Outside Reading: Editorial 5

“The U.C.L.A. Video”

Author Unnamed

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/18fri2.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Published 3/17/11

The unnamed author in “The U.C.L.A. Video,” from the New York Times, uses a partially factual voice with scraps of personality thrown in, too. The creator of this video, Alexandra Wallace, both vented and mocked the situation in question: some Asian students at U.C.L.A. were calling their families in Japan to check on them after the tsunami. The author shows their frustration at the prominent racist beliefs of the video’s creator, but also notes that she has the right, “no matter how obnoxious,” to voice these beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment.

The author uses both colloquial and elevated language separately to address the issues of racism and constitutionality, respectively. The author goes quickly from one kind of language to the other. In one paragraph, the author speaks of whether the video is protected by the constitution. The author writes, while citing an earlier reference to a ‘First Amendment Scholar at U.C.L.A., “A purpose of the American university, he said, is to debate major decisions about social and other policies — to build consensus and the foundations of community.” In the next immediate paragraph, the author almost completely changes their style of language while addressing the racism showed in the video, saying, “Her most offensive words — said while mimicking people speaking an Asian language — sound like an ethnic slur, but it would be hard to argue that they were threatening.”

The diction used is meant to deliver a clear message to the reader. Words like “victimizing,” “offensive,” and “threatening” are meant to evoke a certain feeling of cultural disgust towards Wallace, and the author makes sure that we feel the same way as them by the end.

The author also employs specific and horrifying details to further convince the reading audience of his/her beliefs. The author supports their beliefs about the video’s constitutionality by citing Eugene Volokh and even goes so far as to inform the audience of U.C.L.A’s Principles of Community. These details help add to the author’s voice by giving the audience a chance to put all of the information gained into both a specific and broad context.

Although this piece is well researched and well written, it would not serve well as an AP essay. The author cites their opinion much too often (which is expected, seeing as how it is and editorial) to be a quality AP piece.