Select Page

My professor is very picky. He likes the essays to flow smoothly with ideas, Indents on each paragraph ( I HAVE A EXAMPLE OF A ESSAY HE GRADED FOR ME) check it out and see his stupid comments. Instructions are LINKED BELOW in a PDF File1) 4-5 pages2) MLA FORMAT3) choose two texts and analyze how they appeal to ethos, pathos, logos, and/or
kairos to advance their arguments. You can think of this essay as a compare/contrast. 4) 5 READINGS are : “Dear Class of 2020,” “Don’t Blame Students for Being
Hypersensitive,” “Students Deserve Safe Spaces,” “I’m Northwestern’s President,” and “College Campuses Should
Not Be Safe Spaces,” PICK 2 OF THEMTHE FIFTH POINT IS IMP …..5) You will need to account for the following elements (though they do not need
to be approached in this particular order. Additionally, your essay should not
read as though you are simply answering these questions. Your essay should not read as though you are simply answering these questions. ( make sure all ideas flow smoothly ) its not a Q n A  Identify both authors & their texts
o Who are they? What is their credibility?
▪ What do we know about their texts?  Identify both authors’ overall argument
o What is the argument?
▪ How do you know? Is it stated directly? Implicitly?
 Identify the audience for each text
o How do you know?
▪ What details from the text point to the type of audience the author has in mind?
o How does the audience influence how the text is written and perceived?
 Analyze & Evaluate the rhetorical strategies each author uses to advance their claims & overall argument
o What types of evidence does each author use? Logic, emotional, credible, timely?
▪ Why does the rhetorical strategy advance/hinder their overall argument?
• How? MAKE SURE THAT YOU : Effectively addresses all aspects of the prompt
o Fully grasps both articles and showcases knowledge cogently- Writer thoroughly address elements of the argument, including author, context, audience,
purpose, claims, and evidence.
o Analysis of rhetorical strategies is thorough- Essay flows logically from introduction → body → conclusion
o Sentence level organization is strong – Writer uses appropriate syntax, grammar, punctuationif you cant do any of these then you cant help me.. This is a very hard professor. if your up for the task then no worries. otherwise ill refund if i get a C grade.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Students Deserve Safe Spaces and I’m Northwestern’s President
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay






Unformatted Attachment Preview

Dear Class of 2020 Student:
Welcome and congratulations on your acceptance to the College at the University of Chicago. Earning a
place in our community of scholars is no small achievement and we are delighted that you selected
Chicago to continue your intellectual journey.
Once here you will discover that one of the University of Chicago’s defining characteristics is our
commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. This is captured in the University’s faculty report on
freedom of expression. Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge
and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of
expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others. You will find that we expect
members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At
times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.
Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we
do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone
the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at
odds with their own.
Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority—building a campus that
welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of
our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide
range of ideas.
I am enclosing a short monograph by Dean John W. Boyer, the Martin A. Ryerson Distinguished Service
Professor in History and Dean of the College, which provides a helpful primer. This monograph, entitled
Academic Freedom and the Modern University: The Experience of the University of Chicago, recounts the
history of debate, and even scandal, resulting from our commitment to academic freedom.
If you are interested in some of the source material mentioned in Dean Boyer’s book, you can find links
to the important reports (e.g. the Kalven report, the Stone report, etc.), at the website maintained by
our University Provost at
Again, welcome to the University of Chicago. See you in September!
John (Jay) Ellison, PhD
Dean of Students in The College
The Washington Post
I’m Northwestern’s
president. Here’s why safe
spaces for students are
By Morton Schapiro January 15, 2016
Morton Schapiro is president of Northwestern University.
College presidents have always received a lot of mail. But these days we get more than ever. Much of it relates to student unrest,
and most of the messages are unpleasant.
Our usual practice is to thank the sender for writing and leave it at that. The combination of receiving more than 100 emails and
letters a day and recognizing that the purpose of many writers is to rebuke, rather than discuss, leaves us little choice about how
to respond.
But that certainly doesn’t mean we don’t think long and hard about the issues being raised. Some writers ask why our campus is
so focused on how “black lives matter.” Others express a mixture of curiosity and rage about microaggressions and trigger
warnings. And finally, what about those oft-criticized “safe spaces”? On this last topic, here are two stories. The first was told to
me privately by another institution’s president, and the second takes place at my institution, Northwestern University.
A group of black students were having lunch together in a campus dining hall. There were a couple of empty seats, and two
white students asked if they could join them. One of the black students asked why, in light of empty tables nearby. The reply was
that these students wanted to stretch themselves by engaging in the kind of uncomfortable learning the college encourages. The
black students politely said no. Is this really so scandalous?
I find two aspects of this story to be of particular interest.
First, the familiar question is “Why do the black students eat together in the cafeteria?” I think I have some insight on this based
on 16 years of living on or near a college campus: Many groups eat together in the cafeteria, but people seem to notice only when
the students are black. Athletes often eat with athletes; fraternity and sorority members with their Greek brothers and sisters; a
cappella group members with fellow singers; actors with actors; marching band members with marching band members; and so
And that brings me to the second aspect: We all deserve safe spaces. Those black students had every right to enjoy their lunches
in peace. There are plenty of times and places to engage in uncomfortable learning, but that wasn’t one of them. The white
students, while well-meaning, didn’t have the right to unilaterally decide when uncomfortable learning would take place.
Now for the story from Northwestern. For more than four decades, we have had a building on campus called the Black House, a
space specifically meant to be a center for black student life. This summer some well-intentioned staff members suggested that
we place one of our multicultural offices there. The pushback from students, and especially alumni, was immediate and
powerful. It wasn’t until I attended a listening session that I fully understood why. One black alumna from the 1980s said that
she and her peers had fought to keep a house of their own on campus. While the black community should always have an
important voice in multicultural activities on campus, she said, we should put that office elsewhere, leaving a small house with a
proud history as a safe space exclusively for blacks.
A recent white graduate agreed. She argued that everyone needed a safe space and that for her, as a Jew, it had been the Hillel
house. She knew that when she was there, she could relax and not worry about being interrogated by non-Jews about Israeli
politics or other concerns. So why is the Black House an issue in the eyes of some alumni who write saying that we should
integrate all of our students into a single community rather than isolate them into groups? I have never gotten a single note
questioning the presence of Hillel, of our Catholic Center or any of the other safe spaces on campus.
I’m an economist, not a sociologist or psychologist, but those experts tell me that students don’t fully embrace uncomfortable
learning unless they are themselves comfortable. Safe spaces provide that comfort. The irony, it seems, is that the best hope we
have of creating an inclusive community is to first create spaces where members of each group feel safe.
I suspect this commentary will generate even more mail than usual. Let me just say in advance, thanks for writing.
Read more on this topic
Hannah Oh, Steven Glick and Taylor Schmitt: College is the last place that should be a ‘safe space’: A voice of protest against
student protests
Terrell Jermaine Starr: There’s a good reason protesters at the University of Missouri didn’t want the media around
Fay Wells: My white neighbor thought I was breaking into my own apartment. Nineteen cops showed up.
Catherine Rampell: Free speech is flunking out on college campuses
Wendy Kaminer: The progressive ideas behind the lack of free speech on campus
Students deserve safe spaces on campus (essay)
Submitted by Matthew Pratt Guterl on August 29, 2016 – 3:00am
I teach at an elite Ivy League university, where, for several years now, debates over free speech,
racial justice and diversification have been explosive. Last year was, in a word, rough. Following
several high profile police shootings, there were protests and hunger strikes and sit-ins nationally,
and our own campus was turned upside down by two incendiary opinion pieces in the student
newspaper and a disturbing, physical encounter between a visiting student and the campus police.
As an institution, we struggled, worked hard, changed some things right away, and made some big
claims and promises about our future.
In just a few days, our students will return to the classrooms. They will expect an engaged faculty
and will want new classes addressing contemporary social and political issues. Together, we will be
looking to solve problems. At times, too, they will be hoping for some kind genuflection to their
humanity, their youth and the dark, merciless world in which we live. In short, they will be looking for
exactly the sort of “safe space” that other faculty members at other universities — like the dean of
students at the University of Chicago — have closed off as merely self-serving “retreats” [1] for the
I hope that at the end of the day, Chicago’s cold, Darwinian approach will be an outlier nationally -and that students almost everywhere will be received this academic year more graciously, more
thoughtfully and more constructively than those who imagine such things. Because, in the end, we
will all need each other to do the work that must be done. And that work is not some sort of
Thunderdome, in which two ideas do battle until one survives. This is a crucial moment for higher
education, and the brisk response from Chicago reveals the stakes clearly. We — faculty members,
students, administrators and our publics — are actually on the verge of making significantly more
comprehensive adjustments to the mission of higher education than were made previously. We
should embrace those more dynamic, more revolutionary changes and drive them home.
One of the big, challenging reforms is the notion of a “safe space” for our students, a concept that is
both old and new and nearly impossible to define. It can mean a single room on a campus, the floor
of a building or an entire center or department. It can refer to the presence of trained counselors,
the support of friends and allies, or the absence of hurtful material. Our students deserve such
spaces on a campus because the absence of such spaces is counter to the very mission of higher
In surveying the groundwork, however, not everyone thinks higher education is on the right track,
especially when attention turns to race. The dean at the University of Chicago is not alone. Critics
dismiss protesting students as spoiled, “self-infantilizing,” pampered brats [2], and they imagine that,
by responding to their complaints and taking them seriously, universities are abrogating their
mission to foster an unregulated exchange of ideas. A vocal handful of faculty members worry that
their free speech — or, on a lower frequency, their academic freedom — is under siege. Videos of
student’s screaming at white faculty members and administrators circulate on right-wing blogs and
websites as proof. Some donors, as [3]The [3] New York Times [3] reports [3], complain that universities
are now spending too much money on diversity, leading to a noticeable downward turn in giving this
past year.
In this context, “safe space” is too easily parodied – as the Onion did, with its headline from July of
2015, “Parents Dedicate Safe Space on Campus in Honor of Daughter Who Felt Weird in Class
Once.” [4] Too easily parodied — and too easily undone, as well, as the recent decision [5] by Michigan
State University to open a “women’s only” space to men reveals. The solution to our student’s
weakness, so many critics all too often suggest, is bold, direct, repeated engagement with ideas
that civil society has already deemed noxious, hateful and politically dangerous.
Setting aside the parodies and the critiques, there is a sound reason to support a broader, more
comprehensive notion of safety, something that might be pushed to the very boundaries of our
campuses: the world is sometimes breathtakingly, violently, terrifyingly precarious for precisely the
sorts of students whom we are now actively recruiting.
Colleges and universities are, pop culture tells us repeatedly, supposed to be walled off. No wonder,
then, that students see higher education institutions as both a staging ground for their protests and
as a possible idyll. No wonder, too, that they keenly sense the distance between what was promised
in glossy brochures — a removed experience, a free space for serious conversation — and what was
delivered in the strange environs of a new town or city far from home — more of the same social and
political pressures, more of the same violence, whether discursive or physical. Indeed, what they
read in the words of those who champion “free speech” — which almost always seems to mean the
freedom to speak of things consistently defined as backward or troubling — is that many would like a
very different “safe space,” in which one can say racist or sexist things without consequence.
The insistent request for administrators and faculty members to “do something”– to rename a
building, to remove a mural, to replace a mascot, to disarm the campus police, to disinvite a
speaker — is a plea to create the conditions where this promised distance was once again possible,
to clear cut a firebreak between the dystopian “real world” and the contemplative, even monkish
world of study. But it is also to acknowledge a real world in which these icons have led violent
charges, to recognize a physical world in which there are disenfranchised people of color for whom
these things are reminders of real pain. To paraphrase one university president, [6] students need
safe spaces in order to acquire the dangerous knowledge they need.
The safety we want — that campus-wide, reflective, self-aware distance from the grit of the everyday
— is going to be hard to manufacture. As anyone with a smartphone knows, new digital technologies
and a proliferation of social media outlets have allowed the enduring, everyday violence of racism to
be broadcast, to be felt by so many all at once, in ways that are powerful. Those same technologies
have also fostered new social connections, creating the movements and communities that mount
these critiques. Social media lets us see absence, too.
The development, in the decades since the Civil Rights Movement, of antiseptic, color-blind
institutional racism means, as well, that while we see racism online — and in person — we see far
less justice than we once did. Vigilante shooters go unpunished. Mass incarceration is further
entrenched. Military technologies, distributed to the police, get ever more sophisticated and punitive.
In mounting their protests, students are driven by a sober-minded concern about the conditions of
everyday life because they have been living in the midst of everything, touched personally or
emotionally by violence or poverty or loss or disenfranchisement. These days, it seems, one simply
cannot escape the blaring headlines and vivid color photos that program algorithms put in your feed.
Maybe the extraordinary penetration of digital media into our campuses requires us to work harder
at being more mindful in other ways, in other forms of engagement. Maybe it puts more of a burden
on us to be kind, to be gentle, to be supportive. Maybe it should force us to understand, more
broadly, the lived experiences of our students before they arrive. Maybe, finally, it should mean that
when we, as members of a community, invoke our right to “free speech,” we don’t do so in defense
of obnoxious, cruel and broken-down ideas. At the very least, we should proactively work to create
such spaces before things go awry.
“Safe space” seems like a pretty rarified concept, of course. And, to some, it reads as an expression
of privilege [7]. I admit that absolute safety is an impossible construct, because learning requires risk.
But not all risks are equal, and there is a difference between a campus shuttle to get around a city
and a campus commitment to the broadest possible notion of safety. My colleagues and friends
teaching in Texas are strategizing, right this second, about how to teach with a gun in the classroom
or how to discuss a “grade” with a student who might be packing. Mothers and fathers sending their
daughters off to college are rightly concerned about rape and sexual violence. Parents of color are
worried that their children might get profiled, arrested, roughed up or much, much worse. I am
concerned, as a faculty member, as a parent, and as a human being about teaching a class on race
and racism knowing that every single student in the room has seen Eric Garner, Alton Sterling and
too many others die in vivid Technicolor. Concerned, too, that at any moment a news alert might pop
up on our phones about the next disaster.
Faculty members and administrators thus have a calling to act. Without delay. To remove that racist
mural and relocate it to a museum. To rename that building and historicize the old name. (If you
have to raise the money to do it, there are examples where that has worked [8]). To practice
discernment in scheduling talks or speakers, so that we don’t bring that bigot, thug or provocateur to
the campus just to win a news cycle or to get your think tank in the paper. To prioritize ideas and
visitors who are actively, constructively engaged in solving (and not making) social problems. To
recommit to the historic, ancient role of the university as a site of knowledge production and to do
what must be done to build, in the age of social media, a campus that feels removed and distant,
yet also grounded and aware.
It is not our job to make intellectual noise — a raucous debate, a clashing set of ideas, a hurtful
back-and-forth — just because we can. It is our job, as stewards of the very idea of the university, to
think hard, at some distance, about big problems and to provide material solutions. After all, every
unread essay or delayed book has consequences, every missing word defers a social change, and
every abbreviated paper or poorly-written research project stalls those solutions. The crucial thing is
to get ahead of the curve: to read the campus as it presently exists, to think in explicitly utopian
terms about what it might look like, and to move towards this new ideal well in advance of some
dramatic event or hurtful misdeed.
Matthew Pratt Guterl is chair of American studies and professor of Africana studies, American
studies and ethnic studies at Brown University.
Diversity [9]
Editorial Tags:
Student life [10]
Image Caption:
University of Chicago
Source URL:
JANUARY 17, 2019
Julia Wall, The News & Observer via AP
Part of the pedestal of the Confederate statue known
as Silent Sam is lifted during its removal on Tuesday
from the U. of Nor …
Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP