Abstract
In 2017, a hate speech flier targeting the LGBTQ community was posted in the main classroom building at Cleveland State University (CSU). This article explores the rhetoric surrounding the hate speech posted at this institution. The President’s insensitive email response to this hate speech sparked outrage from students, faculty, staff, and the public. To correct his mistake, he delivered an apologia. In this study, I analyze the President’s email response to the hate crime and his apology to the university. His apologia reveals strong evidence of emotional intelligence (pathos), an appeal to the university’s credibility (ethos), and use of claims and evidence (logos) which were all lacking in his initial email to the hate speech. Keywords: Hate speech, Rhetoric, Legitimacy, Institution DOI: 10.7176/NMMC/95-07 Publication date: March 31 st 2021
Highlights
On the 16th of October 2017, a flier was posted all over the main classroom building at Cleveland State University (CSU) targeting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) community that stands for
The flier displayed statistics of what it claimed were the percentages of suicides among the LGBTQ community
The analysis provides suggestions on ways this rhetoric could have been more effective
Summary
On the 16th of October 2017, a flier was posted all over the main classroom building at Cleveland State University (CSU) targeting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) community that stands for. Students, alumni and staff were infuriated and took to Twitter, Facebook and even classrooms to express their grievances (see Appendix II) They criticized the president’s response and questioned the university’s defense of the First Amendment and free speech. For the community, this day marks a special day as the first LGBTQ center to be open at CSU. In response to the exigence of the homophobic flyers, the president’s rhetorical discourse was not effective in showing his disapproval towards the flyer and his support for the LGBTQ community The aspect of this rhetorical situation which I conduct my analysis on is the President’s messages which contributed to the exigency of the situation and how he subsequently delivered a discourse of defense, known as an apologia. The rest of the section that follows critically examines the impact of the artefacts and concludes with implications of the study
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
