Johnson 1

William Johnson

Professor Sheila Fielding

WRTC 103

5 October 2018

Rhetorical Analysis: Does Affirmative Action promote gender inequality?

Affirmative Action is a controversial political issue that is seen by many as being

antiquated for trying to compensate for sexist and racist hiring practices of the 1960s and 1970s.

Some believe that Affirmative Action even promotes gender equality, while others believe that it

is in and of it itself a sexist and racist practice. The question is then asked: “Does Affirmative

Action promote gender inequality?” In Chloe Angyal’s article, “Affirmative Action Is Great For

White Women. So Why Do They Hate It?” (23 June 2016), she constructs a largely effective

argument, aside from some fallacies, in favor of Affirmative Action by using persuasive

techniques to captivate and convince the reader.

In her article, Angyal claims that Affirmative Action is beneficial for women and that it

should be given more support, however, she informs the reader that young white women are the

demographic that most oppose Affirmative Action. She argues that this demographic should

support Affirmative Action because it combats racist/sexist hiring practices and even benefits

white women. In her topical paper, she does not use any substructure to organize her writing, but

it is not needed to help with the reader’s understanding.

Ethos is established outside of the article itself. Further research shows that Angyal has

been published in many reputable news sources The New York Times, The Atlantic, and The

Washington Post. She also was the senior columnist for the “most-read feminist publication”
 Johnson 2

(Chloe Angyal). Her qualifications, both in this field and as a writer, allow the reader to view

Angyal as a credible source of information.

Throughout the article, Angyal List examples (quotations) of logos. She cites supreme

court cases to show how young white women have routinely fought Affirmative Action,

especially in academia. She also cites that “Data from the 2014 Cooperative Congressional

Election Study (…) Among young white women, 67 percent are against Affirmative Action.

Among young women of color (…) only 29 percent oppose” (Angyal par 4). This blatantly

supports her argument that young white women do not support Affirmative Action in

comparison to their colored counterparts. She also provides an example of how Affirmative

Action has helped women by informing the reader that “Women are now more likely to graduate

with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men (…) In 1970, just 7.6 percent of

physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent.” (Angyal

par 7). However, this same statistic could be argued to show how Affirmative Action creates

gender inequality because women are now more likely to have a bachelor’s degree than men,

which would be antithetical to her reasoning to support Affirmative Action. She also quotes a

subject matter expert when she includes that “Rhodes and his co-author at Al Jazeera, Sean

McElwee, write that the data suggest young white Americans, ‘rather than seeing racism as a

persistent problem still in need of remedy (...) are inclined to believe America is a colorblind

society and that little remains to be done to remedy past racial injustices.’” (Angyal par 13). This

offers the perspective of young white women and why they may be less inclined to support

Affirmative Action. Her use of logos is effective as it includes numbers, along with quotes, both

from reputable sources.

 Johnson 3

Although her use of logos is more prevalent, Angyal also uses pathos to win over her

audience. She states that “by opposing it [Affirmative Action], they’re advocating for making

life harder not only for racial and ethnic minorities — but also for themselves” (Angyal par 20).

She tries to guilt trip the reader into supporting Affirmative Action, specifically young white

women. She also goes on to assert that when “faced with the data we have, however, we’re left

to assume that their answers are informed, at best, by a mistaken belief that racism is over and

policies against it are a relic of a bygone era and, at worst, by racial prejudice” (Angyal par 16).

Again, she uses the same strategy of guilt. Another similarity between both quotes that use

pathos is that they both use the point of racism. Racism is a sensitive topic and almost nobody

wants to be called a racist. This puts readers in a difficult position because they may feel that

either they must agree with Angyal’s position, or else they are a racist, which seems like a rash

use of a logical fallacy by Angyal.

Taking advantage of emotion is important in convincing an audience, but Angyal almost

blatantly states that those who do not support Affirmative Action are racist. The two quotes

given as examples for pathos contain logical fallacies of “allness” (hasty generalization) and ad

hominem (name calling). She accomplishes this by calling everyone who does not support

Affirmative Action a racist. Some readers may be deceived by Angyal, but this is a very clear

use of multiple logical fallacies, which in turn greatly weakens her argument. This makes the

reader question if she is a trustworthy source.

Readers must also realize possible biases that Angyal may have. She is writing for The

Huffington Post, which has a “moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story

selection and/or political affiliation” (Media Bias/Fact Check). This bias can certainly be seen by

way of her logical fallacies, like when she falsely labels everyone who does not agree with her
 Johnson 4

liberal ideology, namely Affirmative Action, as a racist. It is imperative that writers leave out

bias and logical fallacies so that they may be trusted by their audience.

As a writer, Angyal is effective in her use of persuasive technique because she uses

plenty of logos, to include supreme court cases, quotes from experts, and statistics. This allows

the reader to believe what she says as the truth. However, she does interject with some

emotionally charged and combative words regarding her personal opinion, which is largely

evident. Her logical fallacies alienate readers, especially her target demographic of young white

women. Despite her powerful use of persuasive techniques, Angyal’s article is shadowed by her

biases and fallacies. Leaving out this harmful rhetoric would strengthen her article and better

persuade the reader.

 Johnson 5

Works Cited

“Affirmative Action.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster,

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirmative%20action.

Angyal, Chloe. “Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It?” The

Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 June 2016,

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/affirmative-action-white

women_us_56a0ef6ae4b0d8cc1098d3a5.

“Chloe Angyal.” Chloe Angyal, chloesangyal.com/.

“Huffington Post (HuffPost).” Media Bias/Fact Check, mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-

post/.