WHEN SOMEONE tells me for the first time that he or she read one of my articles in the newspaper, I always have the same reaction. First, I get surprised that anyone reads anything on a physical newspaper other than the comics. Then, I find myself almost apologizing.
I preemptively ask pardon for the article's content because I expect someone to take offense at something I wrote. My number one rule for argumentative writing is to make others feel uncomfortable, and sometimes offensive writing is the result.
The rationale behind this rule is not to argue a controversial point for the sake of controversy. People who take this approach, from activists such as Jesse Jackson to pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, often drown out their points with their outspokenness. Instead, opinions should challenge prevailing thoughts. When opinions fail to confront existing beliefs, it is either because everyone already agrees with your point or because no one cares. Preaching to the choir and preaching to no one achieve the same ends - nothing.
Not every subject can be argued effectively. On the contrary, very few topics are provocative enough to matter yet also fluid enough to allow for opposing views to be changed. During my tenure at The Cavalier Daily, I have learned this lesson through trial and error. Those who read a partisan opinion article are already well-informed about the matter and are reading for either affirmation of their prejudices or ammunition for ridicule.
Tradition is an even more futile topic than partisan issues. Here at least, it seems as if people on both sides of the aisle can agree that nothing about the University or the surrounding community needs to change. Constructive criticisms are construed as personal attacks. Questioning the honor system, the Rotunda, guys in ties and girls in pearls or Thomas Jefferson is blasphemy. Given these constraints, choosing an appropriate topic can take days. But sometimes a single line of dialogue provides the seed for a potential article.
Once you choose a topic, you must choose an angle. This means making fresh points and avoiding stock arguments. Sometimes this means that you will not agree fully with your point, but if your writing is good enough you will convince yourself of your argument's position by its conclusion.
Admittedly, there were many articles that I had little to no interest in, but I still went through the motions and cranked out a piece. Those without weekly deadlines have the luxury of picking and choosing topics about which they are passionate. Opinion columnists generally do not fall in this category.
Next is choosing a tone. Often, your topic dictates the tone, but in the Internet age the default is a conversational approach. Vignettes, rhetorical questions and first-person points-of-view - although no contractions
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 2 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
