PWR 1KTB: Legal Rhetoric, Writing, and Research

Gervon Dexter signed a Name-Image-Likeness (NIL) deal while playing at the University of Florida. Per ESPN (and a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Gainesville), “Dexter, a second-round draft pick, agreed to pay Big League Advance Fund (BLA) 15% of his pre-tax NFL earnings for the next 25 years in exchange for a one-time payment of $436,485 in 2022.” Dexter was then drafted to the Chicago Bears. His four-year, $6.72 million contract thus meant a payout of over $1 million to BLA. Chip LaMarca (R-Florida House of Representatives) described Dexter's deal as a predatory loan. How is a fresh-out-of-high-school college athlete to know the implications of such contracts before signing? How does the temptation of instant gratification impact a young athlete’s decision-making? Given today’s seemingly infinite “fine print”, how do any of us really understand the contracts we enter?

Everyone is impacted by the law from speed limits and vehicle registration to rental agreements and employment contracts. In this course, you will get to dive deeper into how the language of these rules and contracts impact your own lives. The important argumentative text you will write addresses the gaps and occasional conflicts between common understanding and legal rhetoric, writing, case law, and statutes. You may incorporate into your coursework the publications we review as a class such as Legal Information Institute’s “Contracts”, Arizona State University’s “Background, Definition & Basic Principles”, and even Stanford’s “Fundamental Standard”. Excellent analyses in final course papers demonstrate understanding of the rhetorical situation: persona of authors and speakers; target audience, its expectations, and its perspectives; and purpose of the particular communication. You will be asked to consider what writers including legislators – and you as student author yourself – want to happen after the target audience reads the text.

Examples of Research Topics

For this course, you will engage in an in-depth research project spanning several weeks. Sample research topics students might pursue include: what are the implications on NIL agreements that the brain doesn't fully develop until age 25? or how can the public be better educated on the nuances of contract law? A similarly appropriate topic would be a specific argument for legislation that requires contracts to be written in a certain way, e.g., accessible language, in order that the advantage corporations hold in negotiation is leveled. Research can also focus on the data, e.g., how many people regard themselves as victimized by their medical clinic’s consent-to-use-of-personal-medical-data in research, and why does it matter?

PWR 1 Assignment Sequence

Rhetorical Analysis

(1500-1800 words; 5-6 pages) This assignment asks you to analyze the rhetorical strategies of a fewer than 3-page contract of your choice. You will analyze a contract (or partial, to comply with page limit) that particularly resonates, such as a social media agreement, course enrollment contract, or a contract you expect you will sign in the future like a credit check. You will analyze the ways in which your selection is and is not persuasive to its target audience in the manner the author intends.

Texts in Conversation 

(1800-2400 words; 6-8 pages) This assignment marks the beginning of your research project. Here, you will use your Rhetorical Analysis to guide your research and investigation of the larger research question you’d like, including by leapfrogging case law, reviewing statutes, reading law review articles, and incorporating texts from other fields like psychology, sociology, political science, and history. You’ll analyze how different sources, voices, and perspectives inform the larger conversation about your topic. To prepare for the Research-Based Argument, you will explore the major issues surrounding your unique research question. After constructing an annotated bibliography, you will write an essay that summarizes sources' arguments, puts authors’ viewpoints into dialogue with one another, and explores the questions raised. In studying these multiple perspectives, you will gain insights into the landscape your own research-based arguments will enter. You may, for example, in seeking to better understand rental applications subsequently research major influencers: municipal, state, and federal law, lobbyists, data, advocacy, activists. 

Research-Based Argument

(3600-4500 words; 12-15 pages) Your RBA is the final product of this course where your voice enters into the conversation. Here is where you’ll build on and expand the work you began with the Texts in Conversation assignment by integrating a variety of sources to produce your own complex, provocative argument as it relates to your topic. You’ll integrate and expand upon your Texts in Conversation to support your insights and may answer one of your instructor’s predesignated questions or invent your own. Examples of successful research-based arguments include how the NCAA should best educate college athletes about NIL contracts, whether social media terms of agreement should require certain opt-out options, or that a state’s medical board must offer complainants a way to share needed information but protect their medical privacy rights.