Introduction to Judith Goode’s Essay, Dousing the Fire or Fanning the Flames: The Role of Human Relations Practitioners in Intergroup Conflicts:
“In this literature about human conflict, little has been said about the role played by a new group of experts, the human relations specialists. These experts are usually agents of institutions of civil society such as clergy, or social service professionals such as teachers and social workers. They are charged with preventing or healing the local racial and anti-immigrant conflict which accompanies rapid, large-scale neighborhood turnover. Clergy drew their legitimacy from their moral authority while helping professionals draw theirs from presumed control of the technologies of psychological intervention to reform or educate morally flawed or “ignorant” people. There practices are based on the assumptions that racism is a problem of individuals to be eradicated through knowledge, moral reform, and/or therapeutic treatment of damaged egos. I argue that the new practices designed to treat inter-group conflict have had the unintended effect of undercutting the development of informal cross-racial local relationships.”
The introduction to this essay has a very clear they say/ I say format. The they say in this essay is that the self-proclaimed human relations experts believe that the best way to approach racism is by viewing it as something that is only found in individuals and can be dealt with through moral reform and the eradication of ignorance. The I say in this essay is that the way the human relations experts deal with racism actually negatively impacts multiracial relationships that were forming negatively. This mirrors Graff’s forms because the author of this essay first offers one common view on the issue, but then goes on to state how her own opinion differs/contradicts with this view. The author of this essay follows the templates found in Graff’s novel pretty closely actually, which ends up making her main argument even stronger.
Introduction to Marcelo M. Orozco’s essay, Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Assimilation But Were Afraid To Ask:
“Two broad concerns have set the parameters of the debate over immigration scholarship and policy in the United States and Europe: the economic and the sociocultural consequences of large-scale immigration. Recent economic arguments have largely focused on (1) the impact of large-scale immigration on the wages of native workers, (2) the fiscal implications of large-scale immigration, and (3) the redundancy of immigrants, especially poorly educated and low-skilled workers, in new knowledge-intensive economies that are far less labor-intensive than the industrial economies of yesterday. Reducing the complexities of the new immigration to economic factors can be limiting. Furthermore, we must not lose sight of the fact that the U.S. economy is so large, powerful, and dynamic that, ideologues aside, immigration will neither make nor break it.”
Just like in the last essay’s introduction, this essay on immigration’s introduction also follows the they say/I say format. In this case, this essay’s they say is that some people consider immigration as problematic because it will negatively affect the United States economy. The author of this essay counters that belief with is I say statement, which is that the United States economy is actually so large that immigration would not have a significant impact on it. This essay also very closely follows the template that Graff outlines in his book because first the author explains one belief, and then he counters it with his own belief. By following the template the author makes his essay so much stronger.