In 2014, the Journal of American History published eighteen articles based on original, primary-source research. Their first sentences, taken together, show what scholarly historians and their editors like to see in a lede.
The New York Times reports on a study arguing that Supreme Court justices fail to read amicus briefs with sufficient attention to the sources they cite.
In a 2011 decision about the privacy rights of scientists who worked on government space programs, Justice Alito cited an amicus brief to show that more than 88 percent of American companies perform background checks on their workers.
“Where this number comes from is a mystery,” Professor Larsen wrote. “It is asserted in the brief without citation.”
In a 2012 decision allowing strip searches of people arrested for even minor offenses as they are admitted to jail, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cited an amicus brief to show that there are an “increasing number of gang members” entering the nation’s prisons and jails. The brief itself did little more than assert that “there is no doubt” this was so.
Liptak, Adam. “Seeking Facts, Justices Settle for What Briefs Tell Them.” New York Times, September 1, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/us/politics/the-dubious-sources-of-some-supreme-court-facts.html.
Note: I did not read the original study. But I’d like to think that Professor Larsen is less obviously partial than the authors of amicus briefs.
Radley Balko offers examples of the way police departments avoid active verbs, the active voice, and human subjects of sentences “to publicly deflect responsibility for police shootings.”
- “A deputy-involved shooting occurred.”
- “The innocent McKay family was inadvertently affected by this enforcement operation.”
- “The deputy’s gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child.”
Balko notes that police departments have no trouble writing clearly when they want to assign blame to a suspect: “The suspect produced a semi-automatic handgun and fired numerous times striking the victim in the torso.”
[Balko, Radley. “The Curious Grammar of Police Shootings.” Washington Post, 14 July 2014.]
Gretchen Morgenson, “A Vow to End Hollow Nods and Salutes” The New York Times, June 7, 2014:
Another disturbing aspect of the culture at G.M. was the “formal training” the company gave to employees writing about safety issues. A 2008 presentation, for example, warned employees to write “smart.”
What did writing smart mean? Words such as “problem” and “defect” were banned. Employees should instead use softer words — “issue,” “condition” or “matter.” Rather than write about a “defect,” employees should note that the car “does not perform to design.”
Sometimes entire sentences were forbidden, according to the report. “Dangerous … almost caused accident,” was off limits, for example, as was, “This is a safety and security issue. …” Finally, employees were advised not to use phrases such as “tomblike” and “rolling sarcophagus.”
This manipulation of language reminded me of George Orwell’s incisive 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language.” Although the focus of his essay is the bankrupt verbiage favored by politicians, Orwell could just as easily have been describing corporate-speak at G.M.
I have posted a new page, “How to Write a Prospectus.”
A dissertation prospectus is an essay arguing that you have found a research problem whose solution merits thousands of hours of your time; hundreds of hours of the time of your various advisors and committee members as well as that of librarians, archivists, and other people of good will; and, if you are lucky, some public or foundation funds toward your research expenses. Though the dissertation you complete will likely differ significantly from the one you conceive, you should be able at least to sketch out a viable project before attempting to write one.
Comments appreciated as always.
I have posted a new page, “How to Write an Outline.”
An outline should organize a long work into smaller sections and highlight the major findings of a body of research.