Annika Wahlsten

807

11-5-14

Non-Fiction Critical Analysis

The article, “From the Department of Petty Controversies: Schools Cancel Halloween.” Is about the absurd schools that have decided to cancel halloween festivities in school. The author Nick Gillespie goes into how flawed and illogical the reasoning for these bans are. Some of the schools reasoning for banning festivities are safety hazards and insensitivity. Nick Gillespie although has a strong argument has a very strong bias making his article less logical.

 Gillespies claims the schools “small minded” approach to banning Halloween activities in school are “vague concerns” without reasonable reasoning. For example in the text the author quotes, “Consider Sporting Hill Elementary School in Pennsylvania. Earlier this month, the school sent parents a note explaining that wearing Halloween costumes was was canceled because, well, you know, “safety is a top priority.” A spokesperson further explained, “We recognize that the education about, and celebration of, seasonal festivals is an important aspect of the elementary setting…[but] we must do so in a manner that is safe and appropriate for all children.” You’d think it would be easy enough to craft basic guidelines on what’s safe – only fake blood, no trailing ghost or ghoul fronds that might get tripped on– but such a simple task is apparently beyond the powers that be in Sporting Hill.” The author clearly shows the flawed reasoning in this quote. The evidence is presented to show the ridiculousness of these schools argument. The author also shows the other aspect of the schools argument which is that Halloween is highly offensive to religions.

The author shows a lot of bias in this article. For example in the vocabulary and word choice clearly expresses the author's opinion on the issue. Using words like small minded, killjoy, loftier, and obtuse the author shows clear disdain in the vote to ban Halloween activities in schools. For example in the article Gillespie quotes, “Given the heated arguments even over something as ultimately inconsequential as celebrating Halloween,” The definition for inconsequential is something of no significance, the author is calling the other argument of no significance representing clear bias. Another example in the text is, “In the latest example of small-mindedness plaguing our educational system, schools around the country are attempting to ban costumes and candy on what is surely one of most kids’ favorite days of the year.” Making the kids to be victims and explaining the issue as ignorant people banning something harmless that children love is all the authors bias.

This article has many good points, but would be a lot more convincing if there was less bias. This piece is mostly opinion rather than actual fact. The author has a clear claim that banning halloween festivities is ridiculous and unethical. This piece has taught me claim is very important but if there isn't strong evidence and far too much bias the piece becomes lacking.