Class Blog 10/14/14

(1)

In their discussion of citizen criticism, Corbett and Eberly state, “In a democracy, rhetoric as the actualizer of potential depends on citizens who are able to imagine themselves as agents of action, rather than just spectators or consumers” (Corbett, Eberly 131). The terms that Lazere introduces that most closely align with Corbett and Eberly include:

• “partisan viewpoint (that, is a viewpoint siding with a particular party or ideology)” (Lazere 125).
• “the fallacy of quotation out of context, pulling a few, extreme-sounding words out of their qualifying context” (Lazere 127). 
• “stack the deck by presenting only arguments in support of your own position, while ignoring or distorting arguments on the other side” (Lazere 130). 

These terms come into play in Bouie’s “Criminal Justice Racism” as this article is about “The futility of fighting criminal justice racism with statistics” (Bouie 1). After two studies of comparing “more-white” crime statistics with “more-black” crime statistics, the results were the same and “the conclusion was that ‘exposing people to extreme racial disparities in the prison population’ led to a greater fear of crime and - at best - an unwillingness to support reform” (3). 

This conclusion of the study discussed in Bouie’s article related to Lazere’s terms because those participating in the studies were intentionally set up to view either “more-white” statistics or “more-black” statistics, giving them a partisan viewpoint because these staggered statistics lead to racist conclusions. Quotation out of context is also relevant because by presenting statistics as “more-white” or “more-black” to lead participants to these racist conclusions puts the actual statistics out of context. Stacking the deck is applicable as well because the statistics were presented in a staggered fashion to see the effects of manipulating the statistics to lead to racist positions and a lack of participants seeking reform for these underprivileged and misrepresented communities. 

(3)

The way in which Corbett and Eberly break down the “Diversions of Reading” takes up and forwards Jones’s notions of citizen criticism. Two important concepts from Jones’s “Finding the Good Argument” include: “Argument as collaboration would be more closely linked to words such as dialogue and deliberation, cornerstone concepts in the history of American democracy” and “What is often missing from these discussions is research, consideration of multiple vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic” (Jones 157,158). While Jones points out what citizen criticism is typically missing in making its argument, Corbett and Eberly further break down and explain what these issues may be. 

Addressing these “Diversions of Reading,” Corbett and Eberly state, “One very common diversion of reasoning is generalizing without looking at enough cases to support a sweeping conclusion” (Corbett, Eberly 124). This is what Jones brings out as a major issue, that those participating in public discourse choose a stance and make conclusions without properly examining evidence and considering other viewpoints or options for resolutions. In reference to another diversion, Corbett and Eberly include that, “People are said to pander their audiences when they use emotional appeals as diversionary tactics or scare tactics” (Corbett, Eberly 127). This applies to Bouie’s “Criminal Justice Racism” as the staggered statistics presented to the participants in his studies are appealed to at an emotional level as a scare tactic by presenting “more-white” versus “more-black” statistics to show how citizens react and refuse to attempt to reform policy when racism is brought into the picture. Focusing on Corbett and Eberly’s opinion that, “In a democracy, rhetoric as the actualizer of potential depends on citizens who are able to imagine themselves as agents of action, rather than just spectators or consumers,” Jones’s article and Corbett/Eberly’s article could work together to show that if all of the information for a public policy issue is correctly presented and viewed from all possible viewpoints, while simultaneously eliminating the “Diversions of Reading,” real conclusions could be made to start furthering these issues and making the public accurately aware of how they can be involved for the greater good (Corbett, Eberly 131).