Friday, February 24, 2017
Opposing Narratives: Trump Drops Federal Legislation Protecting Transgender Students
Earlier this month, Donald Trump decided to withdraw from federal guidelines established during Obama's administration that protect transgender children attending public schools rights to use the bathroom of their choice. President Trump has dropped these guidelines from a federal level and is allowing states to decide for themselves. These guidelines allowed children the choice to use whichever restroom matches their gender identity. This ruling now makes transgender children in more conservative states vulnerable to discrimination. The past few years transgender rights have made there way to the mainstream media, and in turn opposing narratives emerge from "conservative" vs. "liberal" media outlets. It appears that the past presidential campaign, election, and new administration has created fertile ground for biased news or press that works to maintain the echo chamber of the party it is supporting.
The conservative or alt-right news outlet Breitbart has become popular recently for it's extreme and controversial views. Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart released an article on February 23, 2017 titled "California Defies Trump On Transgender Bathrooms for Kids." The headline immediately is attempting to shift the blame onto the California Department of Education, rather than President Trump. The use of the word "defies," to openly resist or refuse to obey, is used in order to make the opponents appear radical and uncooperative rather than angry at Trump's decision. The opening paragraph of this article continues to state, "The Obama administration urged schools to allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms according to their 'gender identity,' as opposed to biological sex" (Pollak, 2017). The use of quotes around gender identity insinuates that the author does not believe in a difference between gender identity and biological sex. Pollak continues to warn readers that this legislation could result in "anatomically male students undressing in front of female students" (Pollak, 2017). I believe this is a tactic used to make the readers feel worried or concerned for their children, even though this example is not realistic. To close the article, Pollak claims that only "0.6% of American adults identify as 'transgender'" (2017) though he does not state how or where this statistic was created. This article seems to be targeted toward the sympathetic audience, that supports Trump's decision to withdraw from the guidelines, in order to rile up the hostiles. Moderates that read this article, or frankly any article from Breitbart, will receive a biased explanation of the event. They are taking advantage of their ignorance and providing them with poorly stated alternative facts. Pollak uses the peripheral root and heuristic triggers to persuade his audience. Clearly, this article by Joel Pollack is directed towards a conservative audience, and uses emotional appeals more than factual information.
The New York Times is considered a more left-leaning news outlet. Liam Stack published an article on February 11, 2017 titled "Trump Drops Defense of Obama Guidelines on Transgender Students." In contrast to Pollak's headline, the NYT headline places blame on President Trump and implies that the transgender students are the victims in this case. Stack takes a more sympathetic approach to this issue, but also includes facts to explain the situation rather than opinion. This article attempts to push the blame more on Trump, including quotes from the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality Mara Keisling, calling this a "callous attack on the dignity and safety of transgender students" (Stack, 2017). The rhetoric of this article uses language that unites to audience and identifies Trump as the common enemy. Stack writes, "The Obama administration evolved into an ardent defender of transgender students" (2017). Stack utilizes the central root to persuade his audience by carefully considering the evidence and facts of the situation.
Pollak, J. B. (2017 February 23). California defies Trump on transgender bathrooms for kids. Retrieved from: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/02/23/transgender-california-defies-trump- directive-repeal/
Stack, L. (2017, February 11). Trump drops defense of Obama guidelines on transgender students. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/us/politics/trump- transgender-students-injunction.html?_r=0
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well conceived here! I appreciate how you get ahead of things by including a discussion of two particular articles. This is one of those high-profile issues that often involves many unintended consequences.
ReplyDeleteConsider the way you recognize the "guidelines" established by the Obama administration. When you discuss these guidelines as "protections," then you put them into a much different category than if you discuss them as being "funding requirements" (which might be how opponents might describe them). Both of the articles you mention here appear to go directly to the most salacious of concerns: kids disrobing in front of opposite-gender kids - as opposed to the more concerning factors: like what sorts of rules becomes mandated by government as the condition for receiving federal education funding. It's one thing to jack up the emotional concerns of parents who don't want their children put into awkward or compromising conditions, but quite another to impose odd requirements on every particular school - regardless of what might be happening at that particular school - in order to remain eligible for the funding needed to buy computers or other educational resources.
I would urge you to go deeper into this issue - and try to recognize the concerns beyond the more salacious ones. This is a very good issue - very timely - and also likely to remain a "hot-button" issue for the next few years.
Dr. Ron,
DeleteI definitely agree that there have been many unintended consequences that have stemmed off of this main issue involving transgender bathrooms in public schools. It seems to be that this is an example of the right trying to tear down the left and vice versa. In reality, they are both ignoring what the real issue is: the withdrawal from the Obama administration guidelines and the implications of this action. These guidelines do not eradicate “protections” for transgender students altogether, but rather lowers them from a federal requirement to a state/local level decision.
What both of these articles fail to discuss is the content of the guidelines themselves. They both mention that President Trump has decided to withdraw from the federal guidelines, but they do not describe what they were and what the withdrawal means for public schools. The right side sees this as an issue of unnecessary funding requirements in public schools. After reading your comment, I decided to re-read the articles I cited with a different perspective. The Breitbart article that I mentioned previously works to fire up their conservative, sympathetic readers and attempts to de-legitimize transgender people. They mention that the withdrawal allows states and local school districts to decide for themselves on transgender issues, but that is about it. The rest of the article is mostly emotional appeals rather than factual information. They actually never even mention the threat of losing federal funding in public schools.
Contrastly, the left side focuses on the concept that without these guidelines all transgender students will now be vulnerable to bullying or abuse in public schools. Personally, I tend to be more attracted to left leaning media. I sympathize with the transgender students and after reading this think, “these students deserve to be protected.” This is why the authors construct their argument the way they do! They are aware that their general audience may be more progressive, so they use pathos to influence readers. The New York Times article does quickly mention Obama’s guidelines penalize schools that do not adhere to them by taking away federal funding. I did find more factual information throughout this article, but there is clearly a more liberal bias in the way they present their information. I think it is important to note that shifting these regulations to a state or local does in fact make transgender students vulnerable in certain states, such as North Carolina that before the guidelines required transgender people to use bathrooms that matched their biological sex.
Like I said, neither of these articles fully explain what these federal guidelines involve. Without the background information on the guidelines, it is easy to simply choose an emotional side. If I only read these two articles and did not know anything else about the guidelines, I would just believe that Trump has lifted regulations that allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools - bottom line. Both sides of the media have turned this into a debate of protecting vulnerable transgender students versus not protecting them. The guidelines presented by the Obama Administration require all public school to allow students the right to chose the bathroom of the gender that they self-identify as, and if they fail to do so their amount of funding will decrease. Due to the fact that transgender rights are currently a “hot-button” issue as you said, it is easy to present information in a way to work off of the reader’s emotions effectively.
Be careful here; as this post seems to be your effort to establish what the "real issue" is here, thus creating a premise upon which to gauge the validity of each party's position. You state that the "real" issue is the withdrawal of Obama administration guidelines; however, some might suggest that the "real" issue is about the depth and appropriateness of federal intervention in local school districts. When the question is about the consequences of removing protection, the strategy for gaining support is much different than if the question were about the extent to which the federal government can impose itself upon every local school district in the country. Do we see this as another example of historic, civil rights defense, like school de-segregation in the early 60s? Or is this another case of federal micro-managing and unfunded mandates which strain local budgets and tie staff up in circles of compliance forms and red tape, like No Child Left Behind or Common Core (except involving expensive building renovations)?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thoughtfulness here. Remember that the goal of your paper is not to determine which position is most valid - as that would be a matter of personal judgment - but rather to demonstrate your capacity to recognize strategy and tactics as used by supporters of competing narratives on a national stage.
Yes, it's certainly true that this is currently a "hot-button" issue. Recall that it only became a "hot-button" issue by virtue of the Obama administration's executive order. Recall how the rhetorical model includes the concept of the "exigence," which is the situation that requires some sort of address. How did this exigence emerge?
Very good stuff here! Let me know how I can help.