The Trump administration withdrew federal protections for
transgender students on February 22, 2017. President Trump and his administration
withdrew federal protections for transgender students to use the bathrooms and
facilities that correspond with their gender identity. This created responses
from all sides of the media and of course there are many standpoints on this recent
issue. Two in particular will be examined in this post: CNN and TIME.
An article from CNN titled “Trump is right on transgender
bathroom laws” is obviously for the revoke of the laws Obama had put in place
during his presidency. The author of the article makes it clear that she does
not support all that Trump says and does, but absolutely agrees with this
specific decision. This article uses fear as the main objective- that grown men
would be allowed in bathrooms with young girls. Being an opinion article, not
much fact nor statistic was used as a persuasive technique. There was also no
use of ethos because the writer of the article did not have much credibility on
the topic other than her blatant opinion.
On the other side of things, an article from TIME discusses
the “big step back” the Trump Administration has made regarding the decision.
The author talks about the effect this decision has on LGBTQ members and
whether or not this decision is against Title IX. This particular article uses
pathos by adding quotes from a mother of a transgender student who committed
suicide and an advocate from the Transgender Law Center. Another section of
this article discussed Gavin Grimm, a 17 year old from Virginia who won a
ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last year when he sued his
school board for banning him from the boys’ bathroom. This article did fairly
well using emotion as its main factor to persuade readers whether or not this
was a sound decision made by Trump and his administration.
The article from CNN gave the obvious reason for not
allowing transgender bathrooms: safety. The article from TIME focused on why
transgender bathrooms should be allowed: equal rights for students in schools.
The CNN article was more concentrated on the idea of transgender bathrooms as a
whole rather than what the Trump Administration had actually done which was
take away the rights of transgender students in schools. The article from CNN
also gave its opinion and did not try to appeal to any member of its audience
other than those who already agree with the opinion being stated. The article
from TIME gave more fact and tried to appeal to everyone with the fact that we
all respect our rights as Americans and transgender students should feel the
same amount of equality and respect we all feel when they are in their schools
trying to get an education.
The demographics being targeted in this decision are not
only transgender students, but all members of the LGBTQ community. Other
demographics include school boards across the United States because it is now
up to them, individually, to make their own decision on whether or not to allow
transgender students to use the bathroom or facility of their choice. With it
no longer being a federal law that schools must give students the right to
choose the bathroom they feel comfortable in, this creates debates at the local
and state level.
I appreciate your perspective here!
ReplyDeleteYou do a nice job of surveying a number of arguments which have emerged within this debate - including Title IX, individual rights, and state v federal authority. I note that you often characterize the Trump administration action as "taking away the rights" of these students, which is different from removing federal protections of those same students. Be careful to remain objective in your role as an analyst. Also, you suggest that the TIME article combines "rights" with "equality" and "respect" as what every student should "feel" as they pursue their education. This is a very broad and vague characterization. Which facts were cited? By "facts," does the author mean court decisions?
The expansion of Title IX is another interesting element to this issue. Originally, Title IX was drafted as a mechanism to assure that resources would be spent equally in providing extra-curricular activities, specifically sports, for each gender. The law was necessary because many schools would have extensive athletic opportunities for their male students but fewer for their female students. This law has, in recent years, been used to support lawsuits regarding office environment and sexual harassment. Is that type of expansion appropriate?
You imply that allowing this issue to be "up to" the local school boards could be risky. Do you believe that the federal government is in the best position to advise your high school about this issue? Would a high school be forced to renovate bathrooms in any way? Would a high school be forced to monitor students as they enter and leave bathrooms?
Consider the case of Mr. Grimm in VA, or the case of the young trans student who recently won the state title in girls wrestling in TX. Should these cases be adjudicated by the federal government? Or might it be more appropriate for officials from VA and TX to sort out any legal disputes? Would the LGBTQ community be more or less inclined to abide by decisions in particular states? Should that matter? Again, remember that the focus of our class is on the strategies being used to argue these various points and not their relative validity.
Good start here! Let me know how I can help!
You bring up a lot of interesting and thought provoking questions.
DeleteAlthough I agree with you that essentially stating that “taking away the rights” of students is different than removing federal protections, it could be the case that they share the same underlying effect. By removing federal protections in schools and leaving this major decision for a state or local level could mean that students’ rights are being taken away depending on how the school views the issue and their overall verdict. The article from TIME does in fact use strong persuasive language by bringing up words such as equality and rights, but that also involves the use of pathos. The use of pathos is actually supported factually in this article by giving the examples of the court cases and the dialogue from the mother of the student who committed suicide due to bullying. The use of facts in this article are very convincing because the reason they are using such strong emotion is because these are real life issues that affect everyday people more than is realized. In my opinion, I believe the authors of both articles do a great job expressing their opinions, but the use of factual information in the TIME article does a great job not only using pathos, but ethos and logos as well. It is obvious that a lot of research had been done and more than one case was used as an example in this article. Because of the use of strong factual data, the author credibility goes up. Because of the proper use of both ethos and pathos, I think logos comes into play. If the author is a credible source who uses strong emotions to get their point across you would think the logical decision would to be to keep the decision at a federal level. This is why I think the TIME article does a great job persuading its audiences.
The NCAA describes Title IX as an act that any person in the United States shall not be subjected to discrimination under any and all education programs that receive Federal funding based on their sex. Although it was originally created to distribute gender equality in extra-curricular activities, I think now it has a broader goal which is to ensure equal rights for genders in schools. In my particular opinion, I do think this is expansion is appropriate. It is absolutely necessary to protect students from offenses such as sexual harassment and sexual assault and I believe it properly fits in with the purpose Title IX has in schools.
I do believe the federal government should step in and get involved in this issue. Leaving the decision to schools at the state and local level means that every school will have its own decision on whether or not students will be allowed to choose the bathroom of their choice. Title IX’s purpose to ensure equality to every student of the United States and this completely disregards the act if some schools give their students equal rights and others do not. I personally do not it is necessary to renovate or monitor bathrooms because to me that sounds like it is implying that trans-gender students are any more dangerous than other students. For those that believe that should be the case, an easy solution is to put cameras in the hallways of schools and monitor who is using the bathroom and when.
Because I am supportive of these sort of cases and issues being handled at a federal level, I think it is appropriate that these cases should be adjudicated by the federal government. As an outsiders looking in on these cases, I am not sure how the LGBTQ community would react whether these instances were handled at a state or federal level. Seeing as their purpose is to create and promote awareness of equal rights for every citizen in the United States, I would assume they would give their support where and when needed.
You are right about potential effects, but I'm not trying to assert anything about whether the actions of this administration are good or bad - rather, I'm merely pointing out that people would react much differently if they heard that the government had taken rights away from a group, as opposed to hearing that special protections would be removed. Characterizing the administration's actions in that way is a choice of framing designed to elicit sympathy from the reader.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate and respect your opinion that these students deserve the same rights afforded to all citizens of our country. However, making that argument is not the point of this project. Instead, your goal is to become more proficient as an objective analyst. Rather than participating in the debate over bathroom access and the appropriateness of Title IX as a legal weapon to punish bullies, your goal here would be to examine how the narratives have emerged - if you look at a right-leaning news source, this issue is not about protecting vulnerable students, but rather about the overreach of government authority. Title IX, by the way, was written in 1972 to address inequities in the amount of athletic scholarships afforded to men and women in college, and so I'm not sure how it becomes applicable in this case.
Again, the goal of our course is not to assess the relative merits of different perspectives in public debates like this one. Rather, it is to give you a chance to explore the broader narratives that get asserted to influence public opinion. Public opinion is what allows politicians to support changes in public policy. Remember that, before May, 2012, even Barack Obama asserted that marriage was an institution for one man and one woman.
Your opinion is as valid as anyone's. Your paper is meant to explore the persuasive strategies as observed in service of competing narratives. Please let me know how I can help!