Alcala 1

Ruben Alcala

Professor Grinallo

English 101

8 October 2018

The Viewpoints that Make Sense On Paper

To start off I will show you a statistic given to the reader by Michelle Alexander in her

book “The New Jim Crow”, it states, “In less than thirty years, the US penal population exploded

from around 300,000 to more than 2 million, with drug convictions counting for the majority of

the increase” (Alexander, 230). “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander has many clear

points about the flaws of the Criminal Justice System in her book talking about racial segregation

and how it correlates with the criminal justice system. Before going into disproving of the ideas

that police officers and the criminal justice system are racist, we must look at other peoples

perspective, the statistics behind the motivation, and the policing that is done to feed the ideas

that encourage the nation to believe the criminal justice system is racist. In my opinion, people

who are more likely to not want to do the right the things in life are always the ones who judge

and discredit the police for doing their jobs, with leads to my next point of argument, the peoples

perspective.

Michelle Alexander is a credible author with credentials associated with some of the best

universities in the United States. When describing her credentials in her book, she states “She has

taught at Stanford Law School and has a joint appointment at Ohio State University’s law school

and its Institute for the study of race and ethnicity” (Alexander, 230). It is clear that Alexander

has a lot of experience and training in law and social justice. This knowledge and experience

very much come in play when she is talking about the divide in America and the general idea of
 Alcala 2

what her message is to the world. With her experience and knowledge comes her ability to be

able to speak about the real racial tensions in America without much question of “who is she to

talk”?

To better understand Michelle Alexander’s viewpoints she makes in much of her writing

we must also look at the motivation that drives her to be able to have the arguments she has

today. In her book The New Jim Crow it goes on to explain to the reader “MICHELLE

ALEXANDER is a lawyer and scholar. She has taught at Stanford Law School and has a joint

appointment at Ohio State University’s law school and its Institute for the study of race and

ethnicity” (Alexander, 230). Alexander researched and studied these subjects for many years, and

became fascinated by the idea of being able to expose racial bias in the criminal justice system. It

is because of this I believe Alexander is to emotionally motivated to push an agenda onto all her

readers who are looking for the same kind of acknowledgment of blaming the criminal justice

system. the knowledge she has gives her credibility to both sides of the law, she also went to law

school, thus bettering her credibility with her argument in The New Jim Crow and gives a

glimpse of why she wrote the book in the first place.

The best way to understand why she wrote this specific book called the New Jim Crow,

we must also take a look at the audience she conveys her message too. The majority of people

she caters to are people with a clear bias or who put the blame on the criminal justice system

rather than accepting that they should have not have broken the law in the first place. Alexanders

book states, “She has written opinion pieces for the New York Times, Huffington Post, The

Nation, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, among other publications” (Alexander, 230).

Alexander has viewpoints that are very opinion heavy, especially when it has to do with mass

incarceration of black minorities. When this translates to the audience, depending on who the
 Alcala 3

reader is and what race they are, it will definitely sway more to one bias opinion over the other.

Alexander’s clear use of pathos provokes many different emotions throughout her book.

The readers she caters to are African American minority groups. Alexander explains in her book

that “A black man was on his knees in the gutter, hands behind his back as several police officers

stood around him talking, joking, and ignoring his human existence”. (Alexander, 232) When

readers read her experience of this encounter it provokes emotions of hate, frustration and

relatable feelings, that may be familiar to many of that specific ethnic community. When this

form of technique is used to much in her rhetoric, her argument becomes to opinion based and

deemed unsuitable as an actual credible source for factual information, thus making it feel like

her argument is too weak to be effective.

There are times when she uses logos but doesn’t use enough or sufficient amount of

evidence to make her argument agreeable. One such example stated in her book is when

Alexander says, “The United States has now the highest rate of incarceration in the world,

dwarfing the rates of nearly every developed country, even surpassing those in highly repressive

regimes like Russia, China, and Iran” (Alexander, 239). Alexander makes these arguments that

the country’s mass incarceration is a problem because of a big number of incarcerated inmates,

but does not elaborate on why it is a bad thing that it is a high static. This is just one example of

the many pieces of evidence she provides is simply not enough to be convincing of her argument.

This also ties over with the biggest thing she lacks throughout her book, which would be the very

minimal use of ethos.

The majority of her passage is used up by pathos and logos driven arguments almost

rarely was that the case for her ethical based point of view. In a passage, she explains to the

reader that “ Some cities more than half of all young adult black men are currently under
 Alcala 4

correctional control, in prison or jail, on probation or parole” (Alexander, 242). This quote does

not feel like it's putting forward an ethical standpoint of any kind, nor does anything in the

passage feel passable in my opinion to be used as a strong case of ethics. As the more I read

through Alexander’s book the more it feels that she clearly caters to just one side of the

argument, which in turn makes it feel as if ethics is not used properly and feels ineffective when

coming to a conclusion of changing my mind. It mostly feels that for the majority of her book

she does not attempt to persuade the reader that there is a problem with the Criminal Justice

System, it feels more of like being informed of the issue but as if it could be proven wrong,

making her argument feel ineffective.

Coming to the end of my interpretation of “The New Jim Crow”, by Michelle Alexander,

she makes many clear points of the flaws with the Criminal Justice System. However

Alexander’s argument in her book “The New Jim Crow” is not effective because of the way she

uses too much pathos and not enough logos and very minimal ethos, this is important because of

the very big statements she makes against the criminal justice system for discriminating against

all minorities, but yet lacks enough evidence to solidify her argument to be true. Her motivation

and credentials make her a valid person to speak on a group's behalf, but when using pathos it

comes off too strong making what she says not a factual source. Logos was used but not enough

to be convincing of her claims. Ethos is the one thing, in my opinion, is her main weakness that

needs to be elaborated on more. Alexander's book “The New Jim Crow” caters to an audience

who already has a bias, which is why it is important Alexander should focus on her rhetoric

more, simply using less opinion and more factual and sensible evidence would make this book a

lot more understanding to readers who don’t already agree with the same ideas in the first place,

Thus fixing the issue and making her argument more efficient on the message it delivers to the
 Alcala 5

reader.

Works Cited

Alexander, Michele. The New Jim Crow, They Say I Say, Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstien,

Russel Durst, 4th Edition, W.W.Norton & Company New York, Boston.