We've all heard about it. Those enourmous lawsuits that pit a a man now turned criminal against a tearfull employee for even the most basic forms of harassment. It's simply outragous to think of the male employee (the "harasser") as the victim in that situation - or is it? The short article "Who's Harrassing Whom?" by Marianne M. Jennings presents a unique perspective on the idea behind sexual harrasment in the workplace, and argues that maybe women have exaggerated it far too much.
In the article, Jennings turns her back on the supposed ideals of feminism to show that sexual harassment in the workplace has gotten out of hand. The justice system awards women for coming forward with any harassment information and usually gives a healthy payoff to the prosecuter. Jennings states that women should be able to handle themselves without the justice system, and that she feels insulted that they believe she can't handle herself against any male andvance. She goes on to argue that maybe it is men after all that are the victims in these cases, and that she feels harassed by the fact that she must attend sexual harassment seminars. As the line continues to blurr in the article over who is and isn't guilty, Jennings always prompts the question to the reader, "Who's harassing whom?"
The article makes use of all three of the appeals to draw readers into the arguement. The opening paragragh demonstrates pathos immidiately when the author sarcastically states that she has never been sexually harassed...and why not? Isn't she just as attractive as those teary-eyed women who sue men for assault? The opening bit of humor makes it easier for the reader to slip into the topic of discussion that follows. She also presents us with a little bit of her own backround to make the reader more comforatable with the author.
The logos portion of the piece presents itself in the form of logical arguements against so-called innocent victims and factual references to real lawsuits in the past that Jennings felt were not entirely justified. There are a few looks at the Anita Hill case where Jennings takes a stance that Anita tolerated Calrence Thomas' behavior because at the time she was "riding to a career pinnacle on the tails of a shooting star..." This is simply an opinion but anyone that can take a look at how long Anita Hill worked under these allegations at the time knows that this is a sound arguement. Other examples that Jennings used included testimonies from female ford plant workers that calimed they would sleep with supervisors to keep their jobs, but could only offer weak arguements as to why they would stay under those conditions for 22$ an hour; and the seminars that Jennings had to attend where they were forced to harass men to make them see how that discomfort felt. The author felt that these seminars were even more uncomforatable than getting harassed because the employers handn't even thought that maybe the females didn't want to make lude comments about their male co-workers. These real life examples provoide a good arguement for Jennings while at the same time probing the question presented in her thesis.
What makes the reading powerful in this case is the ethical staements the author makes. While logos is used slightly more, the author makes the best use of ethos here. Jennings purposes that maybe, while not directly the woman's fault, absurd sexual harassment laws and our attitudes toward them have more to do with women's over-exaggeration than men's advances. Jennings claim, while contraversial, stabs at the very ethics that respectable women build themselves upon; saying that it results in fear, not respect. Women and men can no longer be friends in the workplace because the line between what is and isn't harassment has backed men into a corner where they're unsure of what's appropriate. Jennings' character could be mistaken as completely anti-feminist, but it's not. She simply wishes that women would take care of themselves as they used to instead of relying on authority figures to dish out punishment on males that don't entirely deserve it.
Since it will most likely be female workers reading this article (in an industrious setting), the initial reaction will most likely be resentment for this "reversed" perspective that Jennings takes. She doesn't use too much pathos, other than guilt, to spice things up for her readers so it could come off as quite blunt to most women. The weakest part of the arguement, however, is that Jennings only focuses on one side. We never get to hear information about women that really were honestly affected by sexual harassment in the workplace. Even with those shortcomings, the arguements are presented with real life experience and logical prompts that persuade the reader into Jennings, way of thinking. Also, if the readers open up enough, Jennings' ethical statements about how women must recognize themselves as the enemy come off as quite powerful.

- It's what I've been called for a majority of my time here on this planet, but more importantly, the word "weird" comes from the very Old English word "wyrd" which meant "fate" or "destiny." The word also stems from another term,"weohrtan" or "to become." These are from Anglo-Saxton descent and were written and spoken in what is now England and South-Eastern Scotland. These words were influenced heavily by Old Norse, a north Germanic group of languages. Judging by these facts, the word weird seemed to have a more significant meaning back in its days of creation, rather than now when it's used as an insult or a joke at someone's expense. If the word "weird" still had the same meaning today, I'd have had people commenting on my destiny every day of high school. "Weird" was also used to describe the supernatural at one point, and whether this is a complement or not, I have yet to determine. Regardless of what "weird" meant centuries ago, it's now used to describe someone who deviates from the normal, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Who wants to be average Joe anyway?

A5 Topic Proposal
The main topic that my research paper will be around is process of affirmative action. I don't claim to know alot about affirmative action, but i do know that it involves minorites getting priority over non-minorities when it comes to being accepted into organizations. I want to find enough information to the point where I can take a side in the debate for affirmative action. It has been a raging debate for the past decade or so and even with my limited knowledge it seems to destroy equality in the purest sense. Some of my friends went to private schools where they were forced to pay 6000$ a year just to attend, but minorities were able to attend for free. It just seemed so wrong. I would like to know why affirmative action was started in the first place, how are people selected for afirmative action, and what specific organizations it applies to.
-Is affirmative action fair for the current state of our country?

Zach -- I think this topic could work. I like how your question specifies the "current" state of affairs in the U.S. This might be a nice way to narrow down a little bit, as you are definitely going to find a ton of information on this topic. You will want to think very carefully about the words you use to search for sources -- your "search terms." You want to make sure that they are narrowed and specific enough to lead you to good sources with specific information. Because affirmative action was/is so debated, you might find yourself drowning in information and sources. If you do, come talk to me and we'll figure out some good words to help you narrow down the scope of your research project. -- Leah

A6 - Annotated Bibliographies
1.) Anonymous. "25 Legal and Legislative Milestones." Diverse Issues in Higher Education. 26.9 June 11, 2009: 24-25, Proquest Education Module (Nov 3, 2009), Print.
This article is a quick overview of significant legal and legislative events that have had an effect on higher eduaction. The events are told through the years 1986 to the current time period, and each offers a date with a short paragraph of information about the event that came into place that year. Most of the events in the article have to do with either affirmative action or its closely related topic, desegregation.
The article is almost purely logos orientated. The information is factual and is merely there to give readers a look back on what Diverse issues in Higher Education have been discussing for the past 25 years or so.The only opinionated part comes in the introductory paragraphs when the author chooses to say that Barrack Obama's election may prove counterproductive to affirmative action bcause people will use it as an excuse to say that it is no longer necessary. Speculation aside, the article then goes on to just list off the years important years from 1986 to the current time period taht were pivotal to diversity in education. Given the magazine's title and its focus on desegregation, it's safe to say that it supports the use of affirmative action in education.

2.) "Leaders: The wrong decision, poorly made; Affirmative Action." The Economist. 367.8330 London June 28, 2003: 14, Proquest Periodical (Nov 5, 2009). Print.
This article is about how affirmative action is making America into a Country based on racial preference. There are various suggestions that affirmative action was a process that was needed in the 60's but not in our current time. The author believes that the supreme court is at fault for there rulings on the University of Michigan's case rulings on thier affirmative action program. According to the article, racial preference programs are executed poorly and influence racisim more than diminish it.
This article is able to give the facts but remains heavily opinionated against affirmative action for its entirety. To give one example of the initial opinions, the author states,"...the decision seems doubtly incorrect - wrong in principle and wrong in execution." This is backed up by some brief historical facts regarding affirmative action and its trials and tribulations. The execution portion is argued against using the University of Michigan example and how it used a point based system to admit minority groups without regarding each one indiviudually. The author concludes with more appeals to ethos by once again adressing the justice system's favoritism towards minorities and why this is a time to change this before race is impossible to define in this country. the big point of the article was that we need to adress education problems through class rather than race.

3.) Koppelman, Andrew and Donald Rebstock. "On Affirmative Action And Truly Individualized Consideration." Northwestern University Law Review. Northwestern University School of Law; Spring 2007; 101, 3; Proquest Law Module (Nov 5 2009), 1469. Print.
The main focus here is whether or not an admissions process can acheive complete individualisim of an applicant when entering higher eduaction. Various court decisions are referenced regarding whether or not the admissions process was able to treat its applicants as individuals or not - mainly the Michigan case trial. The article also evaluates the Northwestern Law school admissions, one of the most individualized admission processes in the country, and points out the fact that the use of interviewers greatly increase the integrity of an application process.
The second half of this article seems like it was there to simply prove that Northwestern Law contains the best admissions process(which kind of makes sense seeing as how this is a law review). There is a lot of helpful facts within the information presented in the Law review that pose interesting concepts that are possible solutions to achieving a greater individualized application process, such as the use of interviewers for students applying and the encouragement to work for a few years before even applying. The authors don't agree with the University of Michigan case decisions, but seem to believe in a specific form of affirmative action as long as it allows for individualized student processing. Stacking up U of M polocies against Northwestern polocies shows that there are still flaws in the Law school portion of U of M even though the court deemed them constitutional, and they have a chance to be corrected using a less point based system for there affirmative action process.

4.) Cherwitz, Richard A. "Capitalizing on Unintended Consequences: Lessons on Diversity from Texas." Peer Review. Washington: Spring 2004. 6.3; Proquest Periodical (Nov 3, 2009), 33-35. Print.
The supreme court rulings on the University of Texas at Austin and the Hopwood case begin this article with the author sharing the view that it is not necessarily the admissions process to blame for a lack of minority students, but rather the lack of a substantial minority pool that actually consider applying. The author then goes on to defend an new process that has been impemented into UT called "Intellectual Entrepreneurship." This process emphasizes asking what the students are most interested in and then putting them to work outside the classroom in humanity projects while underscoring traditional arts and science research to attract more minority groups.
Given the statistic presented that the IE program was able to draw in more minority students than UT's traditional programs this would seem to be an ideal solution to achieving diversity in schools. At the same time however, there are various statistics that are left wide open for debate that leave the reader asking for exact specifications rather than the vague descriptions of how the author knows that students report that their experience to IE was more beneficial to them. Also, the reason given for minorities unattendance to traditional college is heavily opinionated with no actual statistics to back it up. The logos portion of the article is presented well in some parts, but as a whole, it fails to convince the reader that this is the solution. It is more of an article aimed at taking the focus away from the admissions process for a second in the search for a different cause of why schools are having trouble achieving diversity within their walls. The lack of motivation presented as a probable cause may have its place.

5.) White, Belinda. "Adressing Career Success Issues of African Americans in the Workplace: An Undergraduate Business Program Intervention." The Career Development Quarterly. Sep 2009; 58.1; Proquest Research Library Core (Nov 5, 2009). 71-76. Print.
This is another article that describes a specific course laid out at a traditional Black college for the use of integrating minorities into the workplace. This program is called the LDP and has to main objectives: 1.) to develope skills that include personal leadership, personal management, and interpersonal leadership; and 2.) expose students to the intricacies and nuances of organizational life. It places special emphasis on being African American in our culture today. The course is described and then evaluated for its effectiveness in teaching minorities valuable business skill sets. Reasons for the absence of many minorities achieving a place in the top ranking business world is also touched upon.
Various statistics are given on the inclusion of Blacks in the workplaceto give the reader the beginning impression that these inclusion programs are needed. The LDP program is presented with some obvious bias, but the article gives a helpful table of statistics to show the reader what the people who were actually in the program were thinking about their experience. The facts are in favor of the program so the logical thought process is that this is ideal for an alternative to affirmative action for African Americans. The fact that class sizes are so limited calls into question the program's effectiveness in the long run for most minorities, and not to mention, the process by which African Americans are chosen for the program is pretty much completely ommited from the document. The author favors intervention for the success of minorities, but with specified programs and not necessarily affrimative action.

6.) Sugrue, Thomas. "Racial Romanticism." Democracy. Washington: Summer 2009. Iss 13; Proquest Standard (Nov 2, 2009). 69-73. Print.
The main purpose of this article was to critique an essay written by Richard Kahlenberg, but it also offers some insights into the history of affirmative action as well as clear up some misunderstandings that our society has about affirmative action. The main point the author tries to make is that affirmative action does not divide into into the pre-1968 and post-1968 eras that some people make it out to be. He also includs a discussion about how the fight for civil rights is not over just because America has a Back president.

This article helps set some facts straight that some articles have misconstrued. The term "quotas" has actually diminished and not been used since 1978, but many magazines still use the term when reffering to the U of M case. The author does a nice job of discrediting the other author he is critiquing while offering factual information on the history of affirmative action including white support of the subject, the misrepresented affiliation of Black power with affirmative action, and the northern initiative on affirmative action. It all helps contribute nicelyto the ethos and logos of the author and article, respectively.