The idea, of course, was that freshman students had to learn how to research and how to present their research topics. "The term paper" was a huge assignment in English 101, a course now defanged somewhat by AI, I'm told. We're talking about Prof. Schaap's English 101, years and years ago, when "the term paper" required a number of standard features: it had to be ten pages maybe (I don't remember), had to have footnotes from five different sources--I don't remember the whole list, but when I look back at what I just wrote, the assignment makes me feel like the grim reaper.
Oh, yes, and this--in my class, no papers on abortion. At the Christian college where I taught, my chances of getting well-researched papers in support of legalized abortion were simply non-existent. And at the other end, among evangelical kids the anti- argument was something akin to cliché. Besides, most of them had already written some research project on Roe v Wade.
George Will, who is most certainly not a lib, makes the claim, yesterday, in the Washington Post, that the Supremes have pulled off some magic with their decision to destroy the 50-year-old decision to legalize abortion. By tossing the whole messy quarrel into state courts and state assemblies, they've altered the landscape in ways few might have foreseen. Because the decision-making is not federalized, a whole new landscape has appeared for what we might well have considered the most difficult cultural issue we face. "An ambivalent majority," he says, "is permanently troubled by the irresolvable tension between a woman’s claim of personal autonomy and the inviolability of personhood."
That there are no easy answers--except to those on either side of the stretched ends of the debate--means that we will have to fashion a new approach in the company of those who have been silent or at least less driven by their own arguments (except MAGA legilatures, like Florida's). "The 11 months of political fermentation since the overturning of Roe have revealed the necessity of politics, which is the business of accommodating differences," Will writes. In order to create law, we must take on the hard work of creating consensus.
Because we do, he says--and here's what I appreciate about the piece--there may be the real possibility of an emerging middle, a let's-get-along side, neither radically opposed to abortion, nor radically driven by "a woman's right to choose" no matter when.
George Will is a conservative's conservative, someone who's always praised "that government that governs least." What he is after is what's there in the title of his WaPo op-ed: "Ambivalent about abortion, the American middle begins to find its voice."
I for one will be thrilled if he's right and, once again, neighbors can talk to neighbors, siblings can talk to siblings, pros can talk to antis. Wouldn't it be grand if people on both sides of political issues that demand serious discussion win out over so much petulant demagoguery.
Oh, yes, and this--in my class, no papers on abortion. At the Christian college where I taught, my chances of getting well-researched papers in support of legalized abortion were simply non-existent. And at the other end, among evangelical kids the anti- argument was something akin to cliché. Besides, most of them had already written some research project on Roe v Wade.
George Will, who is most certainly not a lib, makes the claim, yesterday, in the Washington Post, that the Supremes have pulled off some magic with their decision to destroy the 50-year-old decision to legalize abortion. By tossing the whole messy quarrel into state courts and state assemblies, they've altered the landscape in ways few might have foreseen. Because the decision-making is not federalized, a whole new landscape has appeared for what we might well have considered the most difficult cultural issue we face. "An ambivalent majority," he says, "is permanently troubled by the irresolvable tension between a woman’s claim of personal autonomy and the inviolability of personhood."
That there are no easy answers--except to those on either side of the stretched ends of the debate--means that we will have to fashion a new approach in the company of those who have been silent or at least less driven by their own arguments (except MAGA legilatures, like Florida's). "The 11 months of political fermentation since the overturning of Roe have revealed the necessity of politics, which is the business of accommodating differences," Will writes. In order to create law, we must take on the hard work of creating consensus.
Because we do, he says--and here's what I appreciate about the piece--there may be the real possibility of an emerging middle, a let's-get-along side, neither radically opposed to abortion, nor radically driven by "a woman's right to choose" no matter when.
George Will is a conservative's conservative, someone who's always praised "that government that governs least." What he is after is what's there in the title of his WaPo op-ed: "Ambivalent about abortion, the American middle begins to find its voice."
I for one will be thrilled if he's right and, once again, neighbors can talk to neighbors, siblings can talk to siblings, pros can talk to antis. Wouldn't it be grand if people on both sides of political issues that demand serious discussion win out over so much petulant demagoguery.
Maybe it's just a dream.
Is he right? Is some kind of middle core of the American electorate beginning to find its way back to strength? We've now clearly established that we can fight. Can this country even begin to assert that maybe, just maybe, we can learn once more to get along?
George Will thinks so, and I can't help but like what he's teasing.
Is he right? Is some kind of middle core of the American electorate beginning to find its way back to strength? We've now clearly established that we can fight. Can this country even begin to assert that maybe, just maybe, we can learn once more to get along?
George Will thinks so, and I can't help but like what he's teasing.
No comments:
Post a Comment