Based on the housing-related articles we read for today, which article do you think makes the most effective argument regarding minority or ethnic hoursing? Why? Directly reference the text.
Use the comment function to respond.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel for the Orthodox Jewish students, however I have to agree with the other side more. It so happens that this week, in my law class, we are talking about free exercise of religion. From the test talked about in class and in Employment Division of Oregon v. Sinrth (1990), "the Court [agreed] that people have no right to exemptions on religious grounds from 'neutral laws of general applicability.'" There is no intent to discriminate, because "Yale's rule applies to all freshmen and sophomore" the rule is neutral and not singling out one religion. There are other ways of going about this problem from the students point of view. They could room together or get a single. The fact that safe sex is promoted, isn't going to disappear if they don't live in the dorms. The rest of their life will be filled with sexual encounters through ads and people. I agree that living in a dorm is part of the experience and Yale insists that students should receive that.
ReplyDeleteThe article that makes the most effective argument regarding minority or ethnic housing is written by Rebecca Lee Parker. As a director of the Ohio Union, the student activities center at Ohio State, Parker has extensive experience within the college network. Her article begins with her personal story and how her college life was enhanced with her entrance into an African-American dorm as a Resident Advisor her sophomore year. She describes, "while living on this floor, I did more than survive. I flourished. I learned about the history, variety, and complexity of my own culture." Parker explains how her experience living in this ethnic dorm increased her productivity and was beneficial to her. She has extensively researched the topic and has come to the conclusion that "as a result of [her] my personal experience and research, [she] I support[s] special housing for various types of college students." She describes our country's discomfort with the subject of race and our proclivity to view integration as the answer for the debate about ethnic dorms. Parker claims that "their [students who live in special dorms] intellectual growth and social development are accelerated." Her argument is rhetorically effective by her use of pathos, ethos, and logos.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the article refering to the four Orthodox Jewish students at Yale creates the best argument although I must agree with Yale and the stance they took on the issue. This is a good argument because they look at the situation from every angle and leave it so that the reader can still make their own decision. The four students wanted a degree from Yale, and must understand that Yale's view of their degree wants you to live on campus for two years. It doesn't mean that you can't live together on campus in a dorm, and it is only for two years. If the srudents really wanted a Yale degree they would have to make sacrifices. If they didn't want to make those sacrifices they could've easily found a good college that would be more open to their religion.
ReplyDeleteThe most effective housing article was authored by Dena Davis. She understands why the Orthodox Jews could be upset by the living situations in the Yale dormitories but she sides with the university. She argues that "Each of the hundreds of colleges and universities in the United States presents a unique package of academic,residential,social and extracurricular elements." The student choose the school and by doing this they choose the specific "package" that comes with their commitment. If the students feel that the residential life and atmosphere is too compromising to their religious beliefs and they are not willing to compromise their university choice, then maybe they should seek a different school that is more fitting to their lifestyle. Even if not in a college dormitory setting the students will be bombarded by sex in all types of daily media. Yale only requires freshman and sophomores to live on campus and the students had prior knowledge to this. Yale wants to create an diverse environment that encompasses the whole college experience in academic and residential life. And as a prestigious institution they have every right to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe article by Dena Davis is the more effective argument. She acknowledges the difficulties for the Orthodox Jews and presents their side of the story and brings up similar court decisions, even though she agrees with the position that Yale takes. Davis argues "that living on the campus is an important component of what it deems to be a Yale education", and also discusses that exemption to these students may cause further issues by encouraging others to follow suit. She also discusses the accommodations that the school has already made for the students to make them more comfortable. The students should have know when applying to this school what they were getting into and, and need to accept the whole package that is involved in receiving a diploma from Yale (which involves living on campus for freshmen and sophomore year.)
ReplyDeleteI feel the article by Dena Davis is more effective article. She takes the side of the university, and rightfully so. She makes great points about how the situation is kind of rediculous. As she is covering the problem at hand she brings up the point that Yale is not a public college. It is private for a reason and people know about Yale. The 2 year rule isn't just a surprise that the school tells you about the day you move in. She makes this point about the students trying to argue their point of view, "Even if Yale were a public institution, the students would face great difficulties in arguing that the university is placing an impermissible burden on their right to the free exercise of their religion." The whole condom thing is rediculous too. Have these kids ever heard of self control?
ReplyDeleteI find Ms. Davis's conclusion (the second essay) the most convincing of the three pieces', though I don't agree with her rationale. I support the contention that "[i]f Yale were the only possible institution in which the students could get an education - if it were, for example, a public university offering a unique opportunity for local students to receive a low-cost degree - these students would have a stronger case." Not just a stronger but a nearly watertight case, I think, (even if the mighty Scalia disagrees with me) especially considering the possibility they don't get a scholarship that covers room and board costs; but because Yale is a private institution, I think they have a right to set such "neutral laws of general applicability," which Justice Scalia even supported for PUBLIC institutions.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't find Yale's housing rule to be just, which is where Davis and I disagree. I don't care much for (Orthodox Jewish student) Elisha Dov Hack's ultraconservative yearning to live according to "the Torah and 3,000-year-old rabbinic teachings," but I still respect her desire to live off-campus while studying at Yale, and she should ideally be allowed to (thus, I support her reasoning but not her conclusions). Nevertheless, I believe that, as a private institution, Yale right to pass such minimally discriminatory laws as this housing one.
On the first essay:
Myself being a first generation Colombian-American, I've sometimes felt that I'm culturally out of place in the United States; but as someone who doesn't LOOK Colombian, my physical appearance has never led me to have to suffer discrimination or caused me to naturally fit in with other hispanics. So, unable to empathize with her, I instinctively approached Ms. Parker's essay with a heightened sense of sensitivity, but I still didn't find her convincing. I sympathize with the "culture shock" that she says she experienced upon entering a majority-white college, and am also sympathetic to her "sudden realization that fitting in was no longer just a daytime endeavor" - in other words, moving so sharply out of her comfort zone was such a shock to her that she wishes she would have considered her college selection with more prudence. But, I couldn't shake the feeling that ethnic segregation would lead to ethnic competition, and that could get ugly - black dorms could start to compete (athletically, maybe?) with white dorms and Asian dorms or Latino dorms, and it would create a very tense, divisive atmosphere. Parker seems to try to undermine this misgiving by saying that "[p]hilosophically, [she is] not a proponent of restricting [dorm] membership" to ethnic groups (though she goes on to say that she "can conceive of some situations ... in which programs planners would be justified in restricting membership"), but that would not necessarily prevent the formation of a campus culture of ethnic exclusivity; she didn't convince me. The whole idea just stinks, I think.
I believe that both articles are effective, but in two very different ways.Personally, I found myself more intrigued as I read the article by Rebecca Lee Parker. Perhaps it is her ability to appeal to the readers emotions that makes her article slightly more effective. From the start Parker evokes a sense of pity and sadness with sentences such as, "walking around the lush green campus, I saw no other students from minority groups. I felt very alone."
ReplyDeleteParker further explains how her college experience improved drastically with the opportunity to live "on an all-black hall." Parker not only explains how her feelings of isolation and loneliness seemed to dissipate with her experience of living in special housing, but she then supports her claim by bringing in outside research. “Research shows that students who participate in these programs feel that they become familiar with the college or university and the variety of resources available to them more quickly.” In addition to driving home her claim that special housing programs should be instilled she then acknowledges and argues against critics and opponents.
From the beginning, right down to a clear title “Why Special Housing for Ethnic Students Makes Sense” all the way to the end; Parker makes a sound and rhetorically effective argument as to why special housing for ethnic students would be beneficial.
The article that makes the most effective argument in my opinion was the first one by Rebecca Lee Parker. Her story of her life as a young black woman at a predominantly white college campus that made her feel uncomfortable at first was moving for several reasons. First of all, she chose to do something rational about it. She didn't sue her school, she became the RA of an all black women's floor. "While living on this floor, I did more than survive. I flourished." In my opinion, that is exactly what is supposed to happen when people go to college. If living with a white roommate at a majority white college wasn't cutting it for her socially or emotionally ("The isolation I felt as I walked around campus did not lessen when I returned to my room") then good for her for pursuing an alternative to this! I think that her portrayal of her experience, as first living with other students (she at least gave it a try), and then living with students strictly of her own race, although not all people of her race did that, that having ethnic housing is a very good idea. Perhaps she could have enjoyed her freshman year more if she had moved into this dorm sooner. College is more than academics, it is a transition into adulthood and it doesn't need to be made even more difficult than it already is.
ReplyDeleteOut of the two articles dealing with housing at Colleges, I found the first article by Rebecca Lee Parker to be the most persuasive, even though I personally dissagree with it. The article was much more persuasive than the one by Dena S. Davis because it began with a personal story that engaged the reader and made one care about the issue. Reading it, it was easy for me, as a college freshmen, to relate to the uncertainty that comes with transitioning from high school to college, even though I do not face the same cultural transition issues that Parker is discussing. The Davis article on the other hand begins by putting the reader to sleep with the details of a law suit filed against Yale University. The Davis article is also unpersuasive because she uses the phrase "I think" before stating her opinion, which shows a lack of conviction. Parker on the other hand uses several other tools of persuasion that are just as effective as her intro. The most important of these is the way in which she frames the argument about seperate housing. While it could be argued that encouraging students to live with others of similar ethnic background amounts to segragation, Parker instead makes it a debate about freedom, arguing that students should have a voice in determining their housing options, and should be given the choice of housing halls that will keep alive their cultural heritage.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the article on special housing for ethnic students makes the most effective argument. Her story seems more personal, stressing the idea of being in your right comfort zone. I find it interesting when she talks about our own discomfort with race. "Americans are obsessed with it. We are also eager, however, to prove that we are not." If this wasn't so she wouldn't be writing this article, which is pretty sad to think that after all these years of a struggle with race, so many of us are still even unconsciously racist. I applaud her drive to make her college experience more pleasant, because so many people just sit back and let themselves be told what to do. She shows courage, and a strong argument which more colleges should take into consideration.
ReplyDelete