Every student has had to write a paper at some point in their educational career. In the attempt to lengthen their work scholars tend to use "abstract and vague  language that doesn't add meaning to their piece (381). This problem is further analyzed by Northern Illinois University English professors Philip Eubanks and John D. Schaeffer, in the article "A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing . The authors examine writing, particularly in the humanities, and convey that the use of this specific jargon in academic writing can confuse and repulse readers. This article serves as a response to Harry Frankfurt's essay "On Bullshit , which was published by Princeton University Press to tremendous popularity. The philosophic essay aims to provide reader with a theoretical understanding of meaningless academic writing. In their article, Eubanks and Schaeffer argue that the issue lies in the misinterpretation of the term and work to provide "a careful definition  of it (372). The article offers effective insight to the problem of meaningless rhetoric in academia with the use of a sarcastic and judgmental tone, appeals to credibility, and by directly engaging a specific audience.
Certainly, the tone is a critical aspect in any written piece. In this case the authors use a sarcastic tone while expanding on Frankfurt's ideas in order to convey a disbelieving timbre about his initial thoughts. Namely, by arguing that "our culture often singles out academe as the mother lode of bullshit , the authors use a sneering tone to set up a funny atmosphere (374). They then follow to reiterate their mockery when acknowledging that, "for many non-academics, academic writing is not just bullshit but bullshit of the worst kind  (381). By making such statements, the authors judge and create a sense of hopelessness towards academic writing. In addition, it's specified that "academic bullshit may bear no relationship to what is true ...