Scholarship program awards gay, bisexual behavior

Considering of what all happens in this world nowadays, I guess nothing should surprise us. But I was shocked when a press release came to my desk recently regarding a unique scholarship.

Montana students are among the students who are eligible for $150,000 in scholarship funding. But you only have chance for the money if you’re gay, bisexual, or transgender. The money is available from the Great Seattle Business Association and Pride Foundation 2004. In the past 14 years, these two organizations have proudly granted more than $820,000 to 476 students.

The press release reads, “The Great Seattle Business Association knows as the 'Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Allied Chamber of Choice,’ was founded in 1980 to strengthen the lesbian gay, bisexual, transgender, and allied business professional community.” The scholarships are available for students in Montana, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.

Sorry to say I can’t inform our readers of how the program researches the student’s sexual preference. I don’t know if one gay experience qualifies you or if you need to make a public announcement of your lifestyle. Maybe if male applicants admit they have hugged a friend, they might be eligible for the award.

The press release just reads, “LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students and allies), children of LGBT families, and students of color are particularly encourage to apply.”
In other words, if you’re white and straight, there’s no need to apply.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against gay rights as far as jobs, education, etc. They shouldn’t be discriminated just because of their sexual preference.

I believe we should stay out of each other’s bedrooms. This scholarship program does just the opposite it awards you for a particular sexual behavior . I hope this isn’t what our country is becoming all about.


My Critique
This is an article that the paper’s managing editor, Bill Vander Wheele, wrote a year ago, and I specifically chose it as an example of a poorly written argument. The argument’s only good aspect is that Vander Wheele gives background history to prepare for his argument. He lists when the scholarship program started, who runs it, and how much money students have earned. This is all important as it would be very hard to persuade a reader if he or she doesn’t know what is being argued.

Besides this one aspect, the article is on the whole very poorly written. First, the argument lacks a clear thesis. I am not sure whether Vander Wheele dislikes the scholarship because it is for a limited group or because he doesn’t believe sexuality should be discussed or because he doesn’t think being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender is a reason to win a scholarship. Well-written arguments should have the thesis close to the beginning of the argument or the thesis should become evident through reading the essay. However, I never understood this argument’s thesis.

Secondly, this argument has only one main point which is Vander Wheele confusion of how one qualifies for the scholarship. While this is a valid point, he doesn’t support it enough to make it credible. He merely lists his complaint and then moves on to say people shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. While an argument can have one major point and still be persuasive, it must be supported by other examples and evidence to make it effective.

This article also contains huge omissions. It is inevitable when writing an argument to omit certain opposing ideas, but the omissions can’t be large enough that they destroy one’s own argument. In this case, Vander Wheele doesn’t recognize that many scholarships are given with a specific minority in mind. If Vander Wheele wanted to say that scholarships shouldn’t be given based on sexual orientation, he should have contrasted this with scholarships given to certain ethnic groups or to people pursuing particular careers. A good argument should include the opposing opinion and then refute it so the reader is forced to see the writer’s point of view.

Another bad aspect of this article is Vander Wheele’s use of sarcasm. Vander Wheele says things like, “Sorry to say I can’t inform our readers of how the program researches the students sexual preference. I don’t know if one gay experience qualifies you or if you need to make a public pronouncement.” A good writer’s argument should be convincing without the writer having to resort to making fun of the opposition. The evidence and writing should be enough to persuade the reader.

My final critique of this argument is the poor quality of writing. Vander Wheele wrote the article in an informal tone, as if he was talking to a friend. While this is appropriate in certain places, it doesn’t make for a legitimate sounding argument. The article is also full of grammatical errors. For example, the last sentence of the articles reads, “I hope this isn’t what our country is becoming all about.” Also, the articles second sentence starts with “but,” but doesn’t have an independent clause attached to make a complete sentence. A few grammatical errors wouldn’t affect the argument as a whole, but these mistakes and the writing style make Vander Wheele sound uneducated and hurt his argument. Overall, this article by Bill Vander Wheele is a great example of how not to write an effective argument.

P.S. I know that this article was very short, but it has significant to me as my good friend Chantz heard about the Pride scholarship (and eventually won) through reading this article. Chantz also wrote a letter back which shows that a writer must have passion about the subject to write a good argument. If anyone wants to read Chantz letter just let me know.