With this course focusing on contemporary themes, what could possibly be more contemporary right now than COVID-19? While reading our assignments for the week, one quote really stuck out to me in Patricia Roberts-Miller's "A Short and Highly Idiosyncratic History of Rhetoric:"
"When people describe talk about "chemistry," they sometimes mean something in which a person can engage without even knowing, such as the chemistry involved in digestion. In the same way, "rhetoric" can refer to the tendency that beings have to shape their discourse in response to audience - animals will learn quickly what behavior gets them treats, and some animals learn to discern what works with what person" (para. 2).
It is clear that President Trump has mastered this idea about rhetoric when discussing COVID-19. By calling the virus the "Chinese Virus" and "Wuhan flu," (see article here about Trump's use of racist language with COVID-19) he is playing on the inherent racism that much of his following exhibits to gain their support, regardless of his botched response to the virus in the United States. While the number of positive cases and deaths continue to climb, Trump has shifted almost all of the responsibility elsewhere by knowing his audience and pandering to their views. In this sense, he is gaining these metaphorical "treats" that Roberts-Miller mentions above.
While Trump's intentions and audience are clear, another president has recently released a statement on COVID-19 with a murkier message and intended audience: our fearless leader of Ball State University, President Mearns (all sarcasm intended). Titled only "Urgent Message," Mearns graced our inboxes with a threatening email on Friday that placed all of the blame for the recent spike in COVID-19 cases on "some" students not following Ball State's COVID protocols that weren't even enforced until he sent the email. He provides a thinly veiled threat: keep this behavior up, and he "might" be inclined to move us to remote learning. Mearns finishes the email by emphasizing the idea that "we're all in this together" (cue the cliche High School Musical song). If you've been lucky enough to avoid seeing this email, I've screenshotted it and provided it below.
It's a bit unclear what Mearns' rhetorical purpose is here because while he shifts the blame to students, he seems to forget that the students are his audience. If he is going after these metaphorical treats referenced by Roberts-Miller, it's clear he's going to end up empty handed by threatening students who are mostly aware that their health is at risk by being on campus. Even the format of the email, with words like "some" bolded for emphasis, seems to be focused on dividing students into "those who party" and "those who follow the rules," making the ending message about community confusing and almost comedic. The only real persuasion I see here that actually targets the wishes of students is the disclosure that three fraternities are under investigation, as Greek life often, and mostly rightfully so, gets blamed for many issues on college campuses by students and admin alike. Mearns fails to persuade the audience he should be most worried about in this situation: the students.
It appears that there is an underlying audience here; even though this email was sent to the student body, it seems to be aimed to please BSU administration only. By pushing all responsibility off on students, who should be the ones being kept safe during this time, this email attempts to remove all of the blame from BSU when we inevitably go all online. Mearns could also just be trying to save his own skin with this email by patting himself on the back for not only his incredible ability to track COVID cases, but also with the amazing measures BSU put in place and will now be enforcing (like the long, non-socially distanced lines at testing centers, allowing students who are being tested to self swab while instructed by nurses who aren't in proper PPE and use the same unsanitary pens, inadequately distanced classrooms, wipes that smell like a bottle of tequila, no masks at dining tables of 6 or more students, forcing positive students and some without results that end up negative to move into the already occupied Scheidler Apts, etc.).
With eBills due today (Sept. 1st) and all chances of a tuition refund slipping away if we go online, I would love to hear your thoughts on the intentions and rhetorical strategies you see within this email and any other COVID campus correspondence you've read.
I agree. There has been a lot of performative rhetoric taking place at universities, throughout the entirety of the pandemic to this point. This rhetoric has taken the form of blaming students for really no more than acting in a way we all anticipated, to threateningly discussing going online. For myself, I have a hard time understanding why that would be a threat, as many students are wanting that at this point for their own safety. Last I had heard, there was a petition going around Twitter for students to sign making it clear they wanted to move f2f courses online. I'm sure other universities are having similar experiences, but it is hard to feel as though these types of actions from administrators are anything but veiled in deeper meaning that has not been revealed to students.
ReplyDeleteThere has been a lot of discourse that emulates the idea of appealing to the needed audience in order to maintain a position of power, and I think all around (from universities to the election) that is what we are experiencing in full-force.
I found your analysis of Mearns' intended audience interesting. When I read the email, I felt like his message was directed at "some" students. I instantly felt transported to the third grade, where a group of students had done something wrong, but the entire class was being addressed. Mearns channeled Mrs. Grimes energy - I felt the pointed stares at particular students who she suspected had talked during a class period, but hadn't been caught directly in the act.
ReplyDeleteThat begs the question: are fear appeals really the most effective call to action in this climate?
I had similar questions and concerns about the intended audience of this message. If the administration is trying to persuade students who are inclined to party that it would be in their best interest to stay home, I have to agree with Brynn that this is not a good strategy--180,000+ deaths would probably be more rhetorically effective as a fear appeal than a vague threat of suspension or expulsion.
ReplyDeleteThis message was also clearly not targeted toward students in high-risk populations for COVID complications. The administration acknowledges that we are now at an even higher risk of contracting COVID on campus, but announces exactly zero changes to campus COVID policies to keep us safe. What does this leave sick and disabled students and staff to infer about our value as members of the Ball State community?
I also gave the heavy side-eye to Mearns's comment that "The choices our students make this weekend will impact whether we are able to continue to provide the on-campus experience that /students have told us/ they value" (emphasis mine). I would be interested to know the context of those remarks, because I have to imagine this is not the on-campus experience those students had in mind. It also seems unlikely that any Ball State student said they value the on-campus experience more than they value public health, which is what this administration's COVID policies amount to. This rhetoric feels like another misleading effort to divide us; if we believe that our fellow students asked to come back (and not that campus is open for purely financial reasons, which is the prevailing assumption), we're upset with those students rather than with the university administration who are endangering our health.
I think this email might serve multiple purposes, and target multiple audiences. The university clearly meant to convey something to the student body, but an equally likely explanation is Natalie's and Abbie's, that this was a "save our skin" measure meant to serve the interests of administrators more than anyone else. So here's my guess: this message was really intended for the lawyers students will eventually hire when they seek tuition reimbursement or financial restitution after contracting COVID-19 on campus.
When the email first dropped, I remember messaging a few friends about it and taking to twitter. It seems too easy to say the email is just a threat. As you said, Natalie, this was also a thinly veiled attempt at appeasing not only administrators, but parents and stock holders. It's basically--again, as you said--Mearns' and his posse' way of skirting responsibility. You hint at this a bit but I think they fully intend on keeping all tuition and housing when we inevitably go online in the coming weeks (Fall is flu season, ya'll and we're all back inside!).
ReplyDeleteSo, to summarize, Mearns and his admin shift blame to a few partying students in order to mitigate the blow when they refuse to refund tuition/housing.
Side note: Why the hell am I still getting charged technology fees, health fees, and all that, when I DO NOT utilize those services! I live off campus!
I find this one a little harder to post about because I'm not actively on BSU's campus and so I don't know the culture like I used to (I graduated a decade ago). That said, a power shift from top to bottom seems pretty natural. I don't have enough other details to add on to it, but this "slap on the wrist" seems fitting for a powerful entity to try to control its paying citizens.
ReplyDelete