Both Glen Le Santo and the author of the letter seem, nevertheless, to agree that the school’s view that only those of an Asian culture can wear nose rings is ‘stuffy’. While the author moves on from that point to criticise Tara’s methods of dealing with the situation, Glen continues this concept, arguing that nose piercing is a ‘fashion thing’ for every race.
B. During the article ‘School bars over nose stud’ two people are presented as attempting to communicate their opinions on the subject of a teenage girl being banned from her school due to her nose stud.
Tara Le Santo’s father, Glen, publicises his beliefs on the subject using strong language that creates a fierce, supportive backing to his daughter ‘We are making a stand against all this old fashioned crap’. However, his use of ‘we’ rather than merely saying ‘she’ shows that he is willing to assist her in her protest. He also describes how he spoke to his daughter’s head teacher, showing that he wants to deal with the situation decently, thus helping him to gain support from the article’s readers, and to communicate his point clearly and directly.
His methods of communication differ greatly however, from those of the anonymous letter author, who writes his epistle in a factual informative tone, using other knowledge to support his declarations. For example, after he writes that ‘the time that a British headmaster concedes any ‘rights’ to fourteen-year-olds would be the time to emigrate’, he continues to describe how fourteen to sixteen year olds have murdered their headmasters in the past. This shows that he has fully researched his ideas, and the evidence that he provides, he provides in a concise and powerful manner.
Unlike the author of the included letter, Glen Le Santo fails to provide any evidence of his claims that the school is playing a ‘power game’, or that Asian nose piercing is a ‘fashion thing’. His imprecise accusations make them appear less convincing, and wording like ‘fashion thing’ does not aid his argument. Glen Le Santo’s tone does not vary however throughout his statement, appearing both supportive and vexed by the commotion raised by the nose piercing that his was ‘happy to pay for’.
The factual manner of the anonymous letter writer does not falter, showing by his patronising tone that he shows Tara no sympathy during her stand. He continues to treat the teenagers he writes about condescendingly, throughout his letter calling them ‘tykes’ and ‘hoodlums’. The letter is ended with a powerful statement that ‘the one mistake our ancestors never made was to allow fourteen-year-olds to pretend they had any rights’. This expresses his feelings on the subject exactly and in a well-communicated fashion, as he refers to history as evidence of his claims, while criticising the Le Santos using objective criticism.
C. ‘Punk rules the staff room’ describes how nose piercing in teachers is becoming increasingly popular, mentioning how the ‘adornment commonly associated with the 1970’s punk movement’ is entering Britain’s staffrooms at the same time that ‘traditional dress’ is becoming more common. It appears to have been written with the purpose of gaining a negative reaction from its readers, as Ungoed-Thomas, the author, uses language like ‘controversial’, and relates the accessory to ‘punk’; a concept that is not generally welcomed for teachers and teenagers alike.
However, unlike in the article titled ‘School bars over nose stud’, the feature does not include any direct criticism of nose piercing, instead including positive quotes like ‘ it is a groovy thing to do’, and the author’s own description of a teacher’s nose stud ‘glistening in the morning light’. These positive quotes are intermingled with the language written to evoke a negative reaction, to create an almost unbiased article. The article has similarly been written in a factual tone, which allows none of the author’s own judgement or opinions on the subject of teachers with nose studs to be included.
This contrasts with ‘School bars over nose stud’, which has been written to describe a fourteen-year-old girl’s stand against her suspension, with came after she pierced her nose with her father’s support, and will be outstanding until she ‘removes her stud during school hours’. This article is made up in majority of quotes from the fourteen-year-olds father, and quotes from the headmaster. The former of which is primarily insulting the school, and their policies. The large percentage of the statements made by Glen Le Santo are supportive of his daughter, often using subjective criticism of the school, as he is unable to express what is taking place without including his emotions on the matter. Although the article does include some statements from the headmaster explaining the school’s policies and the actions that they felt were necessary, the statements themselves are factual unemotional pieces, which are not strong enough to present an equal argument to Glen Le Santo.
The language used by Glen Le Santo is predominantly opinion, and as it is his statement that fills much of the article, the result is that the degree of bias within the article is high, unlike the factual, informative piece written by Ungoed-Thomas on fashion-conscious teachers.
