English 493 Genre Portfolio: Maryland General Assembly Bill

Testimony
Jenna Bachman
December 9, 2017
 Table of Contents

2 – Portfolio Introduction
3 – Introduction to Texts within Genre Norms
4 – Texts within Genre Norms
7 – Introduction to Texts at Play with Norms
8 – Texts at Play with Norms
11 – Appendix: Advisor Feedback

1
 Introduction
Justice is a concept often treated as a universal and static. What constitutes “justice,”
however, has changed significantly over time, highlighting its cultural fluidity. For my research
paper, I investigated how bill testimonies, the documents that introduce a bill to a legislature,
present justice to gain a better understanding of the current cultural consensus on the concept. I
had initially assumed that the norms I identified would be easily transferable to my sample texts,
but I experienced far more difficulty than I expected, impressing on me the experience it takes to
translate research to writing.
In my research paper, I argued that the simple description of bills in testimonies reflected a
perception of justice that promoted it as a universal concept that applied to everyone equally. My
aim in this portfolio was to show how testimonies would look in a context that promoted an
individual understanding of justice and considered mitigating factors before implementing
punishment. HB 555, the first example in both sections, is the testimony I most tried to do this
in; I experienced the most challenges drafting this testimony.
My initial drafts of the testimony for HB 555 changed salient details of the bill in order to
reflect the concept of justice I was trying to evoke. The original bill for the “Within Norms”
section would have implemented the same punishment regardless of situation, while the original
bill for the “Outside Norms” section would have allowed the judge to make individual decisions
about punishment. After feedback from my advisor (see Appendix A), however, I realized that
changing the bills themselves did not allow me to adequately examine the rhetorical strategies of
testimony.
To correct this, I devised a bill that would allow a rhetor with either a collective or
individual perception of justice to highlight aspects of it in their testimony—this bill combined
aspects of both perceptions by allowing one universal punishment but changing that punishment
based on locational factors. Though each bill may be more centrist than it would be in a real-
world context, it allowed me to better explore how two rhetors can create arguments about the
same bill. Writing this testimony in particular taught me how far-reaching the concept of justice I
am manipulating is—it impacts what bills are actually created, something I did not anticipate
when I wrote my research paper.
Additionally, I struggled with writing the testimonies within norms because the
testimonies are so dependent on the bills themselves. Consequently, I had to write the texts on
absurd topics, like motor scooters being allowed on campus, and found it much more difficult
than I expected to translate the genre norms to these subjects. This taught me the importance of
understanding the nuances of genre norms—it allows the writer to adapt them to any situation.
Overall, my experience writing these sample testimonies has allowed me to greater
appreciate how pervasive socially-informed genre norms are, and how important it is to
understand such norms in order to reproduce them for any context.

2
 Writing within Genre Norms
I designed the following testimonies to evoke what I labeled a “conservative” presentation
of justice in my research paper—that is, a presentation of justice that does not allow secondary
factors to be considered in the application of punishments or rewards. In the testimonies that
follow, I replicated these trends in testimonies on campus-related topics to clearly demonstrate
how the norms function.
In my research paper, I observed two classes of bills—“victim bills,” which aim to more
strictly punish perpetrators of crimes and/or make the criminal process easier for victims of
crime, and “perpetrator bills,” which aim to lessen the punishments for certain offenses. Because
“victim bills” were much more common, two of the three samples I wrote followed that format
(HB555 and HB333). HB444 is designed to represent “perpetrator bills.”
Though these bills have different end goals, the legislators testifying in support of them
used similar strategies. The largest difference was in the ways the testimony responded to law
enforcement to establish their ethos—legislators promoting victim bills tend to emphasize law
enforcement’s support for the bill, while those promoting perpetrator bills tend to explain how
their bill has changed in response to law enforcement’s concerns.
I replicated these patterns in the bill testimonies below. In HB 555, for instance, I
highlighted the support of “campus rangers,” meant to represent law enforcement, while in HB
444, I demonstrated how the bill responded to the concerns of “dining hall staff,” the governing
body in this situation. The other slight difference is that testimony on victim bills tends to
include a personal story about the victim to further justify its passage, while it was less common
in perpetrator bills. To replicate this, I included the personal story of a “victim” (Lisa Johnson) in
the testimony for HB555.
The most universal trend I observed in testimonies was the explanation of the bill as
simple and common sense, furthering the presentation of justice as easily understandable—
something that cannot happen if a bill takes into consideration mitigating factors. To replicate
this, I tried to use varying rhetorical strategies to frame the bills as “simple” and “common
sense.” I did this in several ways—from using the word “simply” (HB555) to using an analogy
(HB333). In doing so, I hope to echo the cultural perception of justice as a straightforward
concept that is easily explained.

3
 House Bill 555
Squirrels—Punishment Zoning for Unlicensed Trashcan Diving by Squirrels

Testimony of Delegate Terp Doe

February 8, 2018

Good afternoon Chairman Vallario and members of the Judiciary Committee. It is a pleasure to
bring before you House Bill 555. This bill would designate specific trashcan zones as “sensitive
areas” and increase the punishments for squirrels who dive in those areas without a license.

The current penalty for unlicensed trashcan diving is two hundred acorns. Despite this, however,
many squirrels still continue to dive, especially on college campuses. On the University of
Maryland’s campus, the number of citations for unlawful trashcan diving has only decreased by
five percent since the initial fine was implemented.

Simply put, trashcan diving poses too much of a risk to pedestrians to allow it to continue. For
instance, Lisa Johnson, a sophomore on the way to her physics final at Maryland, was so
shocked by a squirrel leaping out of a trashcan that she was unable to focus during her exam and
had to retake the course the next semester. Something must be done to stop this irreparable harm
from occurring.

HB 555 would zone college campuses and other high pedestrian areas as “sensitive areas” and
triple the fines given to every squirrel who dives there. This would give would equal punishment
to all those who engage in this practice and serve as a deterrent to prevent innocent civilians
from being harmed.

I spoke with a number of campus rangers to develop this policy. Many of them expressed their
belief that the punishments were too lenient to deter squirrels away from the food-rich trashcans
on campuses, and said that they would like to see stricter punishments implemented, especially
in areas that see many pedestrians. Both the campus rangers and the district attorneys we spoke
to are very much in favor of this bill.

I urge you to support HB 555 so that we can keep our pedestrians safe. Thank you.

4
 House Bill 444
University Dining Halls—Acquisition of Trays

Testimony by Delegate Terp Doe

February 21, 2018

Hello Chairman Vallario and members of the Judiciary Committee. It is my pleasure to bring
before you today House Bill 444, which would end the discriminatory practice that forbids
University of Maryland students from obtaining trays in the dining hall until after they have
acquired food.

At a recent town hall, many of my constituents voiced their concern about the unnecessary
prohibition on trays. Many told stories of dropping their food, leaving their valuables unattended,
and burning their hands on the bottom of hot plates. Dining halls are places where students
should enjoy their meals, not risk theft and personal injury. HB444 would restore peace of mind
to university dining hall patrons by ending the ban on trays at the beginning of meals.

The written testimony provided by the university dining hall staff argues this bill would result in
more food waste, risking the university’s green reputation. To address these concerns, I have
amended the bill to require that patrons only have one plate and one drink on their tray at a time.
Additionally, trays will reduce the amount of food students drop on the way to their seats,
allowing the university to continue pursuing environmentally friendly practices.

While dining hall patrons are forbidden from the early use of trays, dining hall employees can
frequently be observed bringing their plates back to the seating area on trays. This bill is
designed to correct this inequality and ensure that the law applies equally to all dining hall
patrons.

I ask for your favorable report on HB444. Thank you.

5
 HB333
Banning Motor Scooters on Campus Sidewalks

Testimony of Delegate Terp Doe

January 24, 2018

Good afternoon Chairman Vallario and members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to introduce HB333, which would outlaw the use of motor scooters
on campus sidewalks.

The idea for this bill came from a conversation I had with university police officers, who told me
that though they often witness students driving scooters in unsafe manners on sidewalks, they
have no way to punish these individuals. This consequently allows such behavior to continue,
leading to unsafe conditions for pedestrians.

Simply put, motor scooters pose too great a risk to pedestrians to allow them to continue to be
used on sidewalks. Sidewalks are not supposed to be dangerous. Yet motor scooters are openly
allowed on campus sidewalks, despite the fact that they can reach sixty miles per hour, the speed
limit on many major highways. No one would classify a walk along I-95 as a safe, leisurely
activity—so why do universities make exceptions for motor scooters?

HB333 aims to create a safer environment for every person on Maryland’s college campuses by
requiring motor scooters to be driven on the road. Under this bill, driving a motor scooter on
campus sidewalks would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $500 fine, giving
university police officers the enforcement mechanisms they need to continue keeping pedestrians
on our State’s campuses safe.

It is common sense that if something goes as fast as a car, it belongs on the streets, not the
sidewalk. Therefore, I ask for your favorable report on HB333.

6
 Writing outside Genre Norms
The three testimonies that follow are on the same bills as the testimonies I wrote for the
previous section. As my focus is on how justice is constructed, I wanted to keep the content the
same to best demonstrate how changing the rhetorical appeals can evoke a different
understanding of the concept of justice.
Each of the three testimonies is designed to change at least one aspect of how testimonies
evoke justice. In the testimony for HB555, my aim was to reverse the trend in which legislators
present their bill as “simple” because it is applicable to everyone, implying that justice is one-
size-fits-all. To counter this, I adapted the bill testimony to evoke the importance of the
situational nature of the bill, which allows for different punishments for different perpetrators.
I also manipulated the norm of personal stories to demonstrate how they could be used in
a judicial system that values rehabilitation and seeks to understand why crimes are committed.
As described earlier, personal stories were often used in victim bills to highlight the need for a
law that applies to all similar situations. In the testimony for HB 555, I used the contrasting
stories of Sandy and Chester to demonstrate how unjust the same law could appear when applied
to two very different individuals. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate the faults with the
conception of justice as one-size-fits-all.
Another norm I analyzed in my paper was the tendency for legislators to stress law
enforcement’s opinion of the bill to build their ethos—for victim bills, legislators were
emphasizing their support, while legislators sponsoring perpetrator bills were often emphasizing
how they adapted the bill to meet law enforcement’s objections. When I wrote HB444 within the
genre norms, I included a section that reversed the norms of the latter argument type—rather
than adapt their bill, the legislator ignores their advice.
The testimony for HB333 aims to appeal to a personal notion of justice, rather than
justice for the collective good. While I did not expressly examine this norm in my paper, it is one
implicitly underlying all of the testimonies I examined—every legislator appealed to overarching
conceptions of justice to present their argument as common sense, suggesting that they believe
their audience views justice that way. To do this, I switched the logos appeal I used in the
previous section—public safety—to a selfish one (scooters are annoying).
While I do not believe the last two changes are feasible in practice, as law enforcement
can provide valuable insights into judicial issues, and government should create legislation based
on issues that are serious, I would like to see the first change implemented. As I tried to
demonstrate in my first example, providing the same punishments for crime regardless of
situational factors can result in its own injustice—two people with vastly different motives
receiving identically harsh consequences. Because of this, I would like to see testimony—and
consequently, bills—that result in a situational interpretation of justice to prevent this inequality.

7
 House Bill 555
Squirrels— Punishment Zoning for Unlicensed Trashcan Diving by Squirrels

Testimony of Delegate Terp Doe

February 8, 2018

Good afternoon Chairman Vallario and members of the Judiciary Committee, it is a pleasure to
bring before you House Bill 555. This bill would designate specific trashcan zones as “sensitive
areas” and increase the punishments for squirrels who dive in those areas without a license.

The current penalty for unlicensed trashcan diving is two hundred acorns. Despite this, however,
many squirrels still continue to dive, especially on college campuses. On the University of
Maryland’s campus, the number of citations for unlawful trashcan diving has only decreased by
five percent since the initial fine was implemented.

Trashcan diving poses a great risk to pedestrians, who are often scarred by the shock of seeing
squirrels leap out of trashcans when they are finished diving. That said, there are some legitimate
reasons squirrels trashcan dive, and punishing them too severely would be a gross injustice.

I spoke to seven different squirrels who had been detained by campus rangers, and each gave a
different reason for their behavior, from lack of food to pure boredom. Sandy Cheeks’ story was
particularly heartbreaking—her husband passed away last fall and she has been trashcan diving
to feed their seven children. Chester Chesnutt, however, said he regularly dives on college
campuses for “the thrill” of scaring pedestrians. Clearly, these two squirrels should not be
punished in the same way.

HB 555 aims to strike a balance between balancing the safety of pedestrians and the needs of
squirrels, by only implementing the strictest punishments in areas where pedestrians are most at
risk. When I spoke to Sandy, she was in support of this measure, saying that it would allow her
to continue diving near her quiet neighborhood street without fear of debilitating punishments.
But it will deter squirrels like Chester, allowing our pedestrians to feel safe again.

Therefore, I urge your favorable report on HB555. Thank you.

8
 House Bill 444
University Dining Halls—Acquisition of Trays

Testimony by Delegate Terp Doe

February 21, 2018

Hello Chairman Vallario and members of the Judiciary Committee. It is my pleasure to bring
before you today House Bill 444, which would end the discriminatory practice that forbids
University of Maryland students from obtaining trays in the dining hall until after they have
acquired food.

At a recent town hall, many of my constituents voiced their concern about the unnecessary
prohibition on trays. Many told stories of dropping their food, leaving their valuables unattended
to get something they couldn’t carry, and burning their hands on the bottom of hot plates. Dining
halls are places where students should enjoy their meals, not risk theft and personal injury.
HB444 would restore peace of mind to university dining hall patrons by ending the ban on trays
at the beginning of meals.

I understand that the dining hall staff has submitted testimony in opposition to this bill. As we
know, they fail to understand the day-to-day struggles of students. Their testimony further
demonstrates how out-of-touch they are—they talk about protecting the university’s green
reputation but fail to consider the food waste they have allowed by forcing students to carry
plates that they could drop. Furthermore, they speak from a position of privilege—they are
allowed to carry trays to retrieve food, demonstrating how unfairly this law is implemented.

Today, you have the chance to restore peace of mind to innocent college students, many of
whom have no choice but to eat at these dining halls. The prohibition on trays results in a
miserable experience that forces them to risk injury. By passing HB444, you will send a clear
signal that students, not dining hall staff, are the ones who best understand what makes for a
good dining experience.

Therefore, I ask for your favorable report on HB444. Thank you.

9
 HB333
Banning Motor Scooters on Campus Sidewalks

Testimony of Delegate Terp Doe

January 24, 2018

Good afternoon Chairman Vallario and members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to introduce HB333, which would outlaw the use of motor scooters
on campus sidewalks.

The idea for this bill came from a conversation I had with university police officers, many of
whom described the scooters as “just really annoying.” They detailed how, despite their
obnoxious sound and the rudeness of everyone who rides them, current campus policy does not
allow them to punish individuals who drive them on campus sidewalks.

Simply put, motor scooters disrupt everyone’s relaxation far too much to be allowed on the
sidewalk. Scooters can make noises that are much louder than the volume from cars, so why do
we allow them in the same place as people who just want to listen to their headphones? Walking
across campus should be a leisurely activity, but when those rude motor scooter drivers rev their
engines as they blow past pedestrians, walking becomes just another irritating part of the day.

HB333 would establish a $500 fine for motor scooter drivers who operate their vehicles on
campus. At the judge’s discretion, this fine could be increased for drivers who engage in
particularly obnoxious behavior, like weaving through pedestrians to make sure everyone hears
how expensive their new engine was. In this way, peace and quiet can be restored to pedestrians
on campus.

It is common sense that the sidewalk should be at least one place where individuals can relax. I
ask for your favorable report on HB333. Thank you.

10
Appendix: Advisor Feedback

11