“The Queen is never late, everybody else is simply early.”- Queen Clarisse in Princess Diaries 2screen-shot-2016-09-28-at-3-10-15-pm

Root sentence: “the queen is never late”

The other words are there to support her main claim: “the queen is never late.”

In the root sentence, “the queen” is the main subject and “is” is the main verb.

Jobs of the other words:

  •  ” everybody else”: noun that differentiates everyone else from the queen
  • “is”: verb which pertains to the noun “everybody else”
  • “simply early” adjective that describes how “everybody else” arrives

My sentence: I did not take too much time, everybody else just did not take enough



Picture link:

“The Princess Diaries 2 Gifs”, Tumblr, https://www.tumblr.com/search/the%20princess%20diaries%202%20gifs




While legislators, lawmakers and judges “fail to find fault with physical acts of exclusion,” Sarah Schindler argues that “the built environment has been used to keep certain segments of population—typically poor people and people of color—separate from others” (1939). In Schindler’s article, “Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation Through Physical Design of the Built Environment,” the author acknowledges that she and the government agree that architecture segregates, however, the law claims the exclusionary effects are “innocuous” (1939). Schindler disagrees and asserts that suburbs and cities were intentionally constructed to discriminate against lower class citizens. In this context, the word architecture includes, “civil engineering, city planning, urban design, and transit routing and infrastructure” (Schindler 1940). Schindler writes this persuasive article in order to grab the attention of the they sayers and “offer examples of architectural exclusion with the hope that citizens, legislators, administrators and legal scholars will look for ways to accommodate more effectively the exclusionary effects of design decisions” (1941).



Image of a truck getting stuck under one of Moses’ short overpasses

Although Schindler proclaims that the government fails to acknowledge the problem of exclusion in built environments because “it is difficult to show the necessary intent to discriminate” (1939), she provides examples that help make it clear that these acts of discrimination were purposely implanted to regulate relationships and society. She believes, “architectural regulation is powerful in part because it is unseen; it allows government to shape our actions without perceiving that our experience has been deliberately shaped” (Schindler 1940). The urban planner, Robert Moses, passively regulates as he builds the numerous overpasses in Long Island. He “directed that these overpasses be built intentionally low so that buses could not pass under them” (Schindler 1937), which meant that people of color and of lower class who relied on public transportation, could not enter the suburban area. Robert Moses used the bridge to regulate who could and could not come in. The people who lived in Long Island were of upper class, therefore they owned cars and could easily fit under the structure to enter their controlled public areas. The overpass acts as a gate that only allows eligible people through. Schindler proclaims that the same type of discrimination is persistent through “street grid design, one-way streets, the absence of sidewalks and crosswalks, the  location of  highways and transit stops, and even residential parking permit requirements” (1939). The lack of sidewalks in most suburbs encourages people who do not have cars to stay away from the suburbs due to the dangers of traveling by foot on the sides of streets, while the residential parking permits interdict outsiders from parking in certain areas. These examples show how the government regulates relationships so that outsiders of lower class do not socialize with people of upper class.



a park bench with armrest

Schindler also suggests that the built environment regulates behavior by prohibiting citizens from doing things that the government does not agree with. Schindler gives the example of a park bench which is divided into three seats. She says, “one might think it a simple aesthetic design decision to create a park bench that is divided into three individual seats with armrests  separating those seats. Yet the bench may have been created this way to prevent often homeless people from lying  down  and  taking  naps” (Shindler 1942). Schindler uses this example to point out that the regulations are subtle and easy to overlook, but they still have an affect on the people. Because this park bench forbids homeless people from sleeping on it, it controls the behavior of the and atmosphere of the public area by keeping it from becoming a place where groups may feel uncomfortable around homeless people.


Sara Schindler finds her argument relevant because the effects of the built environment continue to influence and discriminate against people today, hence the reason she hopes the government “will look for ways to accommodate more effectively the exclusionary effects” (1941). She wants the government to create a plan of action in order to terminate architectural discrimination which may be the same today, as it was when the environment was first built. Many suburbs are still predominantly inhabited by Caucasian Americans, while many cities and areas of less money are still primarily populated by African Americans. If the government recognizes the problem, there can be more integration and less discrimination due to architecture.



Work Cited

Schindler, Sarah. “Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation Through Physical                                                                                                                                                                                      Design of the Built Environment” 124 Yale Law Journal 1934 (2015)


Schlitt, Carol. “Why the Low Bridges on Long Island Parkways?” The Schlitt Law Firm,2010-2015, https://www.schlittlaw.com/blog/low-bridges-long-island-parkways/

“Exclusion by Design” If the River Swells, 6 Apr. 2015,



While republicans enforce extreme political involvement in a specific place, and liberals foster society and placelessness without strict regulations, David Fleming suggests in chapter two of City of Rhetoric, that the world needs “commonplaces, that can link us to one another and the earth but where we remain free and unique” (34). Commonplaces combine the positives of both liberalism and republicanism while eliminating their negative extremes. Fleming argues that we need “social spaces…that are open to hybridity, pluralism, and mobility but still allow us to make a livable world for ourselves, where we can disclose our differences to one another but also solve our shared problems” (34). In order to come to his conclusion, Fleming explains the problems with republicanism and liberalism in relationship to place, society, and individuality.

Fleming asserts that republicanism is problematic because it is “too demanding, too consuming, with insufficient protection” (25); republicans believe that politics are perhaps the most important part of everyday life. Republicanism requires face-to face interaction; Fleming observes that “development of the individual towards self fulfilment is possible only when the individual acts as a citizen , that is as a conscious and autonomous participant in an autonomous decision-taking political community, the polis or republic” (25). This means that republicans can only personally improve if they contribute to the republic and grow as a community by way of face to face interaction with other republicans. Fleming correlates this dependence on communication to the great involvement of place. He insists that he cannot imagine republicans without place, claiming that the party even depends on streets for their interactions (Fleming 27). Flemming encourages place, but he does not agree with the excessive dependence on geography as republicans do.

Concurrently, Fleming proclaims that the liberalism spread itself “too thin” (27) without any type of place or set of rules. This party is built upon involvement in society, family, church and other nonpolitical spheres. Fleming’s proposal to create common spaces, includes both liberalism and republicanism because the spaces provide a place where unique individuals can come together to discuss and solve their differences face to face. By creating a commonplace, citizens go to a specific area where they can snap in and out of their political thinking, different than the republican practice of politics all the time and the liberal practice of hardly ever discussing of politics.


Book which Fleming refers to: National Standards for Civic and Government

In Fleming’s definition of commonplaces, he demands a place where “we remain free and unique as individuals” (34). The aspect of being unique includes Fleming’s earlier argument against the National Standards for Civics and Government which proclaims that “the identity of an American citizen is defined by shared political values and principles rather than by ethnicity, race, religion, class, language, gender and national order” (20). He suggests that these standards take away the history, and “hide the struggle” (Fleming 20) that African Americans, women, and other suppressed groups faced to be able to politically participate. By adhering to the standards, one is drained of its people’s history and beliefs, while being forced to abide to the practices of their political party. This draining is especially apparent in republicanism where the regulations make for little room to be different or independent. Fleming argues, “to pretend that race, class and gender are irrelevant, or that one is “blind” to them is often just a way to favor those who allegedly have no race, class, age, sexual orientation, or gender–that is white, middle-aged, heterosexual men” (21). However, his proposition for commonplaces allows people to carry their cultural backgrounds and use them when discussing differences.

Fleming finds his argument relevant because today’s postmodern public which is founded on globalization, diaspora, and multipotentiality, does not satisfy the people because it lacks a “reliable ground on which to build ordinary political life” (31). Therefore, America needs a new form of politics which can be achieved through these social spaces where globalization can occur on a “reliable ground” along with aspects from other political parties. Overall, Fleming believes that the world needs a political party that celebrates individuality and interconnections in a specific place where comfortable face to face conversations can occur.

Work Cited

Fleming, David. “The Placeness of Political Theory.” City of Rhetoric. State University of New York Public Press, 2009, pp.19-35


“Center for Civic Education” Textbook and Beyond, 2016 http://www.textbooknbeyond.com/index.php?main_page=index&manufacturers_id=297



New York Times: “Man is Shot in Charlotte as Unrest Stretches to Second Night”:

“A second night of protests set off by the police killing of a black man spiraled into chaos and violence after nightfall here Wednesday when a demonstration was interrupted by gunfire that gravely wounded a man in the crowd. Law enforcement authorities fired tear gas in a desperate bid to restore order.”


This introduction sets a scene and communicates what happens, however, it does not follow Graff’s model for “They Say/I Say”. It lacks the “they say” because the intro does not have any quotes from someone at the protest in the introduction. Although the journalist does not directly state what he believes, he shares his opinions on the matter through the words “chaos” and “desperate”. As a reader, I know that the writer felt that the situation was hectic, and that he felt that the tear gas restored order. However, a person involved in the situation may not agree that the use of the tear gas was the last resort to “restore order”. In some ways, this opening paragraph is an example of what Graff said not to do. Do not simply state the writers argument. The lack of they say makes the writer seem biased: opposed to the situation and protective of the law enforcement.


“Nike has finally announced when it will begin selling its self-lacing sneakers inspired by the shoes worn by Michael J. Fox in Back to The Future II. According to a tweet from the company’s Heidi Burgett, the HyperAdapt 1.0 will be available for “experience & purchase” starting on the 28th of November, but only in select Nike locations in the US. Pricing is still unknown, but expect a “high price tag,” according to a wired feature on the shoe’s development.”


This introduction follows Graff’s form of they say/i say because it presents the information the writer knows along with information from a company member. This introduction is more helpful to me, as a reader, because “they” has a voice, and the writer has less of an opinion. Concurrently, I think that Graff would want a little more “I say” from the journalist.



  • “Our political philosophies should not deny these “irrational”  attachments; they are consecutive of who we are , of our very human being. –City of Rhetoric, pg.22
    • If you replaced one with another, the sentence would start off with “they” and the noun would be unclear. (Who is “they”?) If a period replaced the semicolon, the sentence wouldn’t flow as well because a period indicates a pause; the semicolon acts as the word “because” because it explains why the political philosophies should not be denied.


    • “Architectural regulation  is powerful in part because it  is unseen; it “allows government to shape our actions without  our  perceiving that our experience has been deliberately shaped.” –Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation through Physical Design of the Built Environment, pg.1940


  • The semicolon relates the sentences better than if a period was there; the semicolon connects the sentences so that the two independent clauses are one thought. If the order of the independent clauses were switched so that they sentence starts with “it”, they subject would be unclear because the sentence would start off with a pronoun.



  1. IC
    • “To make an impact on a writer, you need to do more than make statements that are logical, well supported, and consistent. You must also find a way of entering a conversation with others’ views–with something “they say”. –They Say/I Say, p.4


  • It is better to use a period here rather than a semicolon because the period means breathe because it is the end of the sentence. A semicolon would create a mouthful, feeling like a run on sentence.



  • “This is not just armchair political philosophy. There is some evidence that modern communities of 5000-10,000 total population are uniquely effective at encouraging and supporting high levels of civic involvement. City of Rhetoric, pg 47
    • The period could easily be replaced by a semicolon, especially because the first sentence is so short. The semicolon would just help the sentences connect better.