Neil Resnik

Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Protests and Rhetoric

In late 2015 Claremont McKenna College (CMC) was struck by student protests concerning the
treatment of minorities. In response to the protesters and their actions, the editorial board of the
Claremont Independent (the school newspaper) published an editorial: We Dissent. The piece is a
criticism of the protests and the results, and acts to criticize all of those involved, and give a voice to
those who dissent with the protestors. The piece uses a variety of rhetorical devices to help support the
authors points combined with a personal tone to connect with its readers and convince them of the
immaturity of the protests.
The focal point of the protests was the allegation that the college marginalized minorities, and
the protestors demanded various resignations as well as forced diversity quotas. As a result, the Dean of
Students, Mary Spellman, resigned, and classes were allocated to the protestors. We Dissent was
written to express the views of those who disagreed with the protests and their results. The piece enters
the conversation taking place on the campus of the authors college, but fits within the larger
conversation concerning race in America. The protests occurred due to the alleged mistreatment of
minorities, and the editorial criticizes these perceptions, echoing some of the arguments that take place
across our country on the national stage, and at many other college campuses. Though these protests
are insignificant outside of the campus, the tactics used and the results achieved are not. The editorial
alleges that these are immature tactics unsuited to the real world, and criticizes both the students for
using them, and the administration for bowing to them. The true importance of the protests is that they

achieved their goals, and so proved that the tactics they employed, which the editorial contends was
bullying those against them into silence and complacence, worked.
The piece was written to address the student body and administration of Claremont McKenna. It
was written in the school newspaper, and states We [those who disagreed with the protests] are no
longer afraid to be voices of dissent (Oh, Glick and Schmitt). As a result, the main audience is college
students at a liberal arts school, with an extremely liberal stance on most issues, mixed with college
professors who are less liberal then the student base. Therefore, the piece cannot be overly political, or
it runs a high risk of being dismissed as criticism from the other side. Yet the issue is implicitly political,
and so the authors must connect with their audience to get their criticism across. The piece also appeals
to a secondary audience composed of outsiders looking in at the protests as a whole. This group is far
more diverse, with no standard political view, however they are also assumed to be educated, as the
protests occurred on a college campus. This attracts those how are either concerned with the political
ramifications, or are curious about the actions of college students at similar schools, both of these types
of people tends to be college educated, as the piece is more academic in nature.
To achieve this goal, the authors used a very personal tone combined with pathos and logos.
The authors used first person pronouns, such as we, to place themselves within the student body. This
is evident when they directly connect with their fellow students, writing This is not who we are and this
is not how we conduct ourselves, but this is the image of us that has now reached the national stage
(Oh, Glick and Schmitt). This sentence directly connects the writers to their fellow students, with the
phrase This is not who we are (Oh, Glick and Schmitt), showing that they are included in the
description Student of Claremont McKenna College and they are cognizant of this fact. This inclusion
of themselves within the student body is an attempt to directly connect with their classmates, and
attempt to appeal to their emotions from within. This sentence paints a picture that all the students are
involved, but the behavior is unbecoming of college students. The authors are attempting to tell their

fellow students that they look ridiculous, and so appeal to their sense of shame. This is a large part of
the pathos used within the piece, but this pathos is backed with logos. They use reason from a personal
level to describe the effects their actions have had, and will have, such as when they write: If the
dearth of such courses at CMC bothers you, maybe you should have chosen a different school. If
students chose to attend Caltech and then complained about the lack of literature classes, thats on
them (Oh, Glick and Schmitt). They outline the problem and then they point out inconsistencies with in
the argument, using reason to support their disapproval of the protests. This personal tone combined
with ethos and pathos is essential. The authors have no implicit authority over the student body as a
whole they need to appeal to them at an emotional level, but must support those emotional points with
logic, lest they be dismissed. If they are unable to connect with their audience the criticism loses
meaning, as the student body would be able to dismiss it as an opposing view. Recognizing this, the
presentation of the article is very barebones, with only a single picture of the protests as a header. The
rest of the page is filled with text, and so focuses all attention to the points they attempt to make within
said text. It is meant to be read, so that their rhetoric can be transmitted to the reader.
The piece was written to criticize a range of people, with a goal of both showing that the tactics
employed were immature, and providing a voice to those who disagreed with the protests as a whole. It
criticizes the student body as a whole, but divides it into parts. It criticizes the protestors: We [the
authors] are disappointed that you chose to scream and swear at your administrators (Oh, Glick and
Schmitt). It criticizes those who disagreed, but remained silent: we are disappointed in students like
ourselves, who were scared into silence (Oh, Glick and Schmitt). It criticizes the student president: As
the representative of CMCs entire student body, we are disappointed in youfor so quickly caving in to
the demands of a few students without consulting the student body as a whole (Oh, Glick and Schmitt).
It criticizes the Dean of students for her response: former Dean Mary Spellman We are disappointed
that you taught Claremont students that reacting with emotion and anger will force the administration

to act (Oh, Glick and Schmitt). It criticizes the President for his reaction: President Chodosh. We were
disappointed to see you idly stand by and watch students berate, curse at, and attack Dean Spellman for
being a racist. (Oh, Glick and Schmitt). It is written to criticize everyone involved for the results of the
protests, and to point out everyones flaws. It uses persuasive techniques and rhetorical devices to point
out the issues which they criticize. This is why ethos and pathos are present, as persuasive elements.
They are attempting to show everyone on campus the flaws in the various groups, including the one
which they belong to. The authors also appeal to the secondary audience of onlookers. It is an attempt
to convince outsiders looking in that what occurred on the campus was not sanctioned by the entire
student body, and was inappropriate, and show the issues with the groups (at least from the authors
perspective). Yet it is also written to give a voice to those who did dissent and remained quiet, despite
its criticism of that group earlier. The authors consider themselves part of this faction, and so write to
express their views despite being contrary to the protestors views. The piece concludes with: We are
no longer afraid to be voices of dissent (Oh, Glick and Schmitt), with the authors including themselves
within the dissenting faction. So while it criticizes all, it also attempts to give a voice to those who were
who were scared into silence (Oh, Glick and Schmitt).
The editorial uses a variety of methods to create its rhetoric, and support its arguments. The
combination of personal tone with its method of arguing allows the authors to connect to their
audience, resulting in a stronger argument. It also adds appeal to outsiders reading the piece, providing
another view from within the college of the events that occurred. It arose in response to current events,
and was written to oppose a movement. It is personal with a sense of authority, and so connects with
the audience while being extremely harsh. It uses rhetoric in an attempt to achieve these goals, and to
convince all readers of the negative effects.

Works Cited
Oh, Hannah, Steven Glick and Taylor Schmitt. "We Dissent | The Claremont Independent." 13 November
2015. The Claremont Independent. 27 September 2016. <http://claremontindependent.com/wedissent/>.