Keeping the names of the places and objects called after controversial individuals can be a potentially divisive issue raising strong opinions on both sides. This is why a Rogerian argument seeking to find common ground shared by all participants and find a solution based on that is a good option to approach it. Regina Rini attempts to apply it by outlining the positions of both sides but ultimately fails to identify a point that both sides could share.
After a brief introduction with reference to Romeo and Juliet, Rini begins the argument proper by describing the positions of both sides involved. First of all, she explains the reasons why contemporary people may want to re-baptize institutions named after controversial individuals from the past. As she notes, people may understandably feel uncomfortable hearing the names that commemorate outspoken racists or proponents of slavery. After that, the author outlines the position of the other side, which points out that, if taken to its logical conclusion, it would require renaming almost everything up to the country’s name. Rini represents both viewpoints fairly, which could be a good basis for developing a Rogerian argument.
However, she fails at the crucial point – identifying the common grounds that provide a mutually acceptable solution. Instead of attempting to forge a common understanding between different perspectives, she suggests accepting of the initiative to rename controversial institutions and places “as an act of civic love.” Thus, Rini’s argument does not build upon ideas shared by both sides, as a Rogerian approach would require, but simply calls for unilateral concessions by one side.
To summarize, Rini’s article attempts to utilize the Rogerian approach but ultimately fails at the task. The article’s beginning might have served well as a foundation for developing a Rogerian argument because it recognizes and outlines the positions of both sides involved with sufficient fairness and detail. However, instead of finding common grounds, Rini presumes that one side should renounce its position out of love for the other side instead of building toward a mutually acceptable solution based on shared understanding.