Throughout this semester I have written four separate essays that have all forced me to change my way of thinking to satisfy each topic. Specifically, I have had to reject the traditionalist formula of essays that my high school English teachers so eagerly bashed into my head. One common trend tends to stick when I look back at all my papers and try to determine what challenged me the most. The words, analysis in thought, reverberated around my brain as I was trying to think of a clever title. As I asked myself what this truly meant, I came to a revelation. What truly challenged me this semester was not the requirements of the essay themselves, although my professor may disagree on the terms of my challenge to meet due dates, but what they required of me. I had to take a step back and analyze the thought process of not only the writer but myself as well.

This was most prominent in Essay 1. Through the analysis of Rebecca Mead’s essay, I was faced with a form of writing I had never experienced before, a delayed thesis argument. In traditional writing, the author tells you exactly what they want you to hear, especially when they are trying to argue for or against someone. To the untrained eye the idea of a delayed thesis argument may be seemingly counterintuitive. They may think that it does not get to the point and devalues the writer’s persuasion. This is exactly how I felt on my first read of Rebecca Mead’s work. I realized that I had to look deeper than the writing itself. I had to analyze the thought process behind Mead’s methods. Only then was I able to see how impactful her writing became. It gave me the chance to see what her reasoning behind providing all the information was.

In my other essays I was able to use this new thought process to it fullest extent. Especially in essay two, where we were tasked to write a delayed thesis argument of our own. I had to write as if I was the reader. When the essay was said and done, I read through as if I was just someone who stumbled upon it. I was able to analyze my own thought process behind where I put information and use that to my advantage. I was able to write an introduction and body that gave the writer all they needed to agree with my thesis and argument at the end of the paper, just as Mead did in her essay. Although it may not seem like this thought process would help in my other essays, as they were not delayed thesis arguments, this is not the case at all. Through essay three I was able to analyze my argument in a way I would not have been able to before. I could pick apart the different ideas I had just through rereading my paper. I could tell who the audience was, why I was putting information in certain places, and where I was appealing to the reader’s emotion.

Overall, using and overcoming this new thought process was my largest challenge in class this semester. Where before I could not tell where even my own argument was strong or weak, I can now analyze my own thoughts to show proof in my essays. The work in this portfolio is direct evidence of how I have improved as a writer using this exact process. It shows how I have improved over the semester, and how I will improve in the future.

Social groups have been a common practice since the beginning of human civilizations. You often see it glorified by Hollywood in movies regarding high schools with the stereotypes like jocks and nerds. If you talk to anyone within the VMI corps of cadets, they will most likely tell you that these same types of groups exist at the institute. The biggest group divide at VMI is between non-NCAA cadets and NCAA cadets. As a cadet at VMI, it is just a part of daily life. There have even been derogatory terms made for each of these groups. Non-NCAA cadets are called NARPs (Non-athletic regular person), and athletes are referred to as permits. The name permit stems from how NCAA cadets are on scholarship to be here, hence that they are “on permit”. This problem is not entirely the cadets’ fault, and usually stems from issues in the ratline, and other athletic related issues. To begin, before incoming rats even get to the school, the sports coaches and athletic departments don’t tell these fresh high school graduates what they are really getting into. All these incoming rats hear is that VMI is a military school and that they will be playing a division 1 sport on scholarship. For most of these athletes, this little information does not give them enough of an idea of VMI to make an educated decision. They just hear a free path to Division 1 sports and sign away. Keep in mind these are kids who just got out of high school being in the highest social class, and are now signing themselves up for the most adversarial system offered in the U.S. When I was a rat, I was surprised to find out that some of the new players on the football team barely even knew the ratline existed. This leads to immediate problems when they finally get to VMI. When you are faced with something you unknowingly signed up for, most react in a negative way. This is the case for these new rats. They tend to be more disrespectful and put the least amount of effort into VMI. I have experienced this many times this year being a cadre corporal for Alpha company. Whenever there is a problem which could range from utter disrespect to having a dirty uniform, it tends to be an NCAA rat. Some living and breathing evidence of this is a specific rat in Alpha Company, who I will refer to as Rat P. Rat P has racked up over 250 demerits so far in not even a full semester, as well as shown repeated signs of disrespect for just about everyone, including teachers, Commandant Staff, cadets, and even his own brother rats. Demerits are a form of discipline at VMI, and track discrepancies. For example, if you have a dirty uniform during inspection you will get two demerits. The average cadet easily gathers less than twenty demerits in a single semester. 250 is an outrageous number of demerits in itself, but the lack of disciplinary action taken against the rat is astounding. According to the blue book code S0480, gathering over just 100 demerits in a semester results in an immediate suspension (Blue Book pg.65). After reading this, I wondered why Rat P had not been suspended yet. I asked my First Sergeant and he relayed the information to me that the Commandant Staff will typically not suspend athletes. This is just a blatant form of misjustice, and the blame can only be pointed towards the administration, not the cadets themselves. Rat P has made it obvious that his only reason for being at the institute is to play sports, and due to current disciplinary measures, he gets to do just that.

NCAA rats also miss a significant amount of the ratline. Even during the first and hardest week of the ratline, Hell Week, these athletes are taken out to go to sports practices. This already tarnishes their image with the non-NCAA rats, but what is done during these times is even more alarming. According to a cadet on the wrestling team, coaches would provide air mattresses for the rats to relax and take a break, while the rats back on post were suffering through the ratline. He even noted that they were allowed to have their phones in the locker room, and even had gaming consoles. The same exists in the various other sports teams at VMI, even football, soccer, and lacrosse. This causes a stigma from the earliest moment of VMI against all these NCAA rats. Even if it is the administrations’ fault, and the rats themselves don’t have a say in what goes on during athletic time, non-NCAA rats have a hard time seeing this through the goggles of the ratline. Last year, I had an athlete roommate who experienced this division firsthand. He would constantly be ridiculed by other cadets for missing out on training times for track practices and meets. As he said, though, this was all against his will. He wanted to take part in ratline activities and be there with his brother rats, but the athletic department simply wouldn’t let that happen. He would even ask about being able to attend some of the larger activities of the ratline, like a 20-mile march with your senior mentor and was turned down. Even when I ask him now about the stigma, he agrees it exists far beyond the ratline. Many of the departments use this practice of reduced ratline activities to preserve the cadet’s physical capability. They don’t want the rat to be tired at games, so they rip them from the ratline.

To solve this division, I propose four different solutions that function as one package.

My first solution is that the Athletic departments and coaches need to be more transparent about the ratline and life at VMI. Keeping information from these rats is doing them too much harm. The Athletic department knows the interest in coming to VMI would lessen with a full knowledge of the ratline, so they stay away from it. They are feeding misinformation to young men and women to make a profit. My second solution is that athletes need to be disciplined the same way as NARPs. This is clearly the most unjust practice regarding athletes at VMI. If an athlete conducts themselves in a way that suits discipline, it should not be softened just because of their status. Commandant staff avoids suspending athletes to keep them on the fields. They are all grown men and women, and should be treated as such. This solution would put athletes and non-athletes on a level playing field, and reduce the stigma. My third solution is most likely the most impactful solution to the division. NCAA rats need to miss minimal to no rat training times. This has been the root of the problem for too long. The athletic and rat training schedule needs to be reworked to get these two groups together as much as possible. Only then will the stigma truly start to dissolve. Instead of non-NCAA rats forming this grudge against athletes, they will embrace them as brothers and sisters, because they all suffered equally through the ratline. My fourth and final solution is that coaches need to be held accountable for what goes on during athletic training time. Athletes should not be given a leg up over their counterparts just because of a coach’s selfish tendencies. If coach’s go against these guidelines and don’t use this athletic time for athletics it should be regulated and dealt with accordingly.

My reasoning for these solutions is simple. It would cause a greater sense of unity and respect in the corps. Athletes and non-athletes would see each other as equals and appreciate what each side does for the school. As a result, cadets would have a greater pride in VMI sports. No longer would cadets dread going to a Saturday football game just to sit in the bleachers for hours. They would have the excitement of supporting their brother and sister rats that are out on the field. The crowds would cheer louder, and as a result the teams would play harder. All in all it would lead to a more disciplined corps. If everyone is held to the same standards, there is no excuse for falling below them.

It is up to us as cadets to realize this injustice and fully acknowledge it. It is not the athletes’ fault for the many issues, but leadership at VMI and the athletic departments. The blame should never be on each other when this division is systemic in origin. We need to come together to tackle the administration and show that we will not stand for the selfish tendencies to treat NCAA sports as a business, using our athletes as more animals than human beings. It all starts with the individual, and the knowledge they possess, which I hope I have now provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

“Official Athletics Website.” Virginia Military Institute, vmikeydets.com/.

“Virginia Military Institute Athletics Programs.” Virginia Military Institute Athletics Programs – College Factual, www.collegefactual.com/colleges/virginia-military-institute/student-life/sports/.

Commandant Staff. VMI Blue Book. VMI, 2020.

Cadet Brandon Bauman

Cadet Brian Jackson

 

Two of the most beloved social media sites, Twitter and Facebook, conquer most of the worlds media today, but if you were born and raised in China these two names would rarely cross your mind. “Twitter and Facebook were blocked in China in July 2009 after riots in the western province of Xinjiang” (Blanchard, 2009). Just because these pure western social media sites are banned in China does not mean that social media doesn’t exist in the country. Several Chinese born social media sites exist for Chinese citizens to use. China’s largest site is Sina Weibo, a Chinese microblogging site, and it is used by hundreds of millions of Chinese. The GFW or the Great Firewall of China is the internet block on foreign websites from within China. This results in Chinese content being consistently filtered and tailored to its citizens’ view. This censorship, though, relies on the specific social media companies.  “The censorship regime relies more heavily on domestic companies to police their own content under penalty of fines, shutdown and criminal liability” (Crandall, et al., 2007; MacKinnon, 2009; OpenNet Initiative, 2009).  The censorship in China is used as a tool to reduce public outcry and prevent talk about questionable political events. One main story of censorship involved a drunk driver, “in October 2010, when a 22–year–old named Li Qiming killed one and injured another in a drunk driving accident at Hebei University. His response after the accident — “Go ahead, sue me if you dare. My dad is Li Gang!” (Xiao, 2011; Wines, 2010). Li Gang was a deputy police chief for a district nearby Heibei. This post caused a public outcry, many Chinese were posting about government corruption in the police. As the public eye closed in around these posts; however, they all started to disappear. Even posts just mentioning the names of individuals involved started to be deleted.

Similarly, in the U.S. the same trend follows. Recently in a 2021 article by Bradley Martin, he states that Joe Biden called for the censorship of misinformation related to Covid-19. The White house’s stance on the matter was followed up with the idea that, “users who post “misinformation” should be banned on every social media platform” (Martin 2021). The Biden administration also admits to flagging posts on sites like Facebook themselves. Maritn justifies the use of censorship in some aspects, when it comes to deplatforming certain extreme groups. He specifically mentions the use of censorship to block out and suppress extremist groups like ISIS. He also discusses the use of censorship to suppress hate groups on social media. “A study found that Reddit’s decision in 2015 to ban various hate groups led to less hate speech on the site. It was found that users who participated in the banned subreddits left the site, while those who remained dramatically reduced their hate speech usage” (Martin 2021). “Deplatforming” and censorship, although having different names, are the exact same thing, one just sounds prettier to the public. Martin then explores the use of this deplatforming in electoral campaigns, recalling a time when, “Facebook and Twitter censored the New York Post over the paper’s exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails and corruption” (Martin 2021). Both Facebook and Twitter flagged these posts for misinformation, which promptly led to censorship of the story altogether. Martin emphasizes the effects of this censorship by providing how it affected the 2020 presidential election. “A news report from the Media Research Center shows that 17 percent of Biden voters would not have voted for the Biden-Harris presidential ticket if they knew at least one of the eight news stories that were suppressed by big tech and mainstream media outlets” (Martin 2021). In the end Martin’s largest concern is the lack of a widely accepted definition of “misinformation” when it comes to censorship.

Elsewhere in the world in Cuba, censorship exists in almost a mic between the ideas of censorship in the U.S. and China. For decades independent media has been restricted in Cuba, specifically regarding to many social and political issues. According to The Associated Press during one of Cuba’s worst economic crisis, “authorities blocked social media sites in an apparent effort to stop the flow of information into, out of and within the beleaguered nation” (The Associated Press). Sites like Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Telegram were being blocked by Cuba in response to protests. The Associated Press acknowledge that in recent years Cuba has been allowing more and more access to the internet and social media, but at the same time drastically increasing levels of censorship. When Cuba feels like it they can flip a switch and restrict information either leaving or coming to the Island. Even though internet access exists in Cuba, it is not easily accessible. The Associated Press states that, “Internet access in Cuba has historically been expensive and relatively rare, according to rights groups” (The Associated Press). The shutdown of the internet following protests, according to The Associated Press, has actually become commonplace in today’s world, especially in countries like Ethiopia, where internet shutdowns can last as long as weeks.

Regarding Ethiopia, internet censorship and government control is commonly considered the strictest in the world. The government strictly controls internet searches and conducts internet blackouts. This is where the government revokes internet connectivity as a whole. After a coup attempt on the government, where a regional president was assassinated, Ethiopia put the entire country on one of these blackouts in an attempt to erase it from existence. Even after the blackout was lifted, “access to major social media platforms was blocked” (Xynou 2019). The country uses these internet blackouts to block as a political tool. When issues arise in the country the Ethiopian government strictly regulates all information going in and out of the country. The government benefits from this by maintaining good press from the nations around the world.

In Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society, in an essay by David Uberti, misinformation and censorship has become a common practice as, “corruption of the information that reached readers remained common” (Uberti 435). Similar to the countries I have written about earlier in this essay, a common practice of the media is to produce misinformation that benefits them in the long run. Censorship of other topics just pushes their agenda further and reduces competition. Uberti acknowledges that, “The existence of an independent, powerful, widely respected news media establishment is an historical anomaly.” Is this applicable to national governments as well?

Whether you have developed this realization throughout reading or not, all of this evidence clearly shows how dangerous Government involvement in censorship of the internet is, and why governments should not use censorship as a tool. In extreme cases such as China, Cuba, and Ethiopia, the dangers are right in front of us. While media censorship can be dangerous within itself, government censorship acts almost as a form of mind control typically only seen in sci-fi movies. Government should not have any part in it’s peoples’ access to the internet, because this directly translates to a country with a misinformed, and muzzled population. By taking evidence from other countries around the world, the U.S. should take a look and carefully consider the future of government control of the media.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Bamman, David, et al. First Monday – Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science. www.cs.cmu.edu/~dbamman/pubs/pdf/firstmonday.pdf.

 

Martin, Bradley. “Social Media Censorship Is a Potent Threat to Freedom of Speech.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 21 July 2021, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/21/social-media-censorship-is-a-potent-threat-to-free/.

 

The Associated Press, et al. “Cuba’s Internet Cutoff: The Go-to Tactic for Global Despots.” The Republic News, 12 July 2021, www.therepublic.com/2021/07/12/us-cuba-internet/#:~:text=Internet%20access%20in%20Cuba%20has%20historically%20been%20expensive,and%20blogs%2C%E2%80%9D%20according%20to%20Human%20Rights%20Watch.%20.

 

Karanja (University of Toronto), Moses, et al. “Resurgence of Internet Censorship in Ethiopia: Blocking of WhatsApp, Facebook, and African Arguments.” OONI, 15 Nov. 2019, ooni.org/post/resurgence-internet-censorship-ethiopia-2019/.

Uberti, David. “Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society.” Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, by John D. Ramage et al., Pearson, 2019, pp. 432–436.

 

 

 

 

College, or higher education, is something that is pressed upon many people in the modern day. Whether it is needed or not is still widely disputed. In Learning by Degrees Rebecca Mead discusses just this point. She questions the arguments of many others that are against obtaining a college degree. She herself believes that it is important to get a college degree, as long as the individual finds worth in the degree, regardless if its economics, liberal arts, or some other degrees.

She begins by discussing the effectiveness of certain college degrees. She states, “according to a survey conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, graduates with math skills are more likely than their peers in other majors to find themselves promptly and gainfully employed.” (Mead 1). She then backs this evidence up with specific college majors and their success rates. She cites that, “The safest of all degrees to be acquiring this year is in accounting: forty-six per cent of graduates in that discipline have already been offered jobs.” (Mead 2). Mead then goes on to state that business and engineering majors are also highly valuable degrees, with forty-four percent of business majors having a job straight out of their respective colleges. She then criticizes the fact that a certain Richard K. Vedder, a college graduate himself, argues that people should reconsider college in the first place. She discusses Vedder questions why “eight out of the ten job categories that will add the most employees during the next decade—including home-health aide, customer-service representative, and store clerk—can be performed by someone without a college degree.” (Mead 2-3). Vedder also questions “why fifteen percent of mail carriers have bachelor’s degrees.” (Mead 3). She then criticizes Vedder once more, stating that his argument is economic. Vedder stated that they could have spent that money more wisely than on a college degree. Meads use of evidence is effective here. She is not only providing sound details for why certain majors are genuinely important, but also criticizes an argument pertaining to her own argument.

In her essay, she uses many different examples of very successful people to further her point. She states, “Within the sphere of business, a certain romance attaches to the figure of the successful college dropout, like Steve Jobs, who was enrolled at Reed for only a semester, or Bill Gates, who started at Harvard in 1973 but didn’t get his degree until it was granted, honorarily, thirty-four years later.” (Reed 3) She provides examples of possibly the most successful non-college graduates. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates graduated from their respective colleges, yet became some of the most successful businessmen in the world. I believe this is a very important point to make. Using such extreme examples shows exactly why these successful people are poor examples. Gates and Jobs are just two people, and do not represent the rest of the dropouts. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs may have been successful without degrees, but many other with degrees have been just as successful. There are many newcomers in the ranks of the most successful people that have earned college degrees in their respective fields. People like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos have exceeded the wealth that was held by both of the dropouts, and both attended and graduated universities. Therefore, the evidence she uses is very effective, and shows exactly why you shouldn’t use the greatest successes to represent the masses.

Mead then continues on with similar evidence of Presidents of the United States, but in a different context. She writes, “On the political stage, too, having spent excessive hours in seminar rooms and libraries is widely regarded as a liability.” (Mead 3-4). Here she is stating that many people in politics get criticized for their college education. She brings up and example of George W. Bush, who went to both Yale and Harvard, and criticism of his education. Peggy Noonan, a worker for the Wall Street Journal, states that “He’s not an intellectual,” and that, “Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.” She then goes on and provides another example of Bush’s education being criticized. She recalls when Sarah Palin, another politician, stated that she was  “not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents get them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world.” Mead then denounces Palins criticism and cites that Palin had attended five different colleges within the span of three years. Bush is obviously a very educated individual, and Mead is showing that regardless of his education others still criticize him. She continues on to provide another example of a prior president, Barack Obama. The same argument against a college education that was made against Bush was also brought up against Obama. Like Noonan and Palin against Bush, Charles Murray stated that there is no need for any more intellectuals in the government. Mead even cites Murray’s education in her text as, “the political scientist Charles Murray (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., M.I.T.).” I believe Mead is calling both Noonan, Palin, and Murray out on their hypocrisy in her writing. By stating that Noonan attempted many different colleges, and citing Murray’s schooling, she is obviously calling them out in some sort of way. I believe the claims and evidence she provides in this part of her writing is much more effective. Mead calls out the hypocrisy of others against college degrees. Bush and Obama both achieved the highest position in the United States, so for a journalist and political scientist to denounce their education, they don’t have much credibility.

Throughout Mead’s writing it is clear that her argument is supporting the attendance of a college or university. Her argument is that if the higher education is worth it to the individual in some way spiritually, economically, or intellectually, than it does not matter what the opinions of others is. It is not up to society to decide whether a college degree is truly worth the money or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Mead, Rebecca. “Learning by Degrees.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 31 May 2010, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/06/07/learning-by-degrees.

 HR: None