After reading the argumentative essays: “An Argument against the Anna Todd Jennings Scholarships,” and “All the Time? Forget It!,“ I thought both Matt Daniels and The Student respectively, provided all the elements for this particular genre of essays. I agree with Daniels’ view that applying for the Anna Todd Jennings Scholarships further perpetuates racist ideas and students should not apply for the scholarship; and The Student’s claim, that allowing twenty-four hour visitation would be a violation of the student’s privacy and sense of security. The essays encompassed issues that appealed to the pathos, ethos, and logos; therefore, I was able to definitively choose a position.
In Matt Daniels’ essay “An Argument against Anna Todd Jennings Scholarships,” he states, “If an individual accepts a scholarship with racial restrictions, then he or she is actually endorsing the principals behind it.” I agree, providing the student is aware of the restriction. According to Daniels, the director of financial aid did not disclose the restriction because he thought students should have the right to apply. The University should have a moral and ethical responsibility to inform applicants about the restriction; however, it’s also the applicant’s responsibility to do their research as well. Now, if a student (well informed) still applies, they are advocating racism. The fact of the matter is there are so many other scholarships without “this” restriction available that unless you share the same racist views as Anna Todd Jennings, there’s no justification to endorse a scholarship further increases the huge disparity of educational opportunities between Caucasians and other races.
Daniels also proposed that not only should students refuse to apply, but should actively work to encourage the school to challenge the racist provisions of the Anna Todd Jennings’s will. I totally agree, with students taking a stand on this matter by protesting against the scholarship, that what it represents, is wrong and the restriction should be lifted or not offered at all (if possible). This coming from the very students the scholarship was intended for, would make a clear message to the University, that the student body will not tolerate any form of racism, even if it means turning down money towards their education. It simply is not worth compromising their morals, values, or beliefs. In “All the Time? Forget It!,” The Student’s claim the biggest problem, resulting from the twenty-four hour visitation, would be a lack of privacy. I agree, having a visitor, regardless of their sex, in and out student living quarters (all times of the day) is a violation of ones privacy. Dorm residents should not be subjected to visitors coming to their dorms all times of the day because the dorms should be a place where they can retire at the end of the day without disturbances from unwanted guest. Therefore, it should be prescribed hours to accommodate the needs of the residents first and foremost. The Student points out the inconvenience of not being able to relax in pajamas, t-shirts and underwear or having to get dressed every time you have to go to the bathroom. At least, with prescribed hours, the residents will know when and when not to get fully relaxed and can plan accordingly. Another excellent point she makes regarding twenty-four hour visitation is that, it makes it less secure. According to The Student, the doors would always be unlocked making the dorms accessible to people who do not belong there. She states, “These people might be anything from pranksters to criminals,” thus, putting the students at risk of being robbed or harmed. All students/residents should feel safe and secure on campus, especially in their living quarters, and to allow this type of liberty is not it the best interest of the students/residents. I agree that lack of privacy would be a big problem if twenty-four hour visitation were implemented. However, I believe that the potential safety violations pose the biggest problems for student/resident. I understand that students want to feel liberated and treated like adults, but the risks are far too great to only consider those desires of some without considering that the majority of students want their privacy and to feel safe in the dorms. Furthermore, the University has the responsibility of ensuring the safety of its students and by allowing the twenty-four hour visitation it assumes the risk of any unfortunate mishaps that may occur. As stated earlier, both Matt Daniels and The Student provided the criteria for an effective argumentative essay. In “An Argument against the Anna Todd Jennings Scholarship,” Daniels’s position against perpetuating racism and protesting against the “restriction” was substantiated (with evidence that appealed to the pathos, logos, and ethos) why students should not apply for the scholarship. And in “All the Time?” ‘Forget It!” The Student’s position, opposing twenty-four hour visitation, claiming the students lack of privacy and security would be in jeopardy, was also substantiated with evidence, however, she appealed more to the logos and pathos. I couldn’t agree more with the reasoning providing in both essays.