Friday, May 6, 2016

Hear Us, See Us

Tiara Bertram
Final Exam ENGL306
Dr. Stephanie Brown
6 May 2016

It’s hard to ignore something that demands your attention.
For most of American history, the plight of Black people has been ignored. History classes in primary school briefly go over the terrors of slavery, but then push it away with the air of “this is the bad thing America did, but it’s over now and no longer needs to be talked about”. We honor the endurance of the Civil Rights movement with great shopping discounts on Martin Luther King Day. However, the daily experience of marginalization is often justified by an intricate system of multi-layered oppression, or otherwise ignored.
The Black Student Union decided that they would not stand for this societal dismissal, and organized the “Hear Us, See Us” Rally, a protest demonstrated that identifies itself under the umbrella of the Black Lives Matter protest movement, in memoriam of Trayvon Martin.
On the night of February 26th, 2012, Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old black boy living in Florida, was shot down while heading home from a convenience store by a neighborhood vigilante [maniac] George Zimmerman. Trayvon’s family, devastated and angry about the blatant racism that led to his death, held a press conference to publicize the story and demand that Zimmerman be brought to justice and charged with an actual crime instead of getting away with a “self defense” plea. The story struck a chord with the Black community, for this incident is not an anomaly, but a regular occurrence. It is a part of the Black American experience; an unarmed young Black male is killed by law enforcement (whether actual or imagined, as is the case with Zimmerman) for a ‘perceived threat’. The perceived threat is, more often than not, the color of his skin.
Thus, the Black Lives Matter protest was born. The goal of the movement is to vocally publicize the pervasiveness racism in the legal systems we deem as objective, and to demand that this treatment stop (Lawrence 2015). Of course, in the modern age of high-speed internet and social media, to publicly vocalize an issue is to hashtag it. This computational turn is really what caused the events that sparked the movement to gain publicity and for the movement itself to go forward (Trere 2015).
While #BlackLivesMatter became a national movement, it’s driven by local efforts, often by college students at various campuses (Lawrence 2015). At the U of A, the Black Student Union (along with the African American Student Affairs interns) took up the cause, and organized the “Hear Us, See Us” Rally. The rally was designed to be part silent protest, part memoriam. It was set for 5pm on Thursday, February 26th. About twenty people assembled. For the first half hour, the Black Student Union and the AASA interns assembled on the Admin Plaza, wearing all black and black hoodies, and stood silently while holding signs with slogans such as “BLACK LIVES MATTER” “REST IN POWER, TRAYVON” and “HEAR US, SEE US” written in large letters. A handful of people walked by and noticed the assembly, but did not say anything. More students who were part of the planning joined and stood in silence and solidarity with us. Those who didn’t have signs would often hold up their hands in the “Don’t Shoot” pose, hoodie’s pulled low over their faces.
After the extended moment of silence, the BSU co-president Kevyn Butler had the protesters (many of whom were still arriving) reconfigure in a circle in the walkway. The other co-president, Trinity Goss, then went on to read a somber spoken word piece of resilience. Small slips of paper, containing the names of other Black people who were murdered by law enforcement, circulated around the group to be read out loud. By the end, the protest was about 40 members strong.
This protest relied on three main rhetorical strategies: pathos, kairos, and body rhetoric. Pathos was overwhelmingly the most important one, with the program in place for the protest event relying heavily on emotional response. For one, many White Americans automatically feel uneasy when there’s a gathering of Black people in public spaces, especially in that sort of “gangsta” attire of oversized, dark colored hoodies, and University of Arizona is a majority Wite school. The thirty-minute moment of silence is intended to make the observer think about what the person in the protest is saying with their poster or body language. The reading out loud the spoken word poetry and the names of all those who were killed elicit empathy and pity, perhaps indignation at the injustice of it all.
The rally also used Kairos; that is, timing. The time element of the moment of silence portion was pretty attention-grabbing in and of itself, to have a group of people standing silently sometimes says more than to have everyone yelling some sort of slogan. The date, February 26th, was the third year anniversary of Trayvon’s death. Also, the rally was held at 5pm, which was supposed to be a time when there would be students headed towards the union for dinner and the rally would be visible.
Body Rhetoric was also an important aspect of the rally. One of the controversies of the issue is that Blacks are shot for the police claiming they ‘perceived threat’ even when the Black person has clearly indicated that they are surrendering, such as with Eric Garner’s “I can’t breathe” and the widely recognized “Don’t shoot!” hands up pose. Many protesters who were not holding signs raised their arms that way, which is a clear symbolic action that made the protest recognizable.
The Black Student Union declared the event a success. However, the goal and namesake of the protest-- to be seen and heard--was not quite accomplished. There wasn’t the same rush for dinner as there is for lunch at the union, so visibility was mediocre. Of those who did walk by, only three people outside of the BSU/AASA community stopped to hear what was being said during the memoriam part of the protest. Finally, even though there is a new hastagged name every few months with a new viral story of a Black life unjustly taken, these stories don’t stay at the forefront of for very long, and nothing has actually changed. Without meaning to, this protest, and it’s larger umbrella protest of Black Lives Matter, might be fading into the consummation stage of the Protest life cycle.
An effort that might help bring this movement to a more active state is by perhaps choosing a different location for it. Heany and Rojas discuss how location can be a powerful way to frame a protest. “The invocation of place sparks a mobilization of myriad actors who seek to lay claim to the proper interpretation of place” (246). One location that would be a good place to stage a protest in this movement would be at the Fruitvale metro station of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, the site of Oscar Grant III’s murder in 2009.  Of course, this isn’t feasible for the University of Arizona protest organizers, who are more or less tied to campus as this protest happens while class is in session. The Admin Plaza on the U of A campus is a recognized location for public discourse, and many student-led protest activities have occurred there, so by also being there, HUSU could easily be read as a protest. However, perhaps having the protest in the union would have actually garnered more of the response and engagement from other members in the student body.
What really needs to happen is mobilization behind getting a law passed that requires body cameras on police officers, and directs funding towards implementing that in police departments that serve large minority populations first, and then on to hopefully every police force in America. . The only reason Oscar Grant’s murderer was actually convicted of criminal charges is because so many people had recorded the incident on their cell phones and were able to record the event from numerous angles.

            In conclusion, the BLM movement and the HUSU movement have a lot of work to do still, and perhaps a refreshing of strategy will reactivate this campaign for justice.




Works Cited

Lawrence, Charles R. "The Fire This Time: Black Lives Matter, Abolitionist Pedagogy and the Law." Journal of Legal Education, vol 65 issue 2, 1 Nov 2015. Hein Online. 2016.

Treré, Emiliano "Information, Communciation & Society". Taylor and Francis Group. 2015

LSU Burning Flag Protest

Milena Rhodes
Prof. Brown
English 306
May 6, 2016
English Final

            In the early morning of May 2, 2011, the LSU War Memorial was destroyed by an unidentifiable person. The damage included the burning and cutting of a stolen American flag along with other minor damages to the site. Specifically, the rope of the flag mast was destroyed, the Louisiana State University Flag was stolen, and the American flag was in flames. It is suspected that the burning occurred because of the death of Osama Bin Laden just a few hours before.The suspect, Isaac Eslava, was spotted near the crime scene but could not be detained by police due to lack of evidence. He later turned himself in and admitted his performance of the act.  (Friedman) He was later charged with one count of theft and resisting an officer and two counts of simple damage to property.
            After hearing the story of Eslava’s arrest, LSU grad student Benjamin Haas decided to protest against incident. Haas felt his arrest was unjust because of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.  The Fifth Amendment states that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”(US Const. amend IV) In Haas’ perspective, Louisiana State University police were violating this clause. He then created a Facebook announcement stating that he would be performing an act of burning the American flag on campus at the University parade grounds in the defense of Eslava. (Associated Press) This sparked controversy throughout the university and ultimately created a counter protest to the flag burning.
            Initially when Benjamin Haas arrived on the scene of what he thought would be a small protest, he saw more students than what he expected. According to The Daily Reveille, “ an estimated 1500 to 2500 students and community members” gathered for the protest. To Haas’ disappointment, he was unable to perform the act of the flag burning because he did obtain the proper burn permit. He decided to say a speech instead explaining the reason for his initial action and his speech. He started off his speech with, “ Funny Facebook said that there were only going to be 64 of you. I initially began this flag burning protest to define due process for students and suspected terrorist alike, to call on LSU and universities across the country to defend basic human rights and avoid putting students into the criminal justice system when it can be taken care of internally” (Benjamin Haas). His audience was not pleased with his appearance and his original plan of burning the flag, so his speech was barely heard. Chants like “U-S-A” and “go to hell hippie” drowned out the speech of Haas. A senior Communication studies major Sarah Kirksey stated, “We chased him out.. He didn’t burn the flag, so it was a success” (Sarah Kirksey). Not only was Haas not able to perform his speech, but he was also subjected to the throwing of water balloons from the angry crowd. He was then escorted by campus police away from the protest.
            The Louisiana State University burning of the flag protest failed in two ways. First, Benjamin Haas did not take the necessary precautions before conducting his protest. Without the burn permit, he was not able to burn the flag, which was his original plan. His purpose behind the flag burning was to show his rights as an American and as a person in general. Unfortunately for Haas, his true intentions could not be revealed due to the legalities of the matter. Secondly, the crowd was completely against Haas’ acts. Thousands of people chanted over him, forcing his voice to get lost in the crowd. LSU student body president at the time Cody Wells stated, “Haas did not have the right to burn the flag, but it was not an honorable thing for him to do and our student body and fellow Louisianans made that very clear today as they rallied on campus to show support for our community” (Cody Wells).Therefore, only few that were near him were able to hearing what he was saying. The fact that the crowd was angry, did not help the situation any more. As their chants got louder, the acts worsened causing the police to intervene. As a result, nothing was accomplished and Haas’ point was never made.
            In my opinion, this protest failed because of the lack of supporters behind Haas. He was protesting his issue against thousand of students.  One person simply cannot be heard over that many people. I feel like Haas should have rallied up people who had the same feelings towards the protest before carrying it out. This would have created a larger impact against the protestors. I also think that Haas’ intimidation had a lot to do with the failure as well. When protesting against that many people and in general, you have to have a strong mindset and the ability to stick to your passion that caused you to stand up for what you believe in. Also, I feel that the initial research was not properly carried. Benjamin Haas would have been able to conduct his initial plan of burning the American flag and probably would have created a larger impact and reaction for the protestors.
            If I was Benjamin Haas, I would have conducted the protest completely different. First, I personally would not have burned the American flag. I would have figured out a different way to get my point across. I would have made a campaign on social media to get the attention of mainly LSU students, but also people nationwide. After I promoted this issue and I saw reactions to it, I would have performed a speech in front of the student body just like Haas. My speech would include the Due Process Clause and the explanation of our rights as Americans. It would not be a violent or aggressive protest at all. Say I wanted to burn the American flag, I would have gotten the necessary burn permit to do so.
            The legal aspect of this protest played a major role in how it was carried out. The legalities put a damper on Haas’ initial plan because of absence of the permit. Also, the necessary police involvement played a part in the legal aspect as well. Without the police involving themselves, Haas would have most likely tried to finish his speech, but would have been interrupted by the violence of the crowd. The ethical aspect of the protest played a big part as well. The whole reason behind Haas’ action was because he did not feel the arrest of Eslava was not ethically right. On the other hand, protesters did not feel that the burning of the American flag was ethical as well. This was the cause of their chants and the throwing of the water balloons. Overall I do not believe Haas’ protest was effective. He did not succeed with his original plan and ended up having his protest cancelled by police. Benjamin Haas was not able to achieve his original goal of protesting the constitutional rights of Americans and the human rights for all.
            In conclusion, the Louisiana State University burning of the American flag protest was not successful. However, I believe that if the necessary precautions and research were done, this protest could have been successful. Although it was not carried out properly, that does make it less important than one that has been successful. The emotional aspect (pathos) was still present and caused a controversial reaction that brought national attention. Although it did not work out for Haas, the protesters fighting for patriotism ultimately met their goal.* 

Main characters- The main character of the protest is Benjamin Haas being as though he is the one who decided to protest the issue. His role in this protest is essential because of his initial idea to create the protest and his attempted actions towards it. The protesters also play a big part in the protest because without them there would be no rebuttal to Haas and the protest would have been carried out smoothly. I used mixed topic strings because I mainly focused on one character (Haas) but also mentioned the protesters frequently as well.

Conclusion explanation*-  The main focus of my conclusion was to reiterate that the protest was unsuccessful and could have been conducted differently. I also wanted to mention that even though it was not a successful protest, it is still important. Also, I wanted to mention that there was an emotional appeal.
           


           

                                                             







                                                   Works Cited
           
Press, Associated. “Lsu Protestors Stop Planned Flag Burning.” Nola Media Group, 12 May 2011

Cohn, Ari. “LSU Chancelor Speaks Out On Flag Burning Protest.” FIRE, 17 May 2011

Graham, Ben. “Flashback: Remember When LSU Students Overwhelmed An American Flag Protest?” MRCTV, 15 May 2015

Friedman, Maria. “LSU Student Decides Against Burning Flag As Thousands Stage Counter Demonstration.”  Fox News Network,11 May 2011



NFL Hierarchy


Dylan Deines

Final Essay

5/6/16

Dr. Brown

NFL Hierarchy

            Just recently the National Football League hierarchy has been under fire by fans because of their ruling of the “deflegate” scandal. In what to some seemed like an abuse of power, Rodger Goodell, the commissioner of the NFL, issued a hefty charge on the New England Patriots organization for, what seemed at least, tampering of football equipment (the Patriots still strongly claim they did not do anything wrong). Although this is not the first time that the Patriots have been in the realm of cheating and fined for thus, the direct target of Tom Brady, the team’s quarterback, and the removal of Patriot’s first round pick, has brought a lot of scrutiny to exactly what the commissioner can and cannot do with his power, especially when the investigation, headed by Ted Wells, of the deflegate scandal never really gave any answers but instead begged more questions.

            The fine that was levied on to the Patriots organization was the heftiest in league history, as it included the four-game ban of popular quarterback Tom Brady, removal of first and fourth round picks on the 2016 draft, and a one million dollar fine. Tom Brady’s destruction of his cellular device and lack of cooperation during the Ted Wells investigation led the commissioner to have to take action on the quarterback. Robert Kraft, the owner of the team, was outraged by the decision made by the league, and in an interview explained, “Today’s punishment… far exceeded any reasonable expectation. It was based completely on circumstantial rather than hard or conclusive evidence.” Brady would appeal his sanction before the commence of the 2015-2016 football year and win, allowing him to play his first four games of the season. However, despite winning in the court, Goodell would continue the target the quarterback when he appealed the decision by the lower court and a higher court ruled that Brady’s harsh penalty should withstand.

            Although there has yet to be any sort of collective protest against the commissioner, there has been a public outcry against his office as fans take pity for Tom Brady and his team. The movement is currently in a state of inception, defined by Leland M. Griffin as “a time when the roots of a pre-existing sentiment, nourished by interested rhetorician, begin to flower into the public notice, or when some striking event occurs which immediately creates a host of aggressor rhetoricians and is itself sufficient to initiate the movement,” (Griffin). In this case the latter definition holds truth. During the 2016 Draft, people in attendance in Chicago booed at the commissioner as he walked on to stage and every time he appeared to announce a name. Although that fact alone doesn’t show a “some striking event,” the fact that booing Rodger Goodell at every NFL draft for the past few years does. CBS reports calls it an “annual tradition” to boo at the commissioner (Breech).

            With obvious outrage at the decisions that the commissioner has made, framing an effective protest against the head of the National Football League just may be possible. I will no longer discuss the background of the scandal that has made headlines and called into the questions the ethics of the NFL, but instead create a protest in order to invoke change in an area I believe needs changing.

            Griffin explains that every historical movement needs 3 things: “1. [people] have become dissatisfied with some aspect of their environment; 2. They desire change… 3. Eventually, their efforts result in some degree of success or failure,” (Griffin). There are already some building blocks in place for the protest. 1) people are already dissatisfied with the league for a couple of reasons (deflegate, player safety) 2) the fans of the NFL require some sort of change, either it be the restoration of Patriots picks, better medical treatment for ex-players, or removal of the suspension of Tom Brady, etc. According to Griffin, the protest is near to being a “movement.”

Strategies

            [1]Every movement needs an identity, which I think in this case it’s pretty clear how identity will play a pivotal role. The “fan” identity is an effective identity because the “fan” of the NFL is the only reason that the NFL and its members garnish any sort of income. It is the fan’s wearing of NFL emblems that provides free and profitable advertising; it is the fan’s money that pays for the stadiums through ticket and other sales; it is the fan’s watching of the NFL games on Sunday that creates popularity for the sport, as well as directs media traffic to cover the sport. The fan really harnesses all the power that the NFL has. Obtaining all that power and using it in a backwards way is how this protest will be successful in its pursuit of change.

            With the identity overtly clear to us, it’s now a simple game of using effective rhetoric to gain 1) attention to the movement and 2) sympathy for those that are effected by the decisions made by Goodell as commissioner. The first option is to go logical and use logos as a strategy to protest. Using professional analysis, for example, on Wells’ report on the deflegation scandal takes away the validity of the decisions made by Goodell to punish the Patriots—In a study by the American Institute (AEI), based in Washington, D.C., a business whose motto is “to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism,” did their own analysis of Wells’ report. In regard to the report, they explained “our replication of the report’s analysis finds that it relies on an unorthodox statistical procedure at odds with the methodology the report describes. It also fails to investigate all relevant scenarios,” (Dubin). AEI’s counter report to Wells’ effectively takes away any control that Goodell has over the deflegate scandal. It calls into perspective Goodell’s decision making and the credibility of Wells himself. Goodell also only bases his decisions off of one report, which sets him up for increase speculation if his decision was a decision based on ethics or a flex of power in one of America’s most profitable organizations.

            Pathos, the appeal to emotion, is another way to make rhetorical gains during the movement. The challenge that this protests face is its genre as a sport. Although the fans of the NFL don’t need much convincing, enticing people that are not greatly influenced by the NFL is a harder and somewhat daunting task. However, the American mentality is to hate those that abuse power and understanding that mentality will help greatly in the protest. Tom Brady’s role as an American public figure also helps. Even if you don’t watch football you probably know his name, his influence to his team and to the community, and his hard work and dedication to become the best. Simply by using Brady as the face of the movement will have some recognition and appeal to people’s emotions. The idea of Brady, one of the most outstanding NFL players in history, being wronged by his company is a scenario many Americans have had to face in their struggles with corporate entities themselves.

            Finally, we also have to consider the framing of the protest. As of right now the movement is only really appealing to those that are considered to be fans of the NFL, so the technique of bridging, defined by Michael Heaney and Fabio Rojas in their article The Place of Framing: Multiple Audiences and Antiwar Protests near Fort Bragg as the technique that bridges two seemingly different things together, is the most useful. By relating Goodell’s power as NFL commissioner to the rights of workers in the work place is an effective way to garnish some attention and outside influence towards the movement. Although the Goodell and the rights of workers don’t exactly match, bridging the concepts by comparing the NFL to a blue-color company catches the attention of many because of the United States’ past history with worker rights. In this strategy, convincing the NFL players’ association to join the movement is a pivotal mechanic to making it successful. The players’ association defend the rights of a player, much like a union does for common workers in America. This comparison is effective, relatable, and encompasses people in the movement past the identity originally stated.

            One last thing that must be considered is if the movement is legal, ethical, legible, and effective. Based on what we want do in this essay, our protest is legal. It does not infringe on anyone’s personal space as long as the movement does not attack Goodell in his private sphere. The movement is also ethical. It does not put anyone in real danger. Impeachment of higher officials is in America’s constitution. The movement is also legible. The purpose is obvious, to ask for the resignation of Goodell from Commissioner, the reasons for that also clear. And finally, is the protest effective? This is the most interesting of questions, because the removal of someone who is protected by their company and has a lot of power in that company is nearly impossible. Unless fans unite and sales plummet from the strike, no real change can possibly be manageable. That being said, however, if the fans did unite and garnered outside support, the protest would be very effective.   

           

           



Works Cited

Breech, John. "LOOK: Roger Goodell Is Mercilessly Booed by Fans at the NFL Draft." CBSSports.com. CBS. Web. 06 May 2016.

DeLuca, Kevin and Peeples, Jennifer. "From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the "Violence" of Seattle." Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest. Browne, Stephen and Morris III, Charles, eds. State College, Pa: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2013

Dubin, Jared. "American Enterprise Institute Finds Wells Report 'deeply Flawed'" CBSSports.com. CBS. Web. 06 May 2016.

Heaney, Michael T. and Rojas, Fabio. "The Place of Framing: Multiple Audiences and Antiwar Protests near Fort Bragg." Readings in the Rhetoric of Social Protest. Brown, Stephen Howard, and Charles E. Morris III, eds. State College, Pa: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2013. 



1)       The purpose of the paragraph is to talk about the “fan” in its direct interaction as an identity with the NFL.
2)       The main characters are movement, fan, and NFL
3)       Mixed topic-strings

Final Paper

The formatting is very weird and I don't know how to change it and I am sorry!!!

Natalie Polston
ENGL 306
Dr. Steph Brown
6 May 2016
Animal Abuse: Misdemeanor or Felony?
    In many states in North America, it is a misdemeanor to abuse an animal. Each state has its own definition of what qualifies as "abuse," but most center their qualifications around concepts such as intentional torture, inflicting unnecessary injury, and/or neglecting the animal for prolonged periods of time (Allen). In many cases, the culprit can simply pay a fine with no jail service. It is only upon second and third offenses that this crime is considered a felony. Since the range of possibilities is wide and vague, many offenders are able to simply pay a fine then be set free (Allen). Instead, activists could stage a protest to let lawmakers know that animal cruelty is a serious crime and should be treated as such. The main goal of this protest would be for North Dakotans to get Congress to change the classification of animal cruelty in North Dakota from a misdemeanor to a felony.
    The concept of a felony stems from crimes that pose a threat to the public safety and involve "moral turpitude" (Hill). In the situation presented by animal abuse, one task it will need to achieve is convincing North Dakotans that intentionally harming an animal is a serious moral issue. In order to accomplish this goal, a line needs to be drawn directly between animal abuse and other psychiatric disorders. It is rarely a stand-alone act. In a study conducted by medical researchers, it was found that "a history of animal cruelty...was significantly associated with APD [antisocial personality disorder], antisocial personality traits, and polysubstance abuse" (Gleyzer, Felthouse, and Holzer 257). Clearly, if a person is exhibiting cruelty toward an animal, they need psychiatric help (Gleyzer, Felthouse, and Holzer 259). Since their disorder manifests itself violently, they pose a threat to public safety.
    This particular issue is in its period of inception phase. This is because most Americans would agree that harming an animal is not good—there is already a "pre-existing sentiment" (Griffin 11). In “emphasizing existing beliefs [and] values,” this protest will be framed as an Amplification (Heaney and Rojas 244). The same people who are against animal cruelty generally might not agree that it is a crime on par with other felonies such as arson, domestic violence, driving intoxicated, or drug abuse crimes. Participants in this protest would become “aggressor orators and journalists”, since they will be "attempt[ing] to establish" a new classification of crime while destroying the other (Griffin 11). Their opportune moment,or kairos, would lie at any time the House is in session, since they will ideally introduce a bill to change the law through Congress. Since the House does not meet every week throughout the year, it would be wise to choose a time close to June and July, since that is when they meet most frequently (2015 Annual House Calendar).
    The law classifications vary by state, so I am going to focus in on North Dakota. I chose this particular state because it appears, from my research, to be the state with the lowest degree of punishment for offenders. According to North Dakota Century Code 36-21.1-01, “Cruelty to animals is a Class A Misdemeanor with up to $2000 in fines and up to 1 year imprisonment” (North Dakota State Government 1). While this punishment is tangibly hurtful to the offender, it should be worse for the violator of the requirements listed. These include inflictions such as “breaking an animal’s bones; causing the prolonged impairment of an animal’s health; mutilating an animal; or physically torturing an animal” (North Dakota State Government 2). Such activities are not simply horrific—they are indicative of deeper psychological issues that pose a threat to public safety (Gleyzer, Felthouse, and Holzer 260).
Any protest regarding this subject would need to rely heavily on pathos. Since the animals have no way of speaking for on their own behalf, it should be conveyed that it is a human responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. North Dakotans need to be made aware that the horrors inflicted on animals in their state are not being adequately punished in correlation with the severity of the offense. For the beginning parts of this protest, those involved should utilize the concept of “if it bleeds, it leads”—in other words, show the people what abused animals look like, in order to incite more passion toward the law change (DeLuca and Peeples 193). In doing so, the organizers of the protest can accrue support to move forward.
    Then, protesters should utilize their “body rhetoric”—or, to physically occupy a certain space at a particular point to reach a specific goal (Haiman 24). In this case, protesters should take to the North Dakota state capitol in Bismarck (North Dakota State Government). Lawmakers tend listen to their constituents because their constituents are the ones who decide whether or not they maintain their job. So, the more people to physically show up at the capitol, the better the chances that those in power will pay attention to their requests. If the congressmen in the capitol could see just how many citizens of North Dakota felt passionately about this issue, they would be more likely to introduce it to Congress. This also brings the discussion further into the “public sphere,” where it can be discussed by anyone around—thus creating an atmosphere of collaboration and open conversation (DeLuca and Peeples 200). Once the protesters have made themselves visible, they will need to focus in specifically on the North Dakota congressmen.
    The next part will likely be the most difficult: writing a bill and getting it endorsed. If all the aforementioned phases go as planned, the protest will have to move to a more logistical route. In order for the protest goals to be achieved, the law needs to change—and for that to happen, a congressman or congresswoman will have to sponsor a bill to change said law. In this case, the group will have to collaborate to form and exemplify their “collective identity”—or, “a shared sense of 'we-ness' and 'collective agency'” (Snow 2001). In this phase, protesters must decide how they will portray themselves in this bill—as a collective “we the protesters.” Here, they will need to take hold ethos in utilizing research conducted regarding the poor mental state of those abusing animals. Then, they must gain the attention and endorsement of John Hoeven, Heidi Heitkamp, both Senators, or Kevin Cramer, Representative in the House of Representatives. After this is achieved, protesters have done all they can to ensure the law gets changed.
    1) The purpose of this paragraph is to explain what goals the protesters will accomplish         by writing a bill, and the ways in which they must go about doing such.
    2) congressmen: those in charge of deciding whether their bill will become a law
        the group/protesters: those working toward getting the law changed (also highlighted             in green, since protesters counts as a nominalization).
        those abusing animals: the criminals who would be affected by the law change
    3) This is a chained topic string.
    This protest is legal in that protesters would utilize a system already in place in order to improve said system—that is, the process of lawmaking and amending. I anticipate that if all the proper steps are carried out, this protest would likely be effective in achieving its goals. It is ethical because it uses peaceful methods to move toward its goal, and the goal itself deals with morality and an ethical purpose. Finally, it is legible as protest in that it addresses a certain identity in all phases, with a specific goal throughout. In all, this protest is multifaceted yet specific, with high chances of success.
    1) This conclusion doesn’t repeat information or summarize, but assesses it all as a         whole. I chose this form because it shows the effectiveness and addresses the likely         outcome of the protest I created.




Works Cited

"2015 Annual House Calendar." Majorityleader.gov, Kevin McCarthy.

Allen, Mahalley D. "Laying Down the Law? Interest Group Influence on State Adoption of Animal
     Cruelty Felony Laws." Policy Studies Journal 33.3, 2005.

DeLuca, Michael and Jennifer Peeples. "From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy,
    Activism, and the ‘Violence' of Seattle." Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest,
    Charles E. Morris III and Stephen H. Brown, 3rd ed.

Gleyzer, Roman, MD, Alan R. Felthouse, MD, and Charles E. Holzer III, PhD. "Animal Cruelty
    and Psychiatric Disorders." Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations Merck/
    Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations, Animal Cruelty Forensic Supplies,
    2013.

Heaney and Rojas. "Harnessing the Symbolism of Fayetteville".  Springer Science+Business
    Media, 2006.

Griffin, Leland. "The Rhetoric of Historical Movements." Readings in the Rhetoric of Social
    Protest, Browne, Stephen Howard, and Charles E. Morris lll, eds. State College, Pa:
    Strata Publishing, Inc., 2013.

Haiman, Franklyn S. "Rhetoric of the Streets: Some Legal and Ethical Considerations.”
    Readings in the Rhetoric of Social Protest, Browne, Stephen Howard, and Charles E.
    Morris III, eds. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2013.

Hill, Gerald, and Kathleen Hill. "Felony." Law.com Legal Dictionary.

North Dakota State Legislators. "CHAPTER 36 - 21.2—TREATMENT OF ANIMALS." North
    Dakota State Government: 1-6, 2015, North Dakota.

Treré, Emiliano. "Reclaiming, Proclaiming, and Maintaining Collective Identity in the #YoSoy132
    Movement in Mexico: An Examination of Digital Frontstage and Backstage Activism
    through Social Media and Instant Messaging Platforms." Information, Communication,
    and Society, Taylor and Francis, 2015.

Final Paper-OWS

Scott Autenreith
5/5/16
Eng 306
Final Writing Assignment

Fixing Occupy Wall Street

            On September 17, 2011 the protest movement, Occupy Wall Street, took a stand against bankers, politicians, and the growing gap between rich and poor suddenly burst into the public view. On that day, nearly 2,000 protestors went to Manhattan and took over a “privately owned public space” called Zuccoti Park near Wall Street (NPR). That was a strategic place to locate because Wall Street was thought of as a place of money hungry and selfish rich people (SPS). Although public attention was initially slow, within a week, the reports of the movement blew up thanks to social media and the Internet. According to Griffin, this would have been the “period of inception”. Chants were used such as “We are the 99%” referring to the protestors and the other 1% referred to the stock traders and the higher reps for the financial companies. It grasped the American people through pathos. Throughout the entire protest, this was a chant that benefited their cause. Within a month, the protest spread to 951 cities in 82 countries (NPR).   
            The movement in Manhattan and across the world thrived until November 15, 2011. That day, the New York City Police Department used force to remove protestors. Those who refused to leave were arrested. This created a ripple effect across the country. Four days later, in Oakland, protestors who were walking peacefully on a public walkway were pepper sprayed by police (The Week). Since mid-November of 2011, Occupy Wall Street did not continue its force in numbers due to being forcibly evicted in many cities. In Griffin’s writing this would have been the “period of consummation”. Although the movement carried on for years and even carries on today (OWS), there was no significant impact made. For the American people, the idea of requesting change of the financial system in the United States was a good idea. The movement created a stir on the Internet but no official changes were made. Because no changes occurred, some can say that Occupy Wall Street was a failure. In this paper, the specific failures will be analyzed, as well as possible changes in the strategies used during the movement that would have led to changes that benefited the “99%”.
            First, the largest failure that the movement had was the absence of a single leader. Although there was a group of experienced political activists that planned the protests (SPS), there was not a face of Occupy Wall Street. With the movement attempting to change such large issues of financials in the United States, a leader would have been helpful in gaining more followers and progressing the protest to legislation. Someone with political experience within the United States Government could have pushed for changes to be made rather than just groups of people chanting outside of Wall Street.
Although the protestors prided themselves for being leaderless, that led to a variety of issues that were brought up at Occupy Wall Street amongst the protestors. The IBT Times wrote that the issue of social inequality was a huge category to tackle and that led to different people protesting different things. For example, sub-groups within the movement protested for the equality of woman. That was a broad range of issues for the protest. How could the protest be effective if different topics were being argued? For Occupy Wall Street to have a clear message, the protestors needed to come together and decide exactly what the purpose was of the movement and what they wanted to accomplish.
Also, a number of protestors were unaware/unknowing of critical aspects of the strike. Ross Everett, a YouTuber posted a video where he interviewed several protestors in Zuccoti Park. For example, Everett asked a man if he knew Brian Moynihan (CEO of Bank of America), Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve Chairman), or Jamie Dimon (JPMorgan Chase Ceo). The protestor responded with, “No.” Those three men were in charge of massive financial corporations and the protestor should have known who those men were and what impact they had within their roles. Also, Everett asked the gentlemen if he knew who Kim Kardashian was and the man responded, “Oh yeah! She’s that chick with the fat ass!” This instilled that some protestors were there to protest but they knew little about what they were protesting. Also, Everett asked a woman about how the issues that were being protested could be resolved? She responded by saying, “Give the little people jobs!” That statement was very odd considering that giving jobs to people is not an issue of inequality. The woman was there for her own personal beliefs and protested that more jobs will solve the financial inequality in America. Ross Everett finished his video by sarcastically summarizing that, “The protestors want to be heard about equality, or jobs, or Medicaid. Either way, they want to be heard. Take that 1%”.
Once again, a leader with political experience would have been the most beneficial strategy for the protest. When a group has single leader that is experienced, according to Griffin, it establishes credibility within the group. Also, the leader would display a certain set of beliefs. As a result, the protestors would have been a select group that all believed in the same ideals rather a mass amount of people protesting about various issues within the United States. Therefore, the protestors would have a better understanding of what was being protested and why it was being protested. [SA1] 
               The Occupy Wall Street protest had a great beginning but never accomplished any of its goals. Early on in the protest, thousands gathered across America and even other countries to recognize the financial inequality within our society. The leaderless movement relied on bringing people together as the “99%” and to unify as one to bring down Wall Street and the large financial corporations. Once it became difficult to protest without being forced out by police, the protest failed collectively. Even though the protest was thought to have failed after NYPD forced people away from Zuccoti Park, the movement failed from the start. Without having a leader, the goals were always unclear. Although the purpose was to solve the financial inequality in America, no steps were actually taken to challenge the current system. A political leader would have fought for changes to happen in Washington. No changes could have happened in New York. Ross Everett interviewed a Wall Street stock trader and asked him if the protestors were affecting anything? The trader responded, “The only thing they are affecting is my route to work”. Occupy Wall Street had so much potential to be affective. They had the supporters; they just needed a different strategy that would have accommodated to changes for the “99%”.

*The purpose of the conclusion was to reiterate the main points brought up throughout the paper. I wanted to incorporate the potential that the protest had, while explaining the possibility of having an effective leader that could have resulted in changes for financial equality. I offered a takeaway of what the OCW protest “could have been”.

Works Cited
Billera, Michael. "Occupy Wall Street: The Major Problems With the Movement." International Business Times. World, 03 Nov. 2011.

Conen, Neal. "Op-Ed: Occupy Wall Street Protesters' Goals." NPR, 17 Oct. 2011.


Everett, Ross. "Occupy Wall Street FAIL." YouTube, 21 Oct. 2011.


Griffin, Leland. "The Rhetoric of Historical Movements." Readings in the Rhetoric of Social Protest. 2013.
 Milkman, Ruth, Stephanie Luce, and Penny Lewis. CHANGING THE SUBJECT: A BOTTOM-UP ACCOUNT OF OCCUPY WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY (n.d.): n. pag. CUNY School of Professional Studies, 2013.

Staff. "Occupy Wall Street: A Protest Timeline." Occupy Wall Street: A Protest Timeline. Feature, 21 Nov. 2011.