Rhetorical Analysis of

Race-Based Affirmative Action: One Step Closer to the Finish Line

by Elijah DeVaughn
The issue of race-based Affirmative Action has forever loomed in the
American psyche: is this seemingly inequitable process just? Elijah
DeVaughn, author of Affirmative Action: One Step Closer to the Finish
Line, answers this question affirmatively. In his essay, DeVaughn argues
that race-based Affirmative Action is, in fact, necessary for a sound society.
Using predominately pathos appeal, logos appeal, and an overarching
analogy, he effectively shows that race-based Affirmative Action creates
students with multifaceted perspectives and produces a more economically
balanced society.
In the beginning of his work, DeVaughn establishes his overarching analogy
followed by rhetorical questions in order to engage his reader. By beginning
his piece with the gun sounds, and the race begins . . . a race between
black america and white america, DeVaughn contextualizes the issue by
presenting the participating parties: blacks and whites. He goes on to say,
Neither race has triumphed: both whites and blacks failing to obtain
multifaceted perspectives and to produce an economically equitable
society. He, thus, recognizes multifaceted perspectives and a balanced
economic society as the finish line (or the ultimate goal of life), convincing
his reader the achieving of these goals is intrinsic to the prosperity of not
solely blacks or solely whites, but both races. Finally, using rhetorical
questions that are obvious problems in present-day America, he employs
logos appeal to persuade the reader that these problems undoubtedly must
be remedied. Answering his own rhetorical question, he states, Racebased Affirmative Action may be the answer. In this instance, he deems
race-based Affirmative Action the sole solution for the aforementioned
problem--a clear oversimplification. Yet, this tactic proves effective, for it
convinces the reader that the answer to this problem is, in fact, simple and
can be solved easily with Affirmative Action.
Next, DeVaughn uses pathos appeal, in conversation with his overarching
analogy, to emotionally connect the reader to this issue. First, he uses logos
appeal in citing concrete statistics to clearly demonstrate past inequity in
American society. Then, DeVaughn uses his analogy by equating a lack of
opportunity to obstacles in the race to the finish line. With the analogy,
he employs pathos appeal by saying blacks could not make something of
themselves because of these obstacles, moving the reader to imagine black
youths metaphorical struggle to overcome an insurmountable obstacle.
This imagery pulls on the heartstrings of the reader, as they sympathize
with the blacks persistent struggle and defeat. These emotional ties--along
with the statistical corroboration of a concrete problem in society--move the

reader to desire any sort change, making him even more likely to agree with
DeVaughns proposed solution.
In order to provide a solution to the abovementioned problems, DeVaughn
utilizes logos appeal to convince the reader of the suitability of race-based
Affirmative Action as the remedy. When discussing diversity--an asserted
byproduct of race-based Affirmative Action--he highlights that by working
collaboratively, blacks and whites have the opportunity recognize the
validity of perspectives different from their own. Hence, DeVaughn makes
the obvious correlation between collaboration and students broadening
their frame of reference, leaving little room for the reader to question that
race-based Affirmative Action allows for the degradation of racial
predispositions of both black and white students.
Furthermore, DeVaughn uses syntax to employ logos appeal to further
persuade the reader of the necessity of race-based Affirmative Action. First,
he manipulates specific evidence from the U.S. National Center for
Education Services. He goes so far to even acknowledge the possible fallacy
of his data--using ethos appeal--but then uses an either-or device: but
wouldnt it be ignorant to not recognize the correlation of these statistics?
DeVaughn compels the reader to either agree or disagree with this
statement. Yet he selectively uses ignorant, thereby convincing the reader
that educated decision would be to agree with his claims. He goes on to use
statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau: In 2011 . . . reports showed that
the average income of black households was $32,000 while the average for
white households was $55,000. Black unemployment was 13.6% while
white unemployment was 6.4%; finally, 41.2% of black families were
impoverished. Playing with syntax, DeVaughn lists statistic after statistic,
making the issue seem even more severe than it did initially. Using these
rhetorical devices, DeVaughn forces the reader to further recognize the
severe economic problems in society and persuades them that race-based
Affirmative Action is the answer.
Finally, DeVaughn uses logos along with pathos appeal to drive home his
argument. He writes, But the question still remains: in a society where
there is a black president, is race-based Affirmative Action still necessary?
Here, he appeals to logic of his opposition, convincing his reader that he is
credible, for he considers all both sides of the issue. He goes on to write,
Last year, 27% of blacks in America were impoverished while 10% of
whites were impoverished. Hence, DeVaughn uses two contrasting logos
appeals to prove how the logic behind his argument is in fact more logical.
Proving that there is undoubtedly a problem, DeVaughn reinforces racebased Affirmative Action as the solution. He then compels the reader to
support this policy using his overarching analogy: [race-based Affirmative
Action] is still needed to propel society to the same finish line . . . that was
once so distant and is now right on our fingertips. Drawing on the readers

aforementioned emotional desire to grasp the finish line (or solve this
issue), DeVaughn coaxes the reader to believe race-based Affirmative
Action will allow for the riddance of ingrained assumptions and economic
inequity, invigorating society with multifaceted perspectives and economic
balance--allowing us all to grasp the finish line he deems so inherent to our
prosperity.
DeVaughns goal seems clear: to prove that race-based Affirmative Action is
a just process, as it engenders insightful citizens and an economically
equitable society. By employing many rhetorical devices in conversation
with another, DeVaughn asks the reader to imagine, sympathize, and
critically think--creating a strong argument for the support of race-based
Affirmative Action.