Mohammed Elsanousy

December, 2, 2017
English 1001
Analysis Practice: Jemele Hill Situation

1. I believe tha t the article written by Mr. Morris engages in the highest degree of rationalization.
The crux of Mr. Morriss argument is that what Dannon yogurt had done with Newton was
executed on essentially the same principle as the incident with ESPN and Hill. Both of them,
according to Mr. Morris, had become negative distractions and, thus, Dannon and ESPN were
in their rights to respectively fire and suspend them. The problem with this comparison,
however, is that their actions are not exactly the same or even similar enough to use in a
comparison. Dannon Yogurt dropped Mr. Newton as their spokesmen because Newton had
been disrespectful to a female reporter when she had asked an innocent question. ESPN,
however, had, according to them, suspended Hill because she had made comments on social
media about a potential boycott of advertisers of the Dallas cowboys. The main problem with
this comparison is that Mr. Newtons action was an unnecessary act of rudeness that can not be
defended as anything else. Hills action is not only less rude than Newtons but what she had
said can be (and has been) construed as Hill not trying to say that people should boycott the
Dallas Cowboys but that boycotts are a viable and effective way of changing things. It helps that
she even says that she is not advocating for a boycott. This is where Morris rationalizes these
two actions, making them similar so that he could make his argument comparing what Dannon
yogurt had done and what ESPN had done.

2. The biggest assumption Morris makes in his article is that the company is in the right to
censure any action of its employees that may hurt the revenue of the company, regardless of
what that action is. It is, in fact, the core of Morriss argument. It is not entirely stated but it is
implied not only by the examples that Morris had chosen to support his argument but by certain
statements such as Morriss statement that Hill has the right to say what she pleases but her
contract has her trade some of those rights for money or Morriss statement that the censuring
of Scilling and Cohn for what they had done is how business works. Morriss assumption,
however, is not sound. In fact, it is blind. The main and most glaring flaw with Morriss
assumption is that not all actions that may interfere with revenue are the same. The company,
hypothetically, may have the right to censure any employee who, intentionally or otherwise,
interfere with revenue but that does not mean they should. The company needs to consider how
any censure of its employees will look to the outside world. Censuring certain actions could
easily make things worse because while those actions could interfere with revenue, the outside
world, seeing somebody being censured for acting reasonably, will not look favorably upon the
company. This assumption may be the source of the rationalization that Morris engages in
because in order to support this assumption, Morris has to rationalize Hills actions so that it
could be considered to be on the same grounds with the likes of what Newton or Scilling had
done. All actions have to be seen as the same even when they do not carry the same disrespect
or offensiveness of other actions.
3. In order to support his argument, Mr. Morris used certain examples such as people who had
become negative distractions and were either fired or censured by their employer. He uses
three examples in his article: Newton from Dannon yogurt and Scilling and Cohn from the same
network as Hill. When Newton was disrespectful to a female reporter when she had asked an
innocent question, Dannon yogurt had fired him as their spokesmen even though he soon
apologized. When Scilling had shared a meme that mocked transgender people, he was fired as
well. When anchor Cohn complained on the radio that the network had moved too far from
covering sports into social cultural issues, she was warned by senior management. The
example of Newton is used as an example of an representative committing an action that the
company was in the right to censure. It is, in fact, the prime example of Morriss article as it is
not only the first example he uses but he also uses it again in his conclusion. Scillings example
is an example of an ESPN employee that had been fired for disruptive behavior though the
example is not a very good one as what Scilling had done was far, far more offensive than what
Hill had done. Cohns example is actually closer to what Hill had done as Cohn, like Hill, had
done nothing more than speak and was censured for it. Mr. Morriss examples are mostly flawed
as only one of the three examples he used could be said to be a reasonable example to
compare to Hill as Hill could be defended with reason, something that can not be extended to
Scilling and Newton. There are better examples that Morris could have used that are more
similar to what Hill had done or still carried the same potential to disrupt revenue without the
rudeness or offensiveness that make Newton and Scilling bad examples. One possible example
that Morris could have used as support would be an example of an employee who had spoken
in a way that might have interfered with the companys revenue. Another possible example that
Morris could have been used that would be a far more accurate comparison to Hill is a person
that was not from ESPN specifically but from another sports or news network that had made a
suggestion similar to Hills and had also been censured by the network. Both of these examples
would be better substitutes for Newton and Scilling as they are more similar to what Hill had
done and would make more sense to be cited as support. One of the greatest flaws in Morriss
argument is that he is comparing what Hill had done to people whose actions are not very
similar to what Hill had done. His argument would be greatly improved if the examples he had
cited had a better connection than actions that would disrupt revenue. There are plenty of
actions that can disrupt revenue but not all of them are equal. There are some actions that may
not even deserve censure.

4. Mr. Morris seems to use very little, if at all, emotional appeals. Mr. Morriss article seems to
rely entirely on logos. His article is very dry and cool with very little emotional language. The
crux of Morriss argument is that if an employee commits an action, no matter what it is or how it
is conveyed, that interferes with the revenue of the company, the company is in the right to
censure that employee. He reinforces this argument by citing multiple examples of employees
who have committed actions that may interfere with the revenue of the company and have been
censured by the company. Morris says that while Hill has the right to say what she pleases, she
traded her right to say certain words for money in her contract. Does the lack of emotional
appeals detract from the argument? While I can not disagree with the idea of arguing from pure
logic, Morriss argument seems more than a little hard and callous. If Morris had appealed to a
sense of fairness or a empathy with the companies that have censured their employees, that
could have helped soften the hardness of his argument.