Recognizing Written Argument For This Week's Discussion ID L

Recognizing Written Argumentfor This Weeks Discussion Id Like You T

For this week's discussion, you are asked to respond to one of the short articles provided at the end of Chapter 3: Marybeth Gasman's "To Educate a Diverse Nation, Topple the Ivory Tower," Randy Cohen's "When Texting is Wrong," or "Flag Protection: A Brief History of Recent Supreme Court Decisions." After reading your chosen article, analyze it by addressing a few specific questions: What is the main issue? What are the author's attitudes? What supporting material favors the author's point? What is the author's intention (to explain or to convince)? What conclusion does the author hope you draw? How does the author establish authority? What qualities make the article effective or ineffective? What are your personal reactions? How much common ground do you share with the author? What do you like or dislike, justified with evidence from the article.

Paper For Above instruction

In this paper, I will analyze Marybeth Gasman's article "To Educate a Diverse Nation, Topple the Ivory Tower," focusing on its main issues, arguments, and effectiveness as an argumentative piece. Gasman’s core argument is that higher education institutions have historically failed to adequately serve or support students from diverse backgrounds, leading to disparities in graduation rates. She advocates for an approach that involves dismantling traditional hierarchical structures within colleges and implementing more inclusive, community-engaged practices drawn from minority-serving institutions.

Gasman’s attitude toward higher education is both critical and hopeful. She acknowledges the successes of minority-serving institutions (MSIs) but criticizes conventional universities for maintaining outdated and exclusive practices that alienate underrepresented students. Her tone is aspirational, emphasizing the potential for transformative change in higher education through adopting lessons from MSIs. She appears committed to fostering equity and inclusion, believing that traditional models are insufficient to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population.

The supporting material Gasman presents includes detailed descriptions of practices at MSIs, such as embedding student responsibility into the learning process, fostering a sense of community, and integrating culturally relevant curricula. She provides concrete examples, including the organic farm at Paul Quinn College and collaborative math classes at San Diego City College. These examples reinforce her argument that successful models outside mainstream paradigms can inform reforms in broader higher education contexts. Her referencing of specific institutions and their strategies bolsters her credibility and demonstrates practical, real-world solutions to the issues she raises.

Gasman’s primary intention appears to be both explanatory and persuasive. She aims to inform readers about the deficiencies of traditional higher education while persuading them of the effectiveness of alternative, community-oriented models exemplified by MSIs. Her detailed case studies and emphasis on tangible outcomes serve this dual purpose—educating the reader and advocating for a shift in institutional practices. Her tone suggests a call to action rooted in the belief that transformation in higher education is necessary and achievable.

Her conclusion—that all colleges can benefit from embracing collaborative roles, rejecting cutthroat competition, and linking the educational experience to students’ lives and communities—reflects her hopeful conviction that systemic change is possible. By proposing these lessons, she hopes readers will recognize the importance of grassroots and culturally responsive approaches in addressing educational inequities.

Gasman establishes her authority through her academic role as a professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania and her extensive experience visiting MSIs. Her detailed descriptions of her observations and her familiarity with the institutions she discusses lend credibility. Furthermore, her advocacy for educational reform is supported by her scholarly background and firsthand accounts, positioning her as a knowledgeable voice on the topic.

The article is effective as an argument because of its compelling use of specific examples, clear articulation of problems, and practical solutions. Gasman’s relatable tone and concrete evidence make her claims convincing. However, it could be critiqued for potentially overlooking challenges in scaling MSI practices or addressing institutional resistance in mainstream higher education. Nonetheless, her emphasis on culturally relevant pedagogy and community collaboration resonates with contemporary educational theories advocating inclusivity and equity.

My personal reaction to Gasman's essay is one of agreement and inspiration. I appreciate her focus on respecting and integrating students’ cultural backgrounds into the educational process, which aligns with my belief in the importance of culturally responsive teaching. I also recognize that traditional universities often fail to engage marginalized populations effectively, making her proposed reforms both necessary and promising. However, I also wonder about the practical challenges of implementing such models widely and sustainably across diverse institutional types.

Shared ground between the author and myself exists in the belief that higher education must evolve to meet the needs of a diverse society. I support her emphasis on mentorship, community engagement, and culturally relevant curricula. Conversely, I find some aspects of her critique of mainstream universities somewhat idealized, as institutional change is complex and slow. Still, her advocacy for innovative practices offers valuable insights for future policymaking and institutional reform.

References

• Gasman, M. (2015). To Educate a Diverse Nation, Topple the Ivory Tower. The Huffington Post.
• Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Immigrant and indigenous minority educational attainment: A cultural-ecological approach. In P. L. Tharp & R. Gallimore (Eds.), Rethinking educational equity (pp. 101–142). Harvard Education Press.
• Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. Jossey-Bass.
• Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
• Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Durkheim, É. (2014). Education and the social fabric. Routledge.
• Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
• Morphew, C. C. (2016). Higher education governance: Approaches, challenges and opportunities. Routledge.
• Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-366.
• Kezar, A. (2014). How to scope for innovation in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(2), 1-128.