Response to Slaughter Article

John Slaughter describes in his article a scenario that all universities should strive to meet: that of a truly balanced education, specifically concerning students in the science and engineering fields. He repeatedly uses the term "diversity", but not just in the politically correct use where all individuals have an opportunity to advance themselves. While he does argue for that cause as well, Slaughter's true argument is for diversity in the actual curriculum structure at universities. He flat out states "big scientific and technical problems like renewable energy, climate change and infrastructure replacement cannot be solved by math and science and engineering practice alone", in which he is correct. Modern dilemmas and phenomena are too complex to be solved with only strict knowledge of the sciences or math; instead, those tackling the problems must have a greater appreciation for the social consequences of their actions, an appreciation that can be gleaned through careful study of subjects such as philosophy, ethics, and psychology. Slaughter's point is that a diversified education is no longer optional in today's world if we wish to compete against other nations, and we as a society must ensure that our children are educated in all subjects so that their decisions are based on strong foundations of science, math, and the liberal arts. Should we be unable to meet this demand, we are warned that it will "quickly undermine the ability of our nation to continue as the preeminent leader in science and engineering."

Reaction to Gandhi & King

Gandhi and King, two figures whose legacies will continue to extend further into generations to come, have been monumentally influential in social justice movements and social awareness programs all over the world. The words of both men have shaken individuals to act against social justice and violence in general. The commitment that Gandhi and King had to nonviolent routes of persuasion and change is so inspirational, its a wonder violence still exists in the world today. Both men abhor physical violence; Gandhi himself calls anyone who leans towards physical violence weak, that those who use "soul-force" are the strongest individuals in society. If only we could find more individuals who would strengthen themselves in the path of nonviolence, maybe our world would be in a different shape than it currently is. Gandhi's work in soul-filled, non-violent action ultimately led to the civil justice in India that he craved, and it proves that modern society could mimic this behavior as well if we so wished. King followed in Gandhi's footsteps, promoting nonviolent action, and pleading with his counterparts to consider how to calm their anger into a constructive force for good. He details his ambitions in his "I Have a Dream" speech, and these goals couldn't ring truer. King dreamed of a future where all people would be united, regardless of background or skin color, all through the use of nonviolent action. Passive resistance doesn't necessarily define the action that Gandhi and King define; it is too focused on reception of immoral or improper laws and systems instead of the changing of those systems. Both men focused on actively changing the systems without violence, which ended up being a whole new definition entirely.

Reaction to "The Concept of Discourse Community" by John Swales

There’s no secret in the writing that Swales presents us with. His style of writing is complex, advanced, and likely not very understandable by lesser-educated individuals like myself. Swales speaks of “discourse communities” and “speech communities” like they are common things that everyone and their mother is aware of. I don’t know about many other people, but for me, this paper when right over my head, juggling vocabulary and data effortlessly while I still try to get past the opening sentence.  At least that’s how I felt until he brought into his essay an example that I could somewhat understand. Using a stamp club to develop his definition of discourse communities, Swales effectively clarifies his entire essay into one simple metaphor. To add to his metaphor, I believe that you could view a Facebook group as a discourse community. If we were to take his first characteristic of a discourse community and apply it to Facebook groups in general, I think we could see how these internet groups could qualify for the title. Swales identifies that “a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals” (11), and if you were to browse your own Facebook page, I think you could find any number of pages and groups that follow that description. Most groups are formed for a singular purpose: to get followers to daily see the updates the company or group is making, as well as in what direction the group is heading. Once you’ve liked the page (your admission into the community), they will bombard you with information pertaining to the group and you will be in constant communication with the group or company. This is another quality that Swales identifies, where a particular community will accept members, and keep them connected to the community through pamphlets, letters, or status updates. With the advances of technology, discourse communities are no longer a rarity, and whether you like it or not, I firmly believe we are all involved in community or another.

Intro to Lao-Tzu vs. Machiavelli

Modern civilization has become one that is centralized around fear: fear of the unknown terror, fear of the neighbor, and fear of the alien. Fear is an extremely powerful tool that governments and rogue individuals can employ at a whim in order to establish dominance over those claimed by fear’s death-like embrace. Lao-Tzu, a well-established sixth century writer, warns us that fear is not the way by which those in power should govern their people. Instead, he glorifies the benevolent and calm ruler who does not seek to empower himself over the people, but instead allows the people to empower him. While agreeably an ideal scenario, the time of Daoist philosophy is gone. Those currently in power instead choose to adopt Machiavellian codes of conduct, where they can use fear to their advantage. While not necessarily inspiring fear in their subjects, these modern leaders choose to manipulate our darkest fears against their enemies. A random attack on a nation is taken and manipulated by the government to forge a weapon of anger and hate against an alien whom the common individual still has yet to understand. An unprovoked school shooting is taken by the government-controlled media and is again reshaped and reformed so that now we have no choice but to fear our own neighbors.  In a broader setting, governments are able to take information that rests at the forefront of the population’s minds, for example cancer and other health risks, and conform that information to feed the fear that rests in the darkest corners of our subconscious: the terror of that which we do not yet know about. Machiavelli’s ideals are practiced today because they are the most practical; governments can use our own fear to rally people against a singular threat. Our nation has been asked to “speak softly, but carry a big stick”, and as Roosevelt requested, it is doing just that.