“A Curse and a Blessing” is an annotated rhetorical analysis in which Milena Ateyea analyzes the strategies of ethos, logos, and pathos at work within an essay by Derek Bok. You can use the markup tools to highlight and annotate this analysis. To try a low-stakes practice peer-review session, annotate with questions you would ask the writer. Show your annotations to your instructor for feedback or compare notes with classmates.
Read an annotated version of “A Curse and a Blessing” formatted for MLA style
1
A Curse and a Blessing
In 1991, when Derek Bok’s essay “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard” was first published in the Boston Globe, I had just come to America to escape the oppressive Communist regime in Bulgaria. Perhaps my background explains why I support Bok’s argument that we should not put arbitrary limits on freedom of expression. Bok wrote the essay in response to a public display of Confederate flags and a swastika at Harvard, a situation that created a heated controversy among the students. As Bok notes, universities have struggled to achieve a balance between maintaining students’ right of free speech and avoiding racist attacks. When choices must be made, however, Bok argues for preserving freedom of expression.
In order to support his claim and bridge the controversy, Bok uses a variety of rhetorical strategies. The author first immerses the reader in the controversy by vividly describing the incident: two Harvard students had hung Confederate flags in public view, thereby “upsetting students who equate the Confederacy with slavery” (51). Another student, protesting the flags, decided to display an even more offensive symbol—the swastika. These actions provoked heated discussions among students. Some students believed that school officials should remove the offensive symbols, whereas others suggested that the symbols “are a form of free speech and should be protected” (51). Bok establishes common ground between the factions: he regrets the actions of the offenders but does not believe we should prohibit such actions just because we disagree with them.
2
The author earns the reader’s respect because of his knowledge and through his logical presentation of the issue. In partial support of his position, Bok refers to U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which remind us that “the display of swastikas or Confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment” (52). The author also emphasizes the danger of the slippery slope of censorship when he warns the reader, “If we begin to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (52). Overall, however, Bok’s work lacks the kinds of evidence that statistics, interviews with students, and other representative examples of controversial conduct could provide. Thus, his essay may not be strong enough to persuade all readers to make the leap from this specific situation to his general conclusion.
Throughout, Bok’s personal feelings are implied but not stated directly. As a lawyer who was president of Harvard for twenty years, Bok knows how to present his opinions respectfully without offending the feelings of the students. However, qualifying phrases like “I suspect that” and “Under the Supreme Court’s rulings, as I read them” could weaken the effectiveness of his position. Furthermore, Bok’s attempt to be fair to all seems to dilute the strength of his proposed solution. He suggests that one should either ignore the insensitive deeds in the hope that students might change their behavior, or talk to the offending students to help them comprehend how their behavior is affecting other students.
Nevertheless, although Bok’s proposed solution to the controversy does not appear at first reading to be very strong, it may ultimately be effective. There is enough flexibility in his approach to withstand various tests, and Bok’s solution is general enough that it can change with the times and adapt to community standards.
3
In writing this essay, Bok faced a challenging task: to write a short response to a specific situation that represents a very broad and controversial issue. Some people may find that freedom of expression is both a curse and a blessing because of the difficulties it creates. As one who has lived under a regime that permitted very limited, censored expression, I am all too aware that I could not have written this response in 1991 in Bulgaria. As a result, I feel, like Derek Bok, that freedom of expression is a blessing, in spite of any temporary problems associated with it.
4
Work Cited
Bok, Derek. “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard.” Rpt. in Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford, 2002. 51–52. Boston Globe 25 May 1991. Print.