Chicanos in Academe
WRITING PROMPT PAPER #2: SYNTHESIS
In Paper #1 you wrote an analysis of one author’s argument. Now, in Paper #2 you will write about two authors’ arguments. Here you will analyze the arguments made by Tatcho Mindiola, Jr. in “Getting Tenure at The U,” and Adalberto Aguirre, Jr. in “A Chicano Farmworker in Academe”. Additionally, you will make your own claim about the relationship between the two authors’ arguments (essay and film) and support that claim with grounds drawn from the two articles. Questions to consider to help formulate your own argument: What do both authors reveal about academic institutions? Why do they expose controversial issues within the “ivory tower”? How do they provide a critique on the myth of meritocracy?
This assignment requires you to think about each individual argument and then make a claim about the relationship(s) that you can infer from those arguments. For example, does the information in the first article act as an extended illustration of the generalizations in the second source, or does it offer a counter-argument to the claim made in the second article?
Note: you are writing an argument synthesis for this assignment. You must make a claim and support that claim with grounds drawn from the sources assigned. Merely comparing and contrasting the two sources will not satisfy the goals of this assignment.
When discussing the relationship between these texts
- Make sure to incorporate your analysis of the authors' relevant claims, sub-claims, grounds and warrants.
- Make a claim about how each argument works within, extends, complicates, and/or challenges the other. There are many other actions to consider in addition to those provided here. Your claim should be both arguable and engaged with both texts' arguments.
- Support your claim with textual evidence. Be sure to attribute quotations, paraphrases and ideas appropriately. When in doubt, ask for clarification. Include a Works Cited page formatted according to MLA style. The Works Cited page is not included in the page count minimum.
Remember to use MLA citation style and follow the paper format indicated on the syllabus. Your drafts must have the minimum number of full pages (from the top to the bottom of the page), otherwise the paper does not count as a full draft and will not be accepted. While the other arguments we read for class may inform how you think about these arguments, use only information from the assigned articles. Do not use or consult secondary sources to support your claim.
** there will be 2 sources attached for this essay (double spaced) This is a synthesis argument paper. needs to include the "road map". engaging ideas, thesis, sub claims, grounds, and warrants. plus for someone who is familiar with toulmin method. this class is mixed with with a chicanos studies class.learning about discrimination, gender, and labor inequalities. my second year in college - english 101 i need the essay in 8 hours. thank you!!!!!!!! roadmap needs to be in the introduction
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Chicanos in Academe
This paper provides an analysis of the arguments made by Adalberto Aguirre. Jr. in A Chicano Farmworker in Academe, and Tatcho Mindiola, Jr. in Getting Tenure at the U. Moreover, my claim about the relationship between the arguments of the two authors is made, and the claim is supported using grounds from the articles. The main discussion is to put across claims that add up to the main thesis of the paper which I state as: The practice of perpetuating and fueling the myth that minorities are not completely qualified for academic positions, of employing underrepresented minorities for only particular specialized ethnic departments, and of limiting the numbers of minorities in mainstream departments are clear manifestations of racism (Aguirre 21).
Arguments made by Aguirre. Jr. in A Chicano Farmworker in Academe
In the article, the author makes three main arguments. Aguirre argues that the purposeful segregation of some people from total participation in academe is really an unpleasant thought. According to Aguirre (18), the working-class background, race, ethnicity, and gender are vital in shaping the presence of an individual in academe. The author argues that these status attributes actually change people into strangers in academe – the working class, minorities and women. The social expectations such as the ones which structure the ordering and sorting of these status attributes in daily life constrain people possessing them from taking part in certain sectors in academe. As such, it is not easy for people from the minority communities to negotiate their own presence (Aguirre 18).
The author argues that the minority faculty person is at the moment even more of a stranger in academe and his/her presence is segregated and marginal in academe. At the University of California at Riverside, Chicano Studies Program was disestablished and this surprised Chicano students, staff, and faculty alike (Aguirre 19). The segregation of faculty members by other faculty members because of their status traits basically reduces their contextual presence in academe. In academe, it is common, for instance, to find the minority and women faculty members interacting more frequently with each other than interacting with white male faculty members. As a result, the author points out that Caucasian male faculty commonly refer to minority and women faculty as clannish (Aguirre 21). For ethnic and racial minority faculty, their segregation from networks controlled by white male faculty is an extension of their subordinate role in society (Aguirre 21). The author states that the exclusion of people perceived to be strangers – minority and women faculty – in academe from networks which are controlled by Caucasian male faculty essentially serves to limit both the continuity as well as progress of these people in academe. Secondly, the author argues that minorities and women in academe need to work harder so as to maintain continuity in their academic presence. Third, he argues that the role model concept is of major importance in maintaining minorities and women in academe as segregated and peripheral participants (Aguirre 25).
Arguments made by Tatcho Mindiola, Jr. in Getting Tenure at the U
The article Getting Tenure at the U basically provides a discussion of the experiences of a Chicano professor in a tenure disagreement which took place at one of the main universities of the country’s most populous and biggest states. The author argues that the politics within the department that actually fueled the tenure dispute were not motivated by bias (Mindiola 46). According to Mindiola (46), racial prejudice was not the motivating factor in the tenure dispute; rather, the politics of group interests were the motivating factors. The author argues that it was really a matter of a group of people who were trying to tenure one of their own. In essence, these people were motivated since they believed that the female candidate, who was the wife to one of the members of the group, was in direct competition with the professor for what they thought to be just one tenure slot (Mindiola 46). According to the professor, had this not been the case, he would have been assessed favorably in the first consideration.
The author also argues that nonetheless, there is institutional discrimination and prejudice. Mindiola (47) points out that institutional discrimination takes place whenever academic institutions pick Chicano as well as other minorities for different treatment, and a case in point is the joint appointments in Black Studies and Chicano Studies. In the university, there were no other posts available to Chicano people. ...