November Close Readings

Open the Records at Penn State
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/open-the-records-at-penn-state.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This editorial from the New York Times criticizes the withholding of information from the public about the details of the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State. The author of the article demands an opening of the records to the public so that all information can be analyzed thoroughly and fairly in the case.

The author obviously has a bias against the way the school is handling the scandal. The author uses diction in order to portray the situation as unfair and secretive. In the article, the author notes that the whole situation seems like a "cover-up" and that the public's "rights" are being "severely restricted." By using words like these, the author portrays the situation as scandalous and unfair to the public. Americans hold their rights to be very dear and important, and it is absolutely unthinkable that rights of Americans should be restricted in any way. The author plays on the importance of these rights in order to strike at the hearts of readers. It is said that the university officials "ignored" warning signs and that there is an "utter lack of accountability." By using diction like this the author portrays the situation as scandalous and the university to be unaccountable and an unreliable source of information.

The author of this editorial also uses many details to support his claims. When discussing the "exemption to the 2008 state open records law," he describes it as "misguided" and mentions that people like Graham Spanier argued for the exemption. By mentioning an official that  has been dismissed from the school, the author links the exemption to scandalous activity. The author also notes that Penn State's police force has the "same authority as municipal police officers" and that their functions "cleary affect people who are not part of the faculty or student body" in order to support his argument about why the records need to be opened to the public. He also uses the detail that a quarter-of-a-billion dollars of public taxpayer money will be given to Penn State this year, and that it makes no sense then to restrict information to the public. By using details to support his claim, the author makes an effective argument and pursuades readers to be offended by the restriction of information.