Close Reading

For this post, I chose yet another Slate article, "Censorship 101." It can be found at: click here!

In the article, "Censorship 101," Sonja West calls into question the recent Supreme Court decisions that have supported schools over students' free speech. In describing this trend, she then goes on to describe a vicious cycle that results from this process: as students see and experience censorship, as they grow older, they will embrace the same values and accept infringements on their First Amendment rights. Throughout her argument, West employs diction, syntax, and details in sending out her message to the reader.

The article consists almost entirely of informal diction. This generates a conversational effect throughout the piece, where the reader feels like they share a direct connection to what West is writing. There are plenty of opportunities to add in bits of legal jargon or formal words, especially in the paragraph describing the issues that children currently deal with and will face in the future. Yet West uses simple terms that are commonly used in the nation, such as "poverty," "racism," and "global military crises." In addition, some of the words West chooses to include have built rather strong connotations. For example, the word, "censorship," has always had a negative image that implies excessive control, and this idea is furthered when she uses similar words like "totalitarian." As the article is rather informative, West's diction adds to her argument by making the issue of the piece more understandable and thus applicable to the lives of the readers.

West generally uses syntax to keep the reader moving along as they read the piece. This is exemplified when she writes, "But that was then; this is now." This sentence blends the technique of the short, powerful sentence with a strong transition, as it sits alone in its own mini-paragraph. It leaves the reader wondering about the differences that have emerged in current society since the Tinker case, which West describes in the following section of the article. She also makes repeated use of brief interrupters, as in this sentence: "Those who are persistently told by their schools that certain speech is off-limits, however, are less certain about these basic freedoms." This adds an emphasis on the latter part of the sentence, which firmly supports West's idea of the far-reaching impact of these contra-student decisions.

The details used throughout the piece reinforce West's message and add a bit of reliability to her argument, leaving the reader with the impression that her idea is actually valid as opposed to some opinionated editorial piece. For example, she includes a study of a Yale Law professor in her description of the cycle of growing censorship from suppression of students' speech. Though the study does not directly support her claim, she is able to extrapolate a trend from it that does. Plus, the second any writer drops the Ivy league into an article, it adds a strong level of support in the reader's mind. In addition, West includes details from both sides of the judicial conflicts she cites in the article. In supporting the students' side of things, including the other side gets the reader thinking about who is truly in the wrong. She included a case that took place in Pennsylvania, where some students protested a racist team name, but the school administration shot down the idea. Any reasonable person can see the prejudice in the term, "Redskin," so by including this case, West sort of eggs the reader towards her argument.

Through effective use of diction, syntax, and details, West is able to get her message across to the readers. In both informing them and urging them towards an actionable argument, she sheds light upon the potential significant issue of school censorship.