Without even reading the article, the use of rhetoric becomes obvious from the name of the title. With the title such as The Problem with Diversity in Computing there is a heavy implication on the content of the article. The very first assumption that one would make is that the author is going to argue that there is a lack of diversity in the tech sector and that that is either bad, good, or neither. But, the title’s main rhetorical quality comes from The Problem with Diversity, the reader can assume that the content of the article will argue the previously mentioned lack of diversity, or that the article will discuss the idea of diversity in and of itself. Because the issue of diversity has a large presence in the cultural zeitgeist, such an inflammatory title captures the mind of the reader.
The rhetorical quality in the first few paragraphs primarily acquires a metaphorical slant. Professor Amy Webb’s inconvenience at the airport led her to notice that the computerized x-ray machine puts a yellow block over the chest of women. It is then stated that the reason for this yellow block is that the x-ray cannot detect the difference between the underwire of a bra and a legitimate weapon. This literal yellow block then acquires its metaphorical quality as it is used to represent the inconveniences of technology that underrepresented groups face. And this then leads into the point that the reason technology inconveniences underrepresented groups is because technology is primarily created by a small homogeneous group of people who do not necessarily concern themselves with the differences of underrepresented groups.
The idea of a select group creating widely used tech is then supported with the idea that “companies and educators in the tech sector have framed diversity as a “pipeline” problem.” Wherein a group with the right educational background gets the right training leading to the right college and eventually leading to top tech employers. Again, Bogost uses a metaphor to explain the ideas of diversity. However, this metaphor is not used in a serious manner to support the argument that Bogost wants to make. Instead the metaphor is primarily used to address the initial assumptions that the reader might have from reading the title. Thus with this use of the metaphor Bogost leads the reader to question their previous assumptions and to continue reading the article
After the use of the “pipeline” metaphor, Bogost begins to heavily rely on the rhetorical use of quotations in order to reveal the true meaning of the article. The first example of this is with Charles Isbell who says “is: Are we interested in diversity, or are we interested in integration?” This quotation sets up the idea that diversity in the tech sector is not just about having a wide range of backgrounds, but rather creating a diversity where people from different backgrounds have the power to influence technology. Quotations are used further to argue that the current state of diversity in technology is primarily concerned with creating a larger labor pool instead of creating diverse opinions in tech. This argument becomes presented as the “economic” argument, while the argument for giving more power to diverse peoples is presented as the “moral” argument, with the former being more compelling to tech giants. Finally a consensus is reached that in in order for tech giants to expand, they will require diversity in the positions of power. The use of these quotations and the argument that they make is a major departure from the original assumption created by the title. Using the title and the article itself Bogost is first able to draw in the reader but then presents a competing argument for something different.
Finally Webb gives her opinion, stating that everybody is inconvenienced by modern tech because the culture that surrounds tech is highly competitive and exclusive. The inconveniences of modern tech are not founded in differences of race,gender, or nationality but rather the isolated nature of the tech community. The rhetorically, the final paragraph is used to present the closing argument in complete contrast to the assumptions created by the title.