Simons 1

Jeffrey Simons
Professor McGriff
Composition II
6 August 2018

A Reflection on Composition
Having been writing for an extensive amount of my military career, there is no surprise

that much of my writing already holds many of the facets of composition taught in this class.

While it never hurts to get a refresher, especially when it comes with certification, it feels good to

say that most of these concepts have not been forgotten or fallen out of my practice. Regardless,

careful attentiveness can expose an area in which improvements can be made. These past few

weeks have reminded me that in order to conduct an argument, all opinions must be considered.

The challenge for me came when I approached a subject that really didn’t much interest

me. I was originally assigned to create an annotated bibliography on WikiLeaks and the freedom

of expression against national security. Having actually been on the secret side of the government,

I have a full understanding of the importance of keeping information away from the public,

especially in an age where information shared can be shared globally. I decided to write on a topic

that held multiple approaches to resolve issues between the freedom of expression and maintaining

national security.

The topic had many approaches to resolution, ranging from the extremes of having no

secret classification system, allowing all information to be open to the public, to removing any

attempt of free speech against the government. Between these two extremes are a wide array of

combinations. Believing the best approach was through the classification and definition, which

would facilitate a consistent justice system, the topic chosen first identified when a punishment
 Simons 2

would be imposed and when a pardon would be issued for sources of leaks. The punishment would

be an afterthought, as it would have to evolve with the nation.

My sources were difficult to identify, but luckily easy to find. Such well known documents

as the Constitution of the United States, the Freedom of Information Act, and the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights formed the basis of legal rationality for my argument, and

had to be supplemented with the Administrative Process Act and the Espionage Act. The latter

were difficult to identify as important, as they are rarely mentioned. The resulting combination of

these already in place legal documents makes it clear what is allowed to be shared and what isn’t.

The final document was one that wasn’t yet enacted or ratified: The Free Flow of Information Act.

As review after review was conducted, it became particularly evident that the nationally

used and advocated source of review was the most useless. I doubt my opinion on the reviewer

will be given much attention, as it is advocated by the professor, but about half of the suggestions

for improvement were ignored due to lack of understanding. I reviewed the statements that were

misinterpreted, but made only two modifications to my paper based on it. The most important was

the thesis statement. While her opinion was faulty, it was still considered, as there were some

aspects of my paper that did indeed require rectification.

I doubt my paper will do horribly in grade, but if it does, it won’t be because of my ego. I

abandoned my preconception that National Security held priority over guaranteed freedoms, and

advocated for balance between freedom and security. I disagreed to the fullest extent the

capabilities of a recommended reviewer, but still was able to pick out some improvements. I

looked through many sources covering both sides of the issue at hand to find that only a few

documents were mentioned by both sides. I have reinforced the notion that small improvements
 Simons 3

can come from anyone and anywhere, and when combined together, make a great work of cogent

discussion.