recent events regarding Serena Williams at the 2018 Women’s US Open Finals have triggered a controversial conversation which extends out of the sports humbled embrace. At least, this is what Senior Correspondent at Vox.com, Alex Abad-Santos observes to be occurring. In the article published on September 10th , 2018 at Vox.com, “Serena William’s US Open Fight with an Umpire, Explained: Male tennis players have been celebrated for snapping at umpires. Serena Williams was punished for it.” Abad-Santos brings to light many perspectives to explore this possibility. In order to get to the bottom of Abad-Santos’ argument, we will employ Aristotle’s tools of rhetoric; specifically, his three appeals: logos (logic, reasoning), ethos (character, ethics), and pathos (emotion). These three appeals are important to an author’s ability to connect with target & non-target readers in their attempts to persuade perspective. Analyzing Abad-Santos utilization of logos, ethos, and pathos will allow us to effectively identify the equitability of this observation.

Abad-Santos utilizes logos extensively to persuade readers of this main observation. Abad-Santos reported, “A few retired male tennis players have also weighed in on Williams’ penalization, saying that they have said worse things to umpires and not gotten docked points. James Blake, a former professional American tennis player who ranked as high as No. 4 in the world, explained on Twitter that he was treated very differently than Serena…” (Abad-Santos p.4P39). He explains that many external parties have expressed their support for Williams, publically commenting their belief that her conduct was treated unfairly, specifically compared to her male counterparts. Furthermore, that history has created an alternate narrative to similar circumstance.

Supporting this observation with an abundance of quotations & informed opinions on the matter, Abad-Santos displays this logical evidence as reinforcements to the main claim. Target & non-target readers alike are persuaded by a vast community of informed opinions, this empowers Abad-Santos to speak for, and to a larger community. Utilizing historical analogies and a personal anecdote from a recently well-known player, the author persuades the audience to apply logic & reasoning to the main point of the article, that the match of The 2018 Women’s US Open Final, “will be remembered for the conversation it spurred about Williams’ hard-fought legacy in tennis, and sexism [&] double standards in the sport.” (Abad-Santos p.1 P8). This is meant to convince the audience through reasoning of informed opinions & historical evidence that this perspective of the tennis community is true. Now followers of James Blake, and others, may have a perspective opinion on the matter; which will be further influenced by Abad-Santos commanding utilization of logical rhetoric.

To develop his appeal to ethos, Abad-Santos continues to focus on possible shared values of target & non-target readers alike. Abad-Santos takes the depth of the conversation to the next level, explaining that, “William’s behavior in 2009 and 2011 wasn’t admirable. But we also don’t know how much of her defensiveness [&] anger stem from scars and wounds we’re not privy to. Nor will we ever know how other players would react if they were treated in the same way Williams has been throughout her career.” (Abad-Ramos p.8 P65.) Here, Abad-Santos offers the understanding that Serenas’ actions towards the calls of Carlos Ramos are morally & ethically acceptable, given the complete setting of her career. Abad-Santos utilizes the ethos appeal to persuade the possible shared values of target & non-target readers, these values being of oppression & dignified freedom. Target & non-target readers will be more persuaded to understand a communal perspective, and the communal beliefs of such circumstances. Peppered through this article Abad-Santos continues to draw upon the depth to which this incident extends. The author gently asserts that it has more to do with the oppression being displayed throughout her career, rather than the actions of Serena within the moment. This implementation of the ethical appeal truly strengthens Abad-Santos’ observation of the 2018 Women’s US Open Finals, and the shared values of the entire audience of readers.

An author must also activate the emotions of the audience, target & non-target, in order to evoke said response from the audience. Clearly stating, “Both during the match and after her loss, Williams argued that the penalties issued against her were the result of Ramos having a sexist attitude toward her.” (Abad-Ramos p.3 P28), the loaded language & content evoke pure emotion from the audience. He refers to many emotional examples of the match, and the way in which Carlos Ramos negatively affected Serena Williams. Also, for shock value, he gives financial values to each of the infractions she received, to stimulate further emotion from the audience. This appeal in pathos is meant to make the audience gain an emotional attachment to the way Williams is treated. Furthermore, due to the steep cost of each infraction, the audience (target & non-target readers) will resonate further with the depth she is being affected by this oppression. Abad-Ramos picks very specific instances to depict this situation, with the purpose of drawing on the audience’s emotions towards personal oppressions, stabilizing the article with his pathos appeal.

By analyzing Abad-Ramos’ utilization of Aristotle’s three appeals, logos, ethos, and pathos, we are able to effectively evaluate the observation of recent events regarding Serena Williams at the 2018 Women’s US Open Finals which triggered a controversial conversation in sexism. Through the logos appeal, Abad-Ramos creates a space for target & non-target readers to recognize the community which is commenting on this subject; as well as strengthening his own argument with the support of informed opinions. Furthermore, with the utilization of an ethos appeal, he established the shared values between target & non-target readers alike; every individual has felt oppressed at some point within their experience. Regardless, of any personal vendetta for Serena Williams, the audience will accept & appreciate her personal experience. And finally, through the pathos appeal, the author stirs the emotions of the entire audience by describing in detail events of the match, with respect to the deeper history involved. Overall Abad-Ramos created a nearly unbiased image for the audience to view. Although at times, he takes a tone more directed towards the support of Williams & the downfall of Ramos, he maintains a balanced perspective throughout. Ultimately, the author displays a vast array of rhetorical tools to persuade the entire audience and does a splendid job in doing so.

The Epidemic: War On Drugs

The drug epidemic that has spread across The United States over the past 40 years has created a society filled with users & addicts. Can one presidential administration write a policy, which has a lasting effect upon such a deep rooted crisis? This is what former director of drug control policy for President H.W. Bush, William J. Bennett, and former director of drug control policy for President W. Bush, John P. Walters express to be possible. In the article published September 8th, 2015 on bostonglobe.com, “Bring Back The War on Drugs,” Bennett & Walters bring personal experience into the conversation, to explore such possibilities. Their claim, “The heroin epidemic is inflicted upon us by criminal acts that produce an abundant supply of inexpensive drugs. Stopping these criminal acts will stop the epidemic.” (Bennett/Williams p.1 P3) To determine if Bennett & Walters present a strong argument for this claim, we will utilize Aristotle’s tools of rhetoric; specifically, his three appeals: logos (logic, reasoning), ethos (character, ethics), and pathos (emotion). These three appeals are vital to an author's ability to persuade an audience’s perspectives, target & non-target readers alike. Analyzing Bennett & Walters ability to develop the appeals, logos, ethos & pathos, we will constructively identify if this vindication is reasonable or not.

Bennett & Walters do not utilize the logos appeal to its fullest potential within such a statistically saturated industry. There are only two examples of clear logos appeal throughout the article, only one will be discussed, and both are from the same source; this does not give a wide variety of input on the matter. “The death rate from heroin overdoses doubled from 2010 to 2013; according to the Centers for Disease Control, 8,200 died in 2013...Heroin and other drugs in New Hampshire now kill more people than traffic accidents.” (Bennett/Walter p.1 P2) This is the first example of logos being utilized within the article as factual data & statistics. Target readers will be deeply affected by this appeal application, as this publication is based out of Boston, and New Hampshire is so near by. However, this is not a strong argument to persuade non-target readers, as they may find the statistics & follow-up dialogue misleading. The authors could have extrapolated further upon all kinds of statistics involving criminal acts that stimulate the drug epidemic, and the overall lack of such information impairs Bennett & Walters argument.

To develop their appeal to ethos, the authors focus on the values of the entire audience because regardless of status & stature everyone is affected by this epidemic in some way. Within the counter argument of the article we can find an effective implementation of the ethos appeal: “Some claim the crucial cause of heroin overdoses is prior misuse of prescription opiate medications. When these pills become scarce and expensive, the argue, opiate abusers turn to heroin.” (Bennett/Walters p.2 P11) This extension of fair-minded, shared values between audience members brings the argument some real foundations. Simply by expressing this within such a passion filled article creates the space for the entire audience to listen more intently. Target readers may feel this way presently, and will be persuaded to look further into the matter; and as for non-target readers, they will appreciate that in such a heavily biased article this was touched upon, becoming more available to receive the argument & persuasion. Bennett & Walters utilize the ethos appeal in a graceful manner, and do their best to open the audience to possible shared values.

This entire topic is filled with pathos appeal, as it is so close to the lives of many. However, to analyze this article further, the authors use of the pathos appeal in attempts to evoke a response from the audience is more banter than rhetorical persuasion. The authors report, “There can be no crossover from opiates to heroin without a ready supply of heroin. The crucial answer to this crisis is interpreting the abundant supply of cheap, potent heroin.” (Bennett/Walters p.2 P12 S3&4) This vivid description is filled with all forms of emotionally loaded language. Target readers will be in full swing for the momentum of this drug-war, although non-target readers may feel that there are many factors involved with such a diverse crisis, not just heroin supply. Overall the use of the pathos appeal throughout the entirety of the article was effective in raising emotions within the audience, and possibly persuading some towards a new perspective.

By analyzing Bennett & Walters development of Aristotle’s three appeals, logos, ethos & pathos, textual analysts are able to effectively evaluate the vindication of the drug-war as reasonable or not. Through the logos appeal, the authors leave a fair amount of detail up for interpretation. Also, only having one source of outside information leaves the entire audience open to personal discriminations. The effect does not support the argument to the best of the datas ability. The appeal to ethos within the article is the strongest argument within the article, as the connection of shared values between the entire audience will strengthen the persuasion of said audience, by the article. Furthermore, the pathos appeal is also a powerful support for the entire argument, as the vivid descriptions & emotionally loaded language throughout keep the audience engaged, and crying for action. All in all, the article could have been executed with a different tone, that did not put so much onto one presidential administration, and then barely touched on the main claim; which was that the U.S. should criminalize the supply trade of opiates to reduce the addiction rate of the citizens. Bennett & Walters did try to persuade the audience to support the War on Drugs, the appeals within the argument just missed the mark that may inspire action.

Two Reasons

The case against Al Franken holds many perspectives both supporting his resignation and arguing against it. At the time of his undoing Al Franken had become a beloved political comic in the public eye. Having supported the troops through the USO tours and cracking political jokes in his youth as a staff writer & actor on Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update.” He also had become an ideal target for Republicans as he was very outspoken on Capitol Hill, asking sharp questions. As described by Laura McGann in an article on vox.com , illustrating, “When Franken arrived in the Senate in 1 2009, he became an instant Hill celebrity, drawing attention in hearings for his sharp questioning and for his prowess on TV, a liberal answer to the right’s dominance on cable news.” (McGann par.6) These are just a couple reasons from either perspective.

Two reasons Al Franken need not have been given due process during the time of his quick resignation & separation process as a Senator are because of his attitude during the time after the accusations and that of the impending investigation that was requested which would proceed to take months upon months to complete; Franken only having weeks of energy to sulk during TV appearances and in the courtroom. Also the timing itself during such tense days in The United States and on Capitol Hill specifically.

Jeet Heer from thenation.com describes, “If Franken’s punishment of losing his 2 Senate seat was excessive, he himself was to blame. He reacted to the initial wave of accusations with self-indulgent sullenness, which made it hard to mount a case for forgiveness.” (Heer par.12) Heer also had email correspondence with Rebecca Traister who was quoted in the Jane Mayer article on newyorker.com stating, “One of the 3 troubling things about this is that there aren't [any] easy answers. When you change [the] rules, you end up penalizing people who were caught behaving according to the old rules. But if you don’t change the rules they will never change.” Traister’s email to Heer explained, “I think he lost his job because of his response to the accusations in the period in which they were happening...It’s that his colleagues and caucus were left to twist in crucial days leading up to a Senate election and in the midst of a crucial social movement.” (Heer par.13)

There are many reasons that Al Franken was defended & opposed and many more still as to why he need not have been given due process. The aforementioned are two reasons for the latter. If he had responded in a different manner to his past disrespectful behavior we may have seen a different outcome to his Senate career. Heer shared further emails from Traister, within which she suggests, “if he’d announced he was taking a three month leave to learn more about how his behaviors might have caused harm or discomfort, and came back in March with a bang-up speech on gender, power, harassment and powerful men’s responsibility to do their own reckoning, he’d not only be a Senator now, he’d be a marker by which to evaluate good male response to the revelations of systemic misogyny and harassment. The choice to remain silent, and hang everything on an investigation that would take months while his colleagues were being questioned about their hypocrisy every day is what pushed it to the point it got pushed to.” (Heer par.14) The #metoo movement is still a strong subject to this day and it will continue to be a pressing matter until we can learn to respect one another on a deeper level and communicate with positive consent and empowerment in each personal & group setting.

The Focus of #MeToo Thru the Lens of Due Process

In order to create a stable foundation for conversation a few terms will be defined as follows; sexual harassment, sexual assault and procedural & substantive due process. Sexual harassment as defined by dictionary.com is any, “ unwelcome sexual advances made by an employer or superior, especially when compliance is made a condition of continued employment or advancement.” Sexual assault as described by sevenlegal.com, a criminal law firm located in Downtown, San Diego, is, “any type pf sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Included under the term sexual assault are the following: forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines procedural due process as, “a course of formal proceedings (such as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles.” It then defines substantive due process as, “a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual.” These ideas have a vast array of connection & intersection between them that is all within a fine line of standards for living. First of all, any sexual misconduct is simply impermissible and outright disrespectful. However, in order to maintain a fair & just legal system and civilization, certain processes of law must be observed, acted upon and respected by all individuals; citizens & otherwise. Due process should always be the standard of law, including those cases involved within the #MeToo movement.

The #MeToo movement has created another script altogether. Anyone that holds a public office or is under the watchful eye of the public is being held to a different standard. Not to say that this is wrong, as they should be transparent public servants and not mysterious paid programs; however, as a people, we must live by a standard of law that is universal. We must decide the right of all and then live by those standards. Regardless of personal attachment to a subject, the communally decided law takes precedence. There are cases being opened all around the world, on a daily basis, in relation to the #MeToo movement. Some are being scrutinized and displayed on mass media channels, others go by the wayside and are settled on a local level; all include a fine line of difficult terrain to navigate. The mass media utilizes this fine line as a means to promote private agendas and scapegoat individuals whom disrupt the larger program. Again, this is not to say that certain cases and allegations are not true, rather that the proper procedures must be followed in order for proper justice to be served.

The case of Al Franken has received plenty of scrutiny since first surfacing on the media circuit, some ten years ago. During the time of the allegations against Al Franken the United States of America was in an uproar on social & other media platforms in arms against a misogynistic leadership regime. The #MeToo movement was calling for all those accused to be publically tried through the veil of protecting the accuser. In order to ensure the anonymity of the accusers most cases were expedited through the court of public opinion. This is also true of the case against Al Franken. Within days of Leanne Tweeden’s claims of sexual harassment, Franken was being bombarded with outcries from people in his camp and the opposition to boot. The accusations against him created a narrative for Democrats to shine a light on, while the Senate (which was already in session) held a caucus to complete an election process already taking place. Franken did not make things any easier for his defence or the due process of law, as he immediately retreated within himself and appeared to be deflating instantaneously. All the wind that had filled his wings and carried him through his days as a comic into the big show, seemed to dissipate almost immediately. He was being compared to the likes of Jeremy Epstein & Donald Trump; whom were being tried & accused of similar and more heinous acts. This all leads us back to the fact that due process is required for due justice to succeed.

There are many positive & negative aspects to the due process of law. A positive example for this is the suitable punishment for crimes committed. Without a procedure for the law to follow, individuals and groups may get through a case with improper punishment, simply because the process is not adhered to. To illustrate this, let us imagine the case against Al Franken wasn’t railroaded by his quick resignation. The process itself may have brought more things to light, substantiated the accusers, and even found further evidence to support the claims. This brings us to a negative aspect of due process. The process itself takes time. The time needed to begin the process sometimes leaves an opportunity for individuals to “escape suitable punishment,” simply because they can choose their own punishment, or be “punished” by the public through the act of shunning or sometimes worse through defaming. As in the Al Franken case, an Ethics Committee was requested to investigate the claims and the case altogether. However, due to the expedited process that the public called for, the committee never got a chance to meet. This led to Al Franken resigning. Ultimately losing his desired position, and choosing his punishment internally. Had the courts been given an opportunity to convene and discuss these matters the narrative may have been included multiple outcomes. Unfortunately, due to the speed of the timeline following the allegations, due process was never offered the opportunity to investigate the entirety of the claims; not only is this a disservice to the accuser, it is a travesty for the American people. If due process is not afforded to every individual the system begins to break down and justice is no longer served.

Due process should be the focus of the #MeToo movement in regards to the law. If a case is brought to the courts and is desiring an outcome then the process should be implemented and respected. This is not to determine if the accuser is being honest or not, but rather that we as a people maintain a standard for execution of law so as not to slip into a society on stilts. It is understandable that with such a subject as the #MeToo movement that the process becomes more difficult to withstand. However, if an individual desires true justice to be served than allegations should not be the basis for punishment. This also creates a new narrative that may alter the #MeToo movement altogether. Rather than accusations flying all across the board from every angle. The shared understanding of the process involved will create an environment for justice. This will ensure that the accuser is respected within a court of law, as to necessary or requested privacy and give the accused an opportunity to learn from the previous mistakes made as they will be held accountable in a court of law.

The truth is difficult to determine in such a convoluted political environment. Therefore it is upon we the people, to request, nay demand that due process is afforded to all those involved within the court of law. It is a rather slippery slope to scale, once the ball starts rolling down the court of public opinion, especially since the court of public does not follow the same law that due process is so diligent to uphold. Although this is a sensitive subject with many avenues of possibility when discussing the sexual actions of an individual against another. However, it must be the standard of the public to protect all levels of justice, including those involving sexual misconduct; particularly those involved in such high levels of government.