POST 1: Read the posts of your classmates and respond to at least 1 of them. Your responses should be substantive and detailed, referring to the essays and to specific points made by your classmates. You may agree or disagree, but support your statements with references to the text. The focus of this discussion is on the writing strategies used in the essays, not on personal opinions about the topics of the essays.

The author evaluates a complex subject detailing the failure of the society and some of the misconceptions that dictate modern day beliefs. On an overall view, the writer has followed the guidelines of writing summaries based on the approach and appeal that the summary incorporates. Taking into consideration the fact that the author adopts a general reflective approach indicating the state of the society she resides in, one would make the conclusion that the summary is personal. In some of the text there is the use of pronouns such as “I”, “us” and “we” which is an aspect that reiterates the conclusion made above. The author refers to other scholars detailing their approach to content that she integrates into the summary. Irrespective of this approach, the writer does not include author tags and based on her approach the whole summary is based on an observation she has made and experiences that she has experienced through her campus life. She adopts various concepts from scholars indicating their approach to the concept of mono cultureless. Irrespective of the various references that the writer makes, the content in the summary does not meet the specifications of author tags. The author’s response is very detailed and it makes a conclusive approach to some aspects that have been imposed on institutions and the society in general. The author overlooks the societal inclination to political correctness indicating the lack of cohesiveness in the development of the standard set by the politically correct. The writer makes a sound argument which questions the society’s appeal which is directed towards recognizing the existence of multiculturalism. Taking into consideration the writer’s illustration of rebellion and the norm that has graced the society and institutions to be specific; I find her evidence to be convincing.

POST 2: Read the posts of your classmates and respond to at least 1 of them. Your responses should be substantive and detailed, referring to the essays and to specific points made by your classmates. You may agree or disagree, but support your statements with references to the text. The focus of this discussion is on the writing strategies used in the essays, not on personal opinions about the topics of the essays.

The summary of the essay, “Teach Diversity-With a Smile” by Barbara Ehrenreich, followed the guidelines for writing summaries very closely. The writer made sure to cite the author and very clearly stated the main idea of the essay. Tags such as “Ehrenreich applauds” and “according to Ehrenreich”, were used in the summary. A specific example was given about Ehrenreich’s use of personal experience to explain her lower ability to handle multiculturalism. While the guidelines for writing summaries states to avoid specific examples, this does follow the guideline that it aides in expressing the main idea of the essay. Most importantly, the write remains objective in their summary, giving no personal reactions or opinions.

I have to agree with the writer’s response that the essay would have held more of an impact if it had focused on changing conditions surrounding cultural diversity versus language usage, instead of inputting that each side needs to “lighten up” and take a step back. While humor is great and does well to alleviate tension in awkward situations, this topic is serious and requires more focus on change than laughs. I agree with the write that Ehrenreich’s comments she threw in regarding the humor side of things took away from her goal of bringing to light the idea that it isn’t words than need changing, but the entire issue of inequality. I though the write did well to offer evidence from the text itself, outside text, and personal experience to present their opinion.