Kalie Kollmar

ENG 3003

Professor Dale Ireland

Essay 1

July 19, 2015

Is Your Hotel Information Safe?
Checking into a hotel requires giving the hotel your personal information including name, address, phone number, and credit card. But is this information that you give them protected? Caroline Levander and Matthew Pratt Guterl use two modes of persuasion in their article, Are Hotels Dangerous?, to interest or appeal to the reader, those being pathos and logos. Levander and Guteral use pathos to relate to their readers that have stayed in hotel rooms; and logos by supporting their statements with facts. Such as, when they report that in a Supreme Court decision invalidated an ordinance that requires owners of a hotel to give law officials patron information without a warrant. They do not, however, use ethos effectively because there is not efficient credibility from the authors. Levander and Guterl do not use ethos, but successfully use pathos and logos to convince the readers that hotels are more unsafe than guests realize because police can access patrons information without a reasonable cause.
Ethos refers to the credibility of a writer. Neither Levander nor Guterl, are experts or workers in the hospitality field. There is no background information about the writer that would lead the reader to trust the information that they are providing. Even though large amounts of information were provided in their Are Hotels Dangerous? article, they cannot personally provide relevant information for the reader. Caroline Levander is an English professor at Rice University, and Matthew Pratt Guterl is an Africana and American studies professor at Brown University. They are co-authors of Hotel Life: The Story of a Place Where Anything Can Happen. Despite the fact they authored a book about hotels, they are not professionals on the subject of the hotel industry. And even though they write in a professional tone and with word choice that is appropriate for the audience, they do not seem to represent enough credibility to represent ethos in their writing. Just because ethos is not present, does not mean they do not appeal to the readers using another method, such as logos.
In order to create logos, Levander and Guterl gave valuable information with a Supreme Court case. This case directly related to their disagreement on police being able to obtain patron’s information without a warrant and the general unsafety of hotels. In the case of Los Angeles vs. Patel, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on June 22, 2015, invalidating a local ordinance that was 116 years old. This local ordinance required that owners of hotels were required to give guest information, such as that provided on check-in forms, to law enforcement (with or without a warrant), (Levander & Guterl, 2015).
Levander and Guterl mentioned a two letters written by two different Supreme Court justices that were involved in the decision making process. One letter was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was part of the majority decision. She stated that it was not dangerous to the guests for law officials to request guest’s information without a warrant. The authors also included a letter written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who was part of the minority decision. This letter by Scalia, is what assisted in developing pathos. Pathos is the sympathetic imagination and the emotions that the reader can more than likely relate to. The letter by Justice Antonin Scalia was able to develop pathos because readers have more than likely stayed in a hotel before and know how much personal information is given to the front desk and the type of people certain hotels can attract depending on its location. This knowledge can cause a guest to hesitate because their information could become compromised. The letter by Justice Scalia stated that hotels are a place that “provide housing to vulnerable transient populations” and “are a particularly attractive site for criminal activity ranging from drug dealing and prostitution to human trafficking.” Hotels also offer an anonymous and private place for cheap and has allowed for “rendezvous sites where child sex workers meet their clients on threat of violence,” (Levander & Guterl, 2015). Even though these opinions differ, anyone who has stayed in a hotel can relate to the viewpoints of both Supreme Court decision makers. Segway?
Logos is also apparent in Levander’s and Guterl’s mention of the history of hotels and the struggles that many hotel owner have. Historian A. K. Sandoval-Strausz, who is the author of “Hotel: An American History,” stated that owners of a hotel have tried to keep them pure and under control. They have attempted to steer away from prostitutes, seducers, and adulterers, as well as burglars, who will come to hotels because of the temporary cover and anonymity it gives them. During the 1890’s, detective agencies would provide “wanted” posters so that hotel owners could screen their guests and notify law officials of any sightings of criminals. In the 20th century, hotels became more and more transient and became a center for vice crimes. Private rooms, especially since the 1820’s and 1830’s, have provided an opportunity for planned and chance encounters where prostitutes can search for affluent businessmen. Identity theft through pick pocketing was also common in hotels that provided high-end private rooms. The Los Angeles vs. Patel case initiated an anti-vice campaign, due to the concern of seedier hotels that promote rates by the hour, making it available for a quick hit or hookup, (Levander & Guterl, 2015). With the history of hotels being provided, a reader can have background knowledge of the subject and understand the point of view of the writers with their providing of logos. Segway?
Levander and Guterl are able to appeal and persuade readers to see their viewpoint that personal information given to hotels is more unsafe than what guests realize. Even though they were unable to provide ethos and provide their personal credibility or knowledge, they were able to provide pathos and logos to gain the readers interest and trust. The writers used pathos to communicate effectively with those who have previously stayed in hotel rooms, and used logos to support their viewpoints with facts and information with the Supreme Court Los Angeles vs. Patel case along with history of the hotel industry. Levander and Guterl have used the methods of pathos and logos to encourage readers to take their view that law enforcement should not be able to access a hotel guest’s information without a warrant and that they should consider their safety before booking a stay at a hotel.

Reference:
Levander, C., & Guterl, M. (2015, July 1). Are Hotels Dangerous? Retrieved July 19, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/opinion/are-hotels-dangerous.html?_r=0.