In truth, I had difficulty editing Stanley Fish’s “Yet Once More: Political Correctness on Campus,” which seems ironic as I’m an Editing, Writing, and Media major. I’m not a fan of his clunky wording and awkward sentence structure, but I had reservations about editing his writing style. Everyone has a certain way that they write. In the example of famous, literary authors, some had established “voices” for which they are known. If this was the way that Stanley wanted to convey his ideas, I didn’t want to deter from that. On top of that, based upon his writing, I found him to be a rather dislikable character. I could detach myself from exercising my opinions on the issue through editing, but it was hard for me to not roll my eyes or be tempted to cut something because Fish had chosen to write something incredibly asinine.
A majority of my edits were technical. I formatted the titles of movies and papers in italics instead of keeping his quotation marks around them. In my opinion, Fish uses a lot of dashes and parentheses. In fact, I think they’re overused. According to When Words Collide, “the dash should be used only infrequently – make sure your reader will notice it” (Kessler and McDonald, 112). Trust me, I noticed every dash, but by the third, I became annoyed by them. I chose to cut a couple based upon the information within the dashes. Fish also uses a handful of parentheses. In When Words Collide, Lauren Kessler and Duncan McDonald note that “parentheses…are used to clarify a point or add an aside…without hampering sentence rhythm” As for wording, most of it I kept true to what was originally written” (98). I will admit that he uses them all correctly; however, the more he used them, the more cumbersome they become to read and I wondered if he couldn’t have incorporated the information into the paragraphs in a more seamless fashion. Parentheses are supposed to be an “aside” and I couldn’t shake the image of Fish conspiratorially addressing the audience, in a mock stage whisper, behind the palm of his hand.
Fish uses several examples to highlight political correctness on campus. To name a couple, a student faces disciplinary action for displaying a poster with the word “plantation” and a campus bus driver is asked to remove an American flag from his vehicle. The latter illustration is a prime example of how Fish uses ethos in his argument. In Rebecca Jones’ “Finding the Good Argument,” ethos is defined as “calling on particular shared values (patriotism), respected figures of authority (MLK), or one’s own character as a method of appealing to an audience” (167). Patriotism is the obvious appeal to ethos and it works in Fish’s favor. In his argument, he isn’t claiming that the decision to have the flag removed isn’t a lack of patriotism, but a lack of competence. After all, if a student is allowed to show his or her heritage through decorative means, it stands to reason that a bus driver should be able to as well.
With the appearance of statistics, logos is introduced. Logos is an appeal to logic in an argument (Jones, 167). Facts and statistics, such as the political party make up of faculty, add a logical basis to the claims being made. However, there is a problem that I see in this argument. Here, Fish is making a direct correlation that the larger population of Democrats to Republicans is somehow contributing to political correctness on campus. While these things may be related, he assumes the notion that all Democrats are the same and hold the same political values. Not all constituents are the same, regardless of party affiliations.
There is one thing that worked against Fish in his policy argument. There are instances in which is comments on the issue are disjointed and almost mean. He references Michael Moore and how he compares physically to another director of documentaries. While they may use the same tactics, they are polar opposites when it comes to appearance. This example, while I’m uncertain of its relevance, could have been achieved without comparing Moore to a “giant donut.” As a reader, this reduces his credibility and makes me view Fish in a negative light.
Overall, Fish’s argument accomplishes its goal of highlighting the notion of political correctness on campus, though there are a few obstacles along the way. He can be a bit wordy and a tad facetious in his delivery of certain points. In Gregory G. Colomb’s Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace, there is a quote that parallels nicely, I think, with Fish’s argument. The quote is as follows:
“We owe readers an ethical duty to write precise and nuanced prose, but we ought not to assume they owe us an indefinite amount of their time to unpack it. If we choose to write in ways that we known will make readers struggle – well, it’s a free country. In the marketplace of ideas, truth is the prime value, but not the only one. Another is what is costs us to find it” (131).
While Fish may opt to write in his own style and voice, there are readers who may be unable to tolerate it long enough to glean the message of his argument. There are others who may not even care. I agree that free speech should be exercised, but I also recognize that I will be held responsible for the things that I say or how I convey those ideas. This is something that Fish fails to address and I think his argument would have benefited greatly from some incorporation of a counterargument. Because he didn’t, the argument reads mainly as a rant, rather than a call to chance policy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment