Reflecting on "Resolving Conflicts"

For the final assignment of English 103, students were asked to write a mediation paper. We were supposed to choose an issue that had two opposing points of view, two distinct sides, etc., and to “resolve the conflict.” The assignment asked us to cover both sides of the issue separately, preferably in an unbiased manner, and to bring the two issues together through mediation.

I struggled quite a bit in choosing a topic about which I felt comfortable enough to write. There are so many “conflicts” one could write about in today’s society, but I did not feel I could do any of them justice. With each topic, I was experiencing one of two problems: I had either already chosen a side on the issue and felt that I could not cover the opposing side on a matter of principle, or I was fearful of offending someone in the way in which I covered a specific subject. I had already written a paper earlier in the year on the smoking ban that had two fairly distinct sides. The thought occurred to me to possibly take that same issue and expound upon it, developing each viewpoint further and mediating between the two opposing sides. That seemed fairly safe, pretty tame, and rather reasonable. We were asked to choose a different topic from any previous papers we had written, however. Our instructors wanted us to "broaden our horizons," if you will. I knew that was going to be fun.

I finally settled on the controversial issue of abortion. I had considered this topic for my previous paper, but had decided against it because I did not feel that I could adequately cover the issue in the four to five page limit we were given. With this assignment, however, we were told to write a minimum of six pages. That number sounded feasible and more realistic. I was still very hesitant, however. Abortion is an issue I feel quite strongly about. It is an issue that I have discussed with friends, family, classmates, and coworkers. It is an issue that I have always wanted to write about, but I had never sat down and worked on formulating a strategic argument tailored to a specific audience. That was quite a challenge. It is easy to feel strongly about something. The problem is that you can feel strongly about an issue, and still do an insufficient job of creating a strong argument on paper.

Another problem is that while I knew the assignment asked for us to cover both sides of the issue, I had not given much thought to exactly how I was going to go about doing that. How do you write – in an unbiased manner – about an issue with which you are terribly biased? That is the question I had to answer for myself as I began the arduous task of researching for and planning a paper in which I had to argue not only for my side of an issue, but for the viewpoint that opposed my own, and then had to bring the two sides together. As I sat in the library, I had no trouble typing in the search keywords “Pro-Life” or “anti-abortion.” When it came to “Pro-Choice” or “supporting abortion,” however, I was having a little more trouble. I felt as though I was going against all that I stood for just to hit “enter.”

Writing the paper was not any easier. I zipped through the Pro-Life portion of my paper without any major dilemmas. I already knew all of the anti-abortion arguments by heart, and I only needed my resources as support for my “right” viewpoint. My sentences were well-informed, confident, and cohesive. As I began the “Pro-Choice” section, however, I stumbled. I found myself spilling over several documents presented by Pro-Choice America and reading through various testimonies and figures presented by numerous Pro-Choice supporters. I was trying to formulate an argument for a belief that I did not hold, and I could not read any supporting evidence without critiquing it, without immediately coming up with information to refute the claim I was reading. I also found that each sentence I wrote began with “they think,” “they believe,” “they argue.” While I was typing the quotes, my overall work was very biased and indicative of the side I supported. I knew the revision process was going to be difficult.

After completing my paper, I felt great relief at just being done; but I knew deep down that I was nowhere near being done. I knew that I was going to have to go through my paper and tie it together. As it was, it consisted of a strong, cohesive, and confident Pro-Life argument. The Pro-Choice section of my paper, however, was weak, timid, sporadic, and – if you can imagine this – as if I was be forced to write it. It sounded as if I was throwing it in there just to say it was there, and as if I was ashamed of it. After revisions, I would say that I did a fairly even job of covering both sides of the controversial debate surrounding abortion. I discussed merits and falsehoods in both cases, and I did my best not to favor one side over the other in the mediation portion of my paper. I am not claiming that my paper is anywhere near perfect. In fact, it is far from it. You can probably still read through it and tell that I am a Pro-Life supporter, but I will admit that this paper did “broaden my horizons.” In being forced to read Pro-Choice literature and the testimonies of women who have had abortions, I realized just how one-sided my thinking had become. I oppose abortion for several reasons, ranging from logical to emotional. It goes against my religious beliefs, and it bothers me personally.

After writing this paper, however, I realized how quick I was to vilify any woman who had aborted her child, how disappointed I was in people who supported abortion, and how quick I was to pass judgment. This paper helped show me the error of my ways. I feel that while I am still whole-heartedly Pro-Life, I am more sympathetic, more informed, and better equipped to have a little healthy debate and respectful conversation with a Pro-Choice supporter.

Barack Obama: A More Perfect Union

Barack Obama is a very skillful public orator. After being asked to watch his speech on Race and Politics in America and to read the transcript of the speech, I was only further impressed by Obama’s rhetoric skills.

There is so much to discuss about Obama’s speech without even approaching the political aspect of his words and ideas. To start, I found his attire strategic and worth mentioning. He is not sporting the red power tie, as most political public speakers do. Instead, he sports a medium blue tie with a plain black suit. His choice of blue, especially a medium blue is interesting, seeing as light blue is typically associated with healing, tranquility, understanding, and softness, while dark blue generally represents knowledge, integrity, and seriousness. These are all qualities that Obama seeks to encourage and promote in his speech, particularly this one. Without getting into any specifics about Obama’s politics, it is easy for one to pick up from this speech that Obama is sharing a message of reconciliation – not just of the races, but of himself with the American people following his former pastor’s controversial and “denigrating” remarks. His message, and even his tie, exudes understanding, a desire for tranquility, integrity, softness, and seriousness.

I must preface any discussion on the actual content of Obama’s speech with my personal feeling that his speech came too little too late. Thus far in his presidential campaign, I had never had any real qualms with Obama. I did, however, find it unnerving that it took him so long to share this message with the American public. I felt that, in terms of rhetoric, his ethos was reduced with this speech. I don’t find his “more perfect union” message as credible since he didn’t “apologize” for Reverend Wright's incendiary remarks until it became clear that his campaign could be damaged if he did not. I feel that his apology was an afterthought, a CYA attempt, if you will. That is neither here nor there, however.

Within the speech itself, I noticed several very carefully worded and structured points on Obama’s part. It is obvious that Obama’s overriding message is to unite the American people. He states his deeply-held belief that “we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together.” This statement, along with many others in Obama’s speech, that repeatedly employ the “we” serve to connect Obama with his audience – the American people. He further connects, and even inspires patriotism and pride within his audience by stating:

“I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one."

I really appreciated this passage. It brings to light the progress America has made in the last several decades and it speaks of the opportunities available to all Americans. It not only connects Obama with his audience, but it connects him and the American people to the international community. His statement that “[he] will never forget that in no other country on Earth is [his] story even possible” evokes a great deal of pride in those hearing his message.

I also appreciated Obama’s attempt to not necessarily defend his former pastor’s words and actions, but to defend him as an individual. Obama states that Wright “helped introduce [him] to [his] Christian faith,… served his country as a U.S. Marine, …and has led a church [for thirty years] that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth.” Personally, I feel that Obama’s willingness to speak kind words about a man who so many now despise speaks volumes about his character.

I respected Obama’s insistence on America dealing with its issues – now. He stated that “if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.” He then proceeded to briefly cover both the black and white American histories, noting that while most Americans today did not live during those turbulent years, the injustices and lingering resentments from those years “have [undeniably] helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation.” Obama spoke about the “larger aspirations of all Americans” and about everyone “taking full responsibility for their own lives.” I wholeheartedly agree with Obama’s feelings about how to deal with discrimination in today’s society. He stressed that while Americans “may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.”

I feel that one of the most important observations made by Obama before the conclusion of his speech was that “America can change. This is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.” I found this inspired, yet simple statement extremely empowering. I will close by saying that while I feel Barack Obama was late in delivering this much needed speech of unity and reconciliation following his former pastor’s remarks, I was not at all disappointed. I was very impressed by his appearance and the style and content of his speech. He is a very respectable and very well-spoken man, and I believe that he has a lot of offer our country.