Rhetorical Analysis Of Students Fight Assault On History By Leonard Pitts

The history of the United States of America has often been punctuated by moments of triumph, and also by grievous lapses in moral and ethical judgements. For years, students have learned about the entirety of our country’s history in school. However, a school board in Colorado recently attempted to prevent this from happening. Their decision to alter the American history curriculum in order to promote patriotic values angered many students, who then protested this decision. Leonard Pitts, a journalist for the Miami Herald, openly criticized the school board’s move. In his article “Students fight assault on history”, Pitts appeals to the audience’s emotions in order to effectively decry the censoring of history in classrooms. Pitts begins his

For example, Pitts refers to the school board’s decision as an act of “intellectual vandalism.” Obviously, the word “vandalism” has an extremely negative connotation, and Pitts’ decision to describe the ruling this way causes the audience to view it as a true crime against students. Undoubtedly, much of Pitts’ audience is composed of parents, so the use of the word “vandalism” also garners many feelings of anger, as the majority of parents would be truly outraged if an act of vandalism such as this were committed against their own child. Even the title of the article describes the ruling as an “assault” on all students’ basic right to learn their nation’s history. Additionally, Pitts calls the ruling “stagnant, barren and antithetical to progress.” This statement displays the regressive nature of censoring history in classrooms, and elicits similar feelings of anger and disgust from the audience. This phrase also serves as a call to action for the audience by using their newfound disdain to affect change and assist progress in this case. Furthermore, the sentiment that “censoring history is an act of cowardice” is bluntly reflected throughout the article (Pitts). The author’s outright declaration of such an attitude implies that the school board officials who approved such a measure are cowardly and unwilling to accept the elaborate yet flawed history of the United States. The fact that these officials would let their own denial interfere with students’ right to learn the complete American history is outrageous, and Leonard Pitts emphasizes this belief constantly in order to rouse the audience’s emotions. Pitts focuses his outrage on the “small-minded people” who thought it acceptable to omit the less favorable parts of history (Pitts). His direct attack on the school board officials only serves to further galvanize the audience into action against this