Opposing “both sides”: Rhetoric, reproductive rights, and control of a campus women's center

SynopsisWe analyze the rhetoric that high-level administrators used to justify control over a campus women's center's mission statement and programming related to reproductive rights. Appealing to valued cultural abstractions (“both sides,” “tolerance”) and the conventional reification of “The Law,” administrators' rhetorical moves obscured their power, legitimated their decisions, and positioned themselves as magnanimous. We also highlight the ideological codes—what “everyone knows”—that administrators relied on to shape the terms of debate and to bend to right-wing pressures without appearing to do so. We conclude with recommendations for challenging the seemingly benign cast of “both sides.”

► We analyze rhetorical moves used to control a campus women's center's programming. ► We examine ideological codes used to shape the debate and obscure power. ► Giving all sides of an issue is impossible and unhelpful for progressive change. ► We suggest an alternative frame to the seemingly benign cast of “both sides.”