First, let you know that I'll soon be opening a blog at a new site called "The Old Rhetorician's Divertissements."
Second, and related to the first, is a rhetorical analysis made by my friend Michael Van Meter in a letter to the editor of the Bend Bulletin. I was given permission by Stacey Donohue to repost her Facebook status update reprint of the letter along with the Bulletin's response.
Original letter:
Stacey: The Letter to the Editor that The Bulletin refused to print because they disagreed with the author. Discuss.
Blaming the victim?
To the editors:
My head hurts on this sleepy Saturday from The Bulletin's front-page re-framing of the Associated Press’s story on a lawsuit against Chemeketa Community College and Patrick Lanning. [As posted at Oregon Live.)
The AP:
SALEM, Ore. — A woman who accused a community college administrator of raping her has sued the school, seeking at least $4.8 million and alleging it knew of the man's "history of sexual misconduct" and failed to protect her.
The Bulletin’s revision:
SALEM — A woman whose accusation of rape derailed Central Oregon Community College’s presidential search last spring has sued the Salem-area college where she and her alleged attacker worked at the time, seeking at least $4.8 million and alleging the college knew of the man’s “history of sexual misconduct” and failed to protect her.
Leaving aside the lead sentence's word count — ballooned to 51 words from an already-long 35 — I am perturbed that The Bulletin blames the victim for the derailed search. This is especially aggravating given that it is Lanning who is alleged to have committed acts not befitting a would-be college president, and it is Chemeketa Community College that failed to disclose Lanning’s administrative leave during background checks by COCC. Who derailed this search?
I understand well the importance of localizing the perspective on the wire story. In doing so, it is vital to not simultaneously transform the story into an accusation against someone exercising her rights in federal court.
Michael Van Meter
Bend, Oregon
My head hurts on this sleepy Saturday from The Bulletin's front-page re-framing of the Associated Press’s story on a lawsuit against Chemeketa Community College and Patrick Lanning. [As posted at Oregon Live.)
The AP:
SALEM, Ore. — A woman who accused a community college administrator of raping her has sued the school, seeking at least $4.8 million and alleging it knew of the man's "history of sexual misconduct" and failed to protect her.
The Bulletin’s revision:
SALEM — A woman whose accusation of rape derailed Central Oregon Community College’s presidential search last spring has sued the Salem-area college where she and her alleged attacker worked at the time, seeking at least $4.8 million and alleging the college knew of the man’s “history of sexual misconduct” and failed to protect her.
Leaving aside the lead sentence's word count — ballooned to 51 words from an already-long 35 — I am perturbed that The Bulletin blames the victim for the derailed search. This is especially aggravating given that it is Lanning who is alleged to have committed acts not befitting a would-be college president, and it is Chemeketa Community College that failed to disclose Lanning’s administrative leave during background checks by COCC. Who derailed this search?
I understand well the importance of localizing the perspective on the wire story. In doing so, it is vital to not simultaneously transform the story into an accusation against someone exercising her rights in federal court.
Michael Van Meter
Bend, Oregon
The Bulletin's Response (according to Stacey's "comment" post):
Thank you for your submission.
I have read and reread this introduction that you brought to my attention. I showed it to two of my colleagues, as well.
I don't think it blames the victim. Neither do my colleagues. Your letter is rejected.
Richard Coe
Editorial Page Editor
The Bulletin
541-383-0353
There was also a VERY interesting set of comments but I do not have permission from those folks to quote them here. Suffice to say, some folks recognized at least one rhetorical fallacy in the Bulletin's response. (An an emotional appeal to conformity.)
For more of what I had to say about similar issues related to Patrick Lanning, please see this post. It's possible I was also blaming the victim. Someone could let me know. (Because there are forms of rhetorical analysis that seek the subconscious intentions of the creator of the discourse, I know that I might be expressing a discourse with which I disagree without a complete understanding of my utterances. In other words, I can, without meaning to, say stupid things. Like most humans. And some cats (see Henri Part Deux) Nevertheless, I continue to believe this was a moderately sedate rhetorical analysis of the situation.
