Close Reading #3

50 Years of Progress Should Not Be Erased With One Ruling        

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/50-years-of-progress-shou_b_1939774.html

Whether affirmative action among higher education institutions is legal or not is an issue that is currently being debated. This is partly due to the upcoming Supreme Court case, Fisher v. University of Texas. Reverend Al Sharpton makes his position on the matter quite clear in his article “50 Years of Progress Should Not Be Erased With One Ruling.” He argues that affirmative action is crucial; that the case must uphold it. Fischer creates this strong message through his use of diction, details, and syntax.

Fischer is careful with his use of diction to frame the issue of affirmative action. First off, he makes sure the upcoming Supreme Court case seem important to everyone, by saying it will have “national repercussions.” This appeal to the people is even more apparent with his use of the word “we.” For example, Fischer writes “we cannot allow,” “it’s vital for us,” and “we cannot blame” throughout the article. Using the pronoun “we” instead of “I” obviously sounds more inclusive, and makes readers feel like they have a connection with the issue, that maybe it’s more important to them than they initially thought. Another important point is how Fischer associates the words “inclusion and diversity” with affirmative action. Obviously, those words make the opposite (getting rid of affirmative action) seem like exclusion/racism/conformity. Since “inclusion and diversity” is what most strive for in this melting pot nation, the diction here paints affirmative action in a very favorable light.

Fischer’s choice of details also helps affirmative action seem like a very important issue. For example, Fischer open with a story about James Meredith, “the first black student to enroll at the [University of Mississippi].” He argues that the progress Meredith made will be erased with this one ruling. This creates anxiety and urgency among readers because almost no one wants to return to the days of segregation. Meredith later includes the fact that there is a danger of “black and Latino students [falling] behind.” This also lends a feeling of urgency to affirmative action because certain ethnic groups are already poorer on average than whites; it would obviously be very bad for these gaps to worsen. Blacks and Latinos being less educated would lead to them being less financially successful, which would lead to these worsening gaps.

Finally, Fischer’s use of syntax helps him create a stronger argument for keeping affirmative action. First off, his sentence structure is well thought-out and scholarly. For example, he writes “That’s precisely why it’s vital for all of us to be there in Washington, D.C. next week and let our voices be heard.” These longer sentences make up the majority of the writing. This style makes Fischer sound much more educated than if he had written his article using sentence fragments or short, choppy phrases. Writing in a more educated style makes Fischer’s argument sound more credible, and therefore stronger. All of this is not to say that there is no sentence variety. There are some shorter sentences interspersed, which helps to emphasize some of Fischer’s bigger points. For example, he writes, “far too much is at stake for us to remain silent.” This comparatively shorter sentence helps his point that people need to take action stand out, which therefore makes Fischer’s message stronger.

Overall, Fischer uses diction, details, and syntax to create a message that is both urgent and powerful. Even if one had no idea what affirmative action was before this article, it would be impossible to come away from reading it without at least believing that it was an important, relevant issue.