The Outrage Machine

Last week, while I had some time in a class where the kiddos were nominally doing their work (they weren't really, but they weren't making a ruckus), I happened upon an article that I want to talk about today. 

The article: "The Conservative Grievance Business Is Always Hiring"

There are people who find ways to make a living about being outraged. And the public falls into the trap of being outraged along with them. The current kerfuffle has to do with a college student who claims she got a failing grade on a paper because she expressed her religious views. 

And... no. 

If you dig a bit deeper, you find that this girl went after a trans teaching assistant and got them fired. Why? Because these people find different people weird, and they have chosen to use their time and energy to chase them from having a life. They want to chase them into the shadows. 

The problem is these people aren't all that smart. If only the media would dig a little deeper, they'd find that out. 

But no. They want to be outraged. They know outrage sells clicks. 

So, let me talk about my outrage. How it sucks that someone can claim bias to get someone fired when they did shoddy work. 

Don't believe me? Here's a link to the assignment: Reaction Paper Requirements.

Then read the paper. (If those links don't work, I got them from this article via Yahoo.) 

It reads to me like someone knew the paper was due at 11:59 PM and started writing it at maybe 11 PM (maybe 11:30). And, in stream-of-consciousness fashion, they wrote down what they were thinking, getting angrier and angrier at having to do the assignment. 

There are no cogent arguments. There is no textual evidence. There's no intro paragraph or concluding paragraph. No hook. Not really a beginning. 

If I were grading this... Well, let's look at the criteria. 

1. Does the paper show a clear tie in to the article? 

No, it does not. She doesn't at any point cite any text. She alludes to the article, but she doesn't paraphrase anything from it. She doesn't even cite the title or author of the article. (The high school English classes are taught how to write a sentence that tags the article they're using. So, it's something she should have known how to do.) 

2. Does the paper present a thoughtful reaction or response to the article, rather than a summary?

Well, she does not summarize the article. Is her reaction thoughtful? Meh. I might have given some points for this, just because she did turn it in and she did react, albeit without providing clear evidence to support her point. Lots of hand waving excuses for why the article was wrong.

3. Is the paper clearly written? 

Not really. She's clear on her viewpoint once she gets going. But the structure is a mess. It could use a good edit. 

The paper was worth 25 points. I wouldn't've given it over 10 points if even that much. I can see why it got a zero. My grade still would have been a fail. (It would need 15 points for a D.) 

But to hear her tell it and to witness the controversy over it, you'd think she wrote a masterpiece that was dismissed because they didn't agree with her viewpoint. 

Did you read the paper? What grade would you give it? 

Whenever I've assigned writing when it's their opinion (not often, because this only happens when I'm on a long term), I never care what their viewpoint is. Just so long as it's argued coherently. I could see giving a paper an A about something I completely disagreed with them about. It'd be irritating, but good writing is good writing. 

Of course, this isn't really about the paper. This is about a girl who doesn't want to think too deeply about gender roles and whether or not what she's believed all her life is right or wrong. And when she got a zero, rather than reflect on what she wrote, she lashed out. 

Sadly, she's not learning what the professor had hoped to teach.

Stupid people follow the authority blindly. And that's what they want. Blind obedience. Not people who think. 

So, keep thinking. Keep questioning. Keep pushing back. They win when we don't pay attention.