ENGLISH 305 COURSE INFORMATION

As an online course, the writing that we do in English 305 is substantially different from a face to face course. As such, it is imperative that you understand the course style from the start. Nearly all of your work in this course will be posted on the course blog.
EACH WEEK YOU WILL HAVE THREE BLOG ASSIGNMENTS:
1. A BLOG ENTRY,
2. A READING, AND
3. A WRITING ABOUT THE READING. Your reading and writing on the blog must be completed by the Friday (by midnight) of the week in which the reading falls. You have all week each week to complete the reading and writing for that week, but there are no late assignments accepted, so be sure to be disciplined about the work from the start. Let me re-state that point; if you do the assigned work before or during the week it is due, you will receive full credit. If you do the work after the Friday of the week it is assigned, you will get zero credit for that week.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

TURNITIN.COM INFORMATION

The class ID is 4927779
The password is a secret. It is     english

TIPPING POINT REVISION INSTRUCTIONS

SCHMOLL/ENGLISH 305/ESSAY #3: Tipping Point:

There are two essay topics to choose from.

Write a 3 page double spaced essay on one of the following topics:
1. How might one or more of the ideas in the book The Tipping Point apply to your chosen academic major or profession?

2. Locate a trend [social, political, cultural, other] that is not in the book but seems to exhibit a "tipping point" phenomenon. Provide a brief explanation of why you think this phenomenon meets Gladwell's criteria for a tipping point phenomenon.


FOUR STEPS TO THIS PROJECT:

1. Rough Draft is due to your reviser and to me on March 13
               

            The person revising your paper is ___________________.

Email your paper to     ________________________            
     
                                                and to bschmoll@csub.edu

2. Revised Rough Draft due to the original author and me on March 16

3. Final Draft is due to me March 19

4. Final Draft is also due to Turnitin.com by the night of March 19



REMEMBER, THIS IS PEER REVISION (not editing)…

You are looking for coherence of the argument, paragraph coherence, logical reasoning in the essay, use of examples or quotes from the book. In essence, give this essay a critical, HIGHLY CRITICAL, set of eyes.


Monday, February 27, 2012

WEEK EIGHT BLOG ENTRY

Interpret this poem:

GREAT, GOOD, BAD

A great book is a homing device
For navigating paradise

A good book somehow makes you care
About the comfort of a chair.

A bad book owes to many trees
A forest of apologies.

J. Patrick Lewis, Please Bury Me in the Library

WEEK EIGHT READING

Jackie Robinson -- crossing the line
The man who broke Major League Baseball's color barrier never forgot the indignities of his first trip to spring training.



On Feb. 28, 1946, Jackie Robinson and his wife, Rachel, boarded an American Airlines flight in Los Angeles bound for Daytona Beach, Fla., for spring training. There he would try to prove that he was good enough to join the Montreal Royals, the top minor league team in the Brooklyn Dodgers' organization, and integrate professional baseball.

It would be more than a year before Robinson played his first game with Brooklyn, on April 15, 1947, breaking Major League Baseball's color line and forever changing baseball and society.

The story of the integration of baseball was perhaps the most important story involving racial equality in the years immediately following World War II. "Back in the days when integration wasn't fashionable," the Rev.Martin Luther King Jr. said of Robinson, "he underwent the trauma and humiliation and the loneliness which comes with being a pilgrim walking the lonesome byways toward the high road of freedom."

Never before — or since — had so much been riding on an athlete in surroundings so hostile as the Deep South in 1946, where racial discrimination was legal and brutally enforced, and where blacks who challenged it were jailed, beaten or lynched.

Robinson grew up in Pasadena and attended Pasadena Junior College before he transferred to UCLA. The former four-sport athlete at UCLA was keenly aware of the risks involved with challenging Jim Crow on its own soil. He also knew he was putting his wife's life in jeopardy by taking her on the trip to Florida. The couple had been married less than three weeks.

Unlike Rachel, who had never been in the South, Jackie had searing memories of what had happened to him a year and a half earlier at Ft. Hood, Texas. In July 1944, Robinson, then a lieutenant in the Army, was ordered to the back of a city bus, and refused. He didn't back down and when the bus returned to the military base, he was arrested and subsequently court-martialed for insubordination. Robinson was exonerated and then discharged from the Army in late 1944.

If Robinson had not been court-martialed, he probably would have remained with his battalion and been shipped to Europe, and Dodgers President Branch Rickey would have signed someone else. Instead, Robinson was playing for the Kansas City Monarchs in the Negro Leagues when Rickey was searching for the right player to integrate baseball. Rickey secretly signed Robinson to a contract in August 1945, after receiving the ballplayer's assurances that he would have "guts enough not to fight back" against racial epithets, spikings by cleats and worse, that no matter what came Robinson's way, he would restrain himself.

Two months later, the Montreal Royals announced it had signed Robinson. When black America learned about the signing, the things denied for so long suddenly seemed possible. Ludlow Werner, editor of the New York Age, a black weekly, wrote that Robinson "would be haunted by the expectations of his race.... White America will judge the Negro race by everything he does. And Lord help him with his fellow Negroes if he should fail them."

The racial climate in the United States at that time — especially in the South — was tense, unpredictable and violent. In return for fighting for their country in World War II, black veterans wanted racial equality when they returned home. Instead, many were killed to teach them their place.

A few days before the Robinsons left Los Angeles, racial tensions erupted in Columbia, Tenn. A black woman and her son, who had recently been discharged from the Navy, complained to a white merchant about a radio he was supposed to have repaired. The merchant slapped the woman. Her son then shoved the merchant through the store's plate-glass window. The next morning, hundreds of law enforcement officers and white townspeople converged on the town's black section, destroying homes, businesses and churches, and beating up and arresting black citizens. More than 100 blacks were jailed and two were shot to death while in custody.

The Robinsons flew through the night that February and landed in New Orleans. After a layover they were scheduled to fly to Pensacola, Fla., before going on to Daytona Beach. When the Robinsons lined up to board the plane for Pensacola, they were told they had been bumped. When they tried to get something to eat at a segregated restaurant in the airport, they were prohibited from entering.

Twelve hours after they had landed in New Orleans, the Robinsons boarded a flight to Pensacola. When they landed to refuel, a flight attendant asked them to exit the plane. Once the Robinsons were on the tarmac, they were told that bad weather was expected so the plane needed to add more fuel. To counter the weight of the additional fuel, three passengers — the Robinsons and a Mexican woman — had to be removed. As Robinson listened to the explanation, he saw white passengers board the plane. Robinson felt a growing sense of rage, but remembering Rickey's words, he choked back the anger.

Instead of waiting for the next plane, the Robinson took a Greyhound bus across the state to Daytona Beach. They relaxed in reclining seats at the front of the bus. When white passengers boarded the bus at the next stop, the driver pointed a finger at the Robinsons and ordered them to the back of the bus. He called Jackie "boy." Robinson, knowing that an incident of any kind might jeopardize what was called "baseball's great experiment," did as he was told.

Nearly 36 hours after the Robinsons left Los Angeles, the couple — hungry, tired and angry — arrived at the Daytona Beach bus station. They were met by Wendell Smith and Billy Rowe, journalists with the influential black weekly the Pittsburgh Courier.

"Well, I finally made it," Robinson snapped, "but I never want another trip like this one."

Robinson stayed up into the early hours of the morning bitterly recounting what he and his wife had been through, seething over what the Greyhound bus driver had called him. "He was very annoyed and hurt," Rowe later remembered. "He had been called a 'boy.' This man had become a 'boy.'"

Robinson told Smith and Rowe he did not think he could get a fair tryout in Florida and said he wanted to quit and return to the Negro Leagues. Smith and Rowe talked with him, explaining — as Rickey had — that it was important for him to suffer certain indignities so other blacks could follow him. "We tried to tell him what the whole thing meant, that it was something he had to do," Rowe said.

Chris Lamb, a professor of communication at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, is the author of the forthcoming book, "Conspiracy of Silence: Sportswriters and the Long Campaign to Desegregate Baseball." Email: lambc@cofc.edu

WEEK EIGHT WRITING ABOUT WHAT YOU READ

Is there someone today who seems similar to Robinson? What is the importance of Robinson's story?

Sunday, February 19, 2012

WEEK SEVEN BLOG ENTRY

If you could have a drink with anyone from all of history, who would it be and why? (and what would you be drinking?)

WEEK SEVEN READING

NEIL POSTMAN, AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH

There are two parts to this reading. The first is the foreward to the book:
We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

Here's the second part of the reading. It's a piece of a chapter:

How often does it occur that information provided you on morning radio
or television, or in the morning newspaper, causes you to alter your
plans for the day, or to take some action you would not otherwise have
taken, or provides insight into some problem you are required to solve?
For most of us, news of the weather will sometimes have such
consequences; for investors, news of the stock market; perhaps an
occasional story about a crime will do it, if by chance the crime
occurred near where you live or involved someone you know. But most of
our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us
something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action. This
fact is the principal legacy of the telegraph: By generating an
abundance of irrelevant information, it dramatically altered what may be
called the "information-action ratio."
In both oral and typographic cultures, information derives its
importance from the possibilities of action. Of course, in any
communication environment, input (what one is informed about) always
exceeds output (the possibilities of action based on information). But
the situation created by telegraphy, and then exacerbated by later
technologies, made the relationship between information and action both
abstract and remote. For the first time in human history, people were
faced with the problem of information glut, which means that
simultaneously they were faced with the problem of a diminished social
and political potency.
You may get a sense of what this means by asking yourself another series
of questions: What steps do you plan to take to reduce the conflict in
the Middle East? Or the rates of inflation, crime and unemployment?
What are your plans for preserving the environment or reducing the risk
of nuclear war? What do you plan to do about NATO, OPEC, the CIA,
affirmative action, and the monstrous treatment of the Baha'is in Iran?
I shall take
the liberty of answering for you: You plan to do nothing about them. You
may, of course, cast a ballot for someone who claims to have some plans,
as well as the power to act. But this you can do only once every two or
four years by giving one hour of your time, hardly a satisfying means of
expressing the broad range of opinions you hold. Voting, we might even
say, is the next to last refuge of the politically impotent. the last
refuge is, of course, giving your opinion to a pollster, who will get a
version of it through a desiccated question, and then will submerge it
in a Niagara of similar opinions, and convert them into--what
else?--another piece of news. Thus, we have here a great loop of
impotence: the news elicits from you a variety of opinions about which
you can do nothing except to offer them as more news, about which you
can do nothing.
Prior to the age of telegraphy, the information-action ratio was
sufficiently close so that most people had a sense of being able to
control some of the contingencies in their lives. What people knew
about had action-value. In the information world created by telegraphy,
this sense of potency was lost, precisely because the whole world became
the context for news. Everything became everyone's business. For the
first time, we were sent information which answered no question we had
asked, and which, in any case, did not permit the right of reply.
We may say then that the contribution of the telegraph to public
discourse was to dignify irrelevance and amplify impotence. But this was
not all: Telegraphy also made public discourse essentially incoherent.
It brought into being a world of broken time and broken attention, to
use Lewis Mumford's phrase. the principal strength of the telegraph was
its capacity to move information, not collect it, explain it or analyze
it. In this respect, telegraphy was the exact opposite of typography.
books, for example, are an excellent container for the accumulation,
quiet scrutiny and organized analysis of information and ideas.