Despite the tepid reception of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978, the Supreme Court has thrice affirmed its holding: universities can use race as an admissions factor to achieve the goal of a diverse student body. This book examines the process of rhetorical invention followed by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., his colleagues, and other interlocutors as they sifted through arguments surrounding affirmative action policies to settle on diversity as affirmative action’s best constitutional justification. Here M. Kelly Carr explores the goals, constraints, and argumentative tools of the various parties as they utilized the linguistic resources available to them, including arguments about race, merit, and the role of the public university in civic life. Using public address texts, legal briefs, memoranda, and draft opinions, Carr looks at how public arguments informed the amicus briefs, chambers memos, and legal principles before concluding that Powell’s pragmatic decision making fused the principle of individualism with an appreciation of multiculturalism to accommodate his colleagues’ differing opinions. She argues that Bakke is thus a legal and rhetorical milestone that helped to shift the justificatory grounds of race-conscious policy away from a recognition of historical discrimination and its call for reparative equality, and toward an appreciation of racial diversity.

Peter Wood traces the birth and evolution of diversity, illuminating how it came to sprawl across politics, law, education, business, entertainment, personal aspiration, religion and the arts as an encompassing claim about human identity.

Rhetorical invention--the discursive art of inquiry and discovery--has great significance in the history of spoken and written communication, dating back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Yet invention has received relatively little attention in recent discussions of rhetoric, writing, and communication. This collection of essays is the first book in years to focus on current research in rhetorical invention. The contributors include many well-established scholars, as well as new voices in the field. They reflect a variety of approaches and perspectives: theory, history, culture, politics, institutions, pedagogy, and community service. Several of the essays address the relationship between invention and postmodernism--some by refiguring invention, others by challenging postmodernism. Still other essays explore multicultural conceptions of invention, the civic function of invention and rhetoric, and the role of rhetorical invention in institutions and in comunity problem solving. Taken together, these essays provide a much-needed forum for ongoing study of rhetorical invention within the framework of recent developments in both scholarship and the culture at large. "If inventional research is to continue and flourish," notes Janice Lauer in her foreword, "it must remain sensitive to shifts in epistemology, ethics, and politics. The essays in this volume undertake this effort.." The Editors: Janet M. Atwill is associate professor of English at the University of Tennessee. The author of Rhetoric Reclaimed: Aristotle and the Liberal Arts Tradition and coauthor of Four Worlds of Writing: Inquiry and Action in Context and Writing: A College Handbook, she has published articles in Rhetoric Review, Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, and the Journal of Advanced Composition. Janice M. Lauer is Reece McGee Distinguished Professor of English at Purdue University, where she founded, directed, and teaches in the graduate program in Rhetoric and Composition. She is coauthor of Four Worlds of Writing and Composition Research: Empirical Designs and has published numerous articles on rhetoric and composition. Contributors: Frederick J. Antczak, Janet M. Atwill, Julia Deems, Richard Leo Enos, Theresa Enos, Linda Flower, Debra Hawhee, Janice M. Lauer, Donald Lazere, Yameng Liu, Arabella Lyon, Louise Wetherbee Phelps, Jay Satterfield, Haixia Wang, Mark T. Williams.

Thoroughly embedded in postmodern theory, this book offers a critique of traditional conceptions of the liberal arts, exploring the challenges posed by cultural diversity to the aims and methods of a humanist education. Janet M. Atwill investigates a neglected tradition of rhetoric, exemplified by Protagoras and Isocorates, and preserved in Aristotle's Rhetoric. This tradition was rooted in the ancient sophistic and platonic conceptions of techn , or productive knowledge, that appears both in literary texts from the seventh century B.C.E. and in medical and technical treatises from the fifth century B.C.E. Atwill examines these traditions, together with sophistic and platonic conceptions, and considers the commentaries on Aristotle's Rhetoric by E. M. Cope and William S. J. Grimaldi, where the concepts of techn and productive knowledge disappear in the modern opposition between theory and practice. Since models of knowledge are closely tied to models of subjectivity, Atwill's examination of techn also explores the role of political, economic, and educational institutions in standardizing a specific model for subjectivity. She argues that the liberal arts traditions largely eclipsed the social and political functions of rhetoric, transforming it from an art of disrupting and reinventing lines of power to a discipline of producing a normative subject, defined by virtue but modeled on a specific gender and class type.

Readings of Aristotle’s and Confucius’ teachings reveal that both philosophers’ rhetorical thinking contain vital similarities which can help us understand cultural differences today. Much has been said about Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric as ‘the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion’ but few studies have focused on his depiction of rhetoric as ‘partly like dialectic, and partly like sophistical reasoning’. Yet, this Aristotelian conception of rhetoric sheds light on a similarity with Confucius’ teaching: both Confucius and Aristotle see the human understanding of the truths of things as necessarily having a dimension that is open-ended and discursive.

Traces the communication strategies of various constituencies in a Chicago neighborhood, offering insights into the challenges that beset diverse urban populations and demonstrating persuasively rhetoric’s power to illuminate and resolve charged conflicts Candice Rai’s Democracy’s Lot is an incisive exploration of the limitations and possibilities of democratic discourse for resolving conflicts in urban communities. Rai roots her study of democratic politics and publics in a range of urban case studies focused on public art, community policing, and urban development. These studies examine the issues that erupted within an ethnically and economically diverse Chicago neighborhood over conflicting visions for a vacant lot called Wilson Yard. Tracing how residents with disparate agendas organized factions and deployed language, symbols, and other rhetorical devices in the struggle over Wilson Yard’s redevelopment and other contested public spaces, Rai demonstrates that rhetoric is not solely a tool of elite communicators, but rather a framework for understanding the agile communication strategies that are improvised in the rough-and-tumble work of democratic life. Wilson Yard, a lot eight blocks north of Wrigley Field in Chicago’s gentrifying Uptown neighborhood, is a diverse enclave of residents enlivened by recent immigrants from Guatemala, Mexico, Vietnam, Ethiopia, and elsewhere. The neighborhood’s North Broadway Street witnesses a daily multilingual hubbub of people from a wide spectrum of income levels, religions, sexual identifications, and interest groups. When a fire left the lot vacant, this divided community projected on Wilson Yard disparate and conflicting aspirations, the resolution of which not only determined the fate of this particular urban space, but also revealed the lot of democracy itself as a process of complex problem-solving. Rai’s detailed study of one block in an iconic American city brings into vivid focus the remarkable challenges that beset democratic urban populations anywhere on the globe—and how rhetoric supplies a framework to understand and resolve those challenges. Based on exhaustive field work, Rai uses rhetorical ethnography to study competing publics, citizenship, and rhetoric in action, exploring “rhetorical invention,” the discovery or development by individuals of the resources or methods of engaging with and persuading others. She builds a case for democratic processes and behaviors based not on reflexive idealism but rather on the hard work and practice of democracy, which must address apathy, passion, conflict, and ambivalence.