CHANDRA RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 1

Chandra Rhetorical Analysis

Daniel Chandra

Youngstown State University

English 1551H

James Hain

8/24/2020
CHANDRA RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 2

Harper’s Magazine recently published a provocative and controversial entitled, “A Letter

on Justice and Open Debate”. The letter, signed by over 153 scholars, writers, and intellectual

thinkers, discusses and denounces current political and intellectual climate, claiming that recent

developments in the respective spheres

[has] intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to

weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological

conformity. (Harper’s Magazine 2020)

In addition to criticizing what the author(s) view as a weakening of open debate and toleration of

ideas, the letter also mentions current U.S President, Donald Trump, as a “real threat to

democracy” (Harper’s Magazine 2020) and argues that while intolerance and censorship are

expected from the far-right, current political and intellectual spheres are quickly adopting such

values as well.

The letter uses strong appeals to logic and logos to influence all readers that the current

direction our society is headed is detrimental to the exchange and development of ideas, and that

societal censorship and shaming, “invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone

less capable of democratic participation.”

The first paragraph of the letter accepts the current “protests for racial and social justice”

and endorses the development, but writes that this progress has also weakened open debate and

toleration of differences. The statement ends by arguing that “democratic inclusion we want can

be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.”

The opening statement acknowledges and accepts that the current racial and social

protests are a force for good, and this allows readers to read more easily relate to the writer and
CHANDRA RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 3

possibly read on, as a statement that immediately attacks the protests could be dismissed without

further reading. Leading with a positive statement gives more room to express nuanced opinions

later on. This “praise sandwich” comes into effect immediately, with the letter then arguing that

“resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-

wing demagogues are already exploiting.” The letter compares the current trend with something

most of the audience are familiar with and opposed to: right-wing leaders (demagogues) who

exploit emotions rather than use logic and arguments. The strong comparison provides a

shocking and dynamic example between the new emotionally charged language of the protests

and the very similar right-wing mantras. The ending of the paragraph ends with, “The democratic

inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set

in on all sides.” The statement is directed at both sides of the political spectrum. Highlighting

one side, like the newly developed intolerance, mainly on the left, or similar happenings on the

right, would alienate the respective sides and fuel the polarization further. Arguing that both

sides should try to exercise tolerance affects the audience in a positive way, rather than feeling

attacked if the letter mentioned only one side.

The next paragraph develops and specifies this argument to recent cancel culture events.

censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing

views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex

policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.

The letter writes that academics, journalists, and artists face real and serious consequences for

simply doing their job.

CHANDRA RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 4

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged

inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are

investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a

peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are

sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

The simplification of why these figures received social censorship and attack appeals to the

audience’s sense of logic. The letter reveals the very base nature of what these figures in art,

media, and academia did, and argues that the punishment they received is disproportionate to

their actions. The letter argues that these people were just doing their job, they were writing,

studying, and doing what they were paid to do, and the audience is supposed to realize this and

come to the conclusion that no one should be attacked for doing their job.

The last paragraph argues about the negative consequences of such public shaming, and

the true danger it poses to the world.

restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society,

invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic

participation.

The letter strongly appeals to logic and reason of the audience, and how recent

developments in society will lead to everyone being worse off and “less capable of democratic

participation” How does one participate if they will be ostracized for it?
CHANDRA RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 5

The letter argues that for the recent social and political climate, “The way to defeat bad

ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.” The

final sentences of the letter encourage the audience to change their worldview: that people with

differing opinions should not be ostracized or publicly shamed, but to argue against them, and

persuade them that their opinion is wrong.

At the end of the letter, there are 153 signatures from various leaders in art, literature,

journalism, and academia. Notable signatories are Noam Chomsky, Wynton Marsalis, J. K.

Rowling, and others. While not a direct argument or appeal to logic and reason, the vast amount

of signatories from various disciplines reveal to the audience that many public figures agree with

the letter, and appeals to the audience’s ethos. The audience may be swayed by the number of

seemingly intelligent signatures on the letter, and may be inclined to think and reason with the

arguments, that they may be true, and may be logical in their conclusions.

Politically charged and very controversial, the letter has strong appeals to logos and

ethos, using only logic and reasoning to support its argument, and uses the vast quantity of

signatures to further support the letter’s content.

CHANDRA RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 6

Works Cited

“A Letter on Justice and Open Debate.” Harper's Magazine, 21 Aug. 2020, harpers.org/a-letter-
on-justice-and-open-debate/.