"Open Letter"

1. The argument of "Open Letter" is that it is a teacher's duty to love and respect his or her students, regardless of how annoying or frustrating they might be. The author of "Open Letter", Chris Lehmann, argues this through a critique of a teacher who was in the news for posting mean comments about her students on her blog. Lehmann argues that a teachers job is to teach kids- not only about a certain subject, but also about what it means to be a responsible adult. By acting in a way that was mean and childish, the teacher in question was failing to show children the proper way to act in situatiations that are tiresome or frustrating. Lehmann also argues that, by loving and respecting one's students, a teacher nurtures their growth and earns their respect. By insulting her students, the teacher who made the comments on her blog seriously hurt her student's self-esteem- especially because some of those students may have been working really hard on certain assignments, and were striving to acheive at something. By insulting those students, Lehmann argues, the teacher shot down those children's aspirations and goals. Lehmann argues that it is the teacher's duty to encourage aspirations and goals within children-to teach the children, not just the subject. By neglecting to do so, the teacher who posted those mean comments failed her students.

2. Lehmann argues from pathos quite often in his "Open Letter". He does this by appealing to a sense of duty that teachers have, and by using the phrase that teachers don't "teach subjects- they teach kids". He also talks about how the teacher who insulted her students let them down, and how her students had aspirations of their own, and had worked hard on things. Lehmann also uses syntax to emphasize certain points in his arguement. He does this by putting only a single sentence on one line when talking about certain points. He also does this by using hyphenes to seperate certain descriptions- such as the descriptions of the fallable nature of kids. Lehmann also argues from ethos by putting down that he is the principle at a high school, and by relating some of the frustration he and other teachers have felt towards kids. He does this in order to make him looked like an informed person who has been in the same situation as the teacher he is writing about. This also makes him sound less preachy, and more mentoring. This is to make people more reseptive to his arguement.