The United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country. The causes for the large number of prisoners can be traced, in part, to a politicized war on crime that resulted in harsh sentencing and high recidivism rates. Prisoner education provides the potential for slowing the revolving door of prison by helping to create engaged citizens, who are committed to bettering themselves and their communities. However, there is a paucity of support for programs such as Pell Grants, which could facilitate emancipatory education in prisons. The purpose of this work is to examine why prisoners are provided few meaningful educational opportunities while incarcerated. This study seeks to understand the genealogy of prisoner education policy through an examination of the debate surrounding the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill and its prohibition of Pell Grants for prisoners, as well as the 2008 Second Chance Act and its reentry programs. The study analyzes the ideological underpinnings of key decision makers and how their values are often embedded in the narratives of neoliberalism. In addition, the work examines elite stakeholders’ discursive attempts, both manifest and subtle, to influence and maintain social policy through the creation of legitimizing myths, including the viewpoints that prisoners are hopelessly flawed or that they have potential only as human capital. Counter-hegemonic discourse is also described. The study methods are critical discourse analysis which looks at the ways text and talk maintain inequities in society and critical policy analysis. Utilizing transcripts from legislative debates, the study analyzes the discourses of members of Congress to expose the tropes that often lie beneath the surface of the debate over prisoner education. Their rhetoric appears to generate and maintain widespread support for legislation that is frequently deleterious to marginalized out-groups. The study should add to the literature examining the role of legitimizing myths that maintain inequities in educational access.

This research project seeks to explore aspects of the post-reporting phase of the public inquiry process. Central to the public inquiry process is the concept of legitimacy and the idea that a public inquiry provides and opportunity to re-legitimate the credibility of failed public institutions. The current literature asserts that public inquiries re-legitimise through the production of authoritative narratives. As such, most of this scholarship has focused on the production of inquiry reports and, more recently, the reports themselves. However, in an era of accountability, and in the aftermath of such a poignant attack upon society, the production of a report may represent an apogee, but by no means an end, of the re-legitimation process. Appropriately, this thesis examines the post-reporting phase of the 9/11 Commission’s public inquiry process. The 9/11 Commission provides a useful research vehicle due to the bounded, and relatively linear, implementation process of the Commission’s recommendations. In little more than four months a majority of the Commission’s recommendations were passed into law. Within this implementation phase the dominant discursive process took place in the United States Congress. It is the legislative reform debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate that is the focus of this research project. The central research question is: what rhetorical legitimation strategies were employed in the legislative reform debates of the post-reporting phase of the 9/11 Commission’s public inquiry process? This study uses a grounded theory approach to the analysis of the legislative transcripts of the Congressional reform debates. This analysis revealed that proponents employed rhetorical strategies to legitimise a legislative ‘Call to Action’ narrative. Also, they employed rhetorical legitimation strategies that emphasised themes of bipartisanship, hard work and expertise in order to strengthen the standing of the legislation. Opponents of the legislation focused rhetorical de-legitimation strategies on the theme of ‘flawed process’. Finally, nearly all legislators, regardless of their view of the legislation, sought to appropriate the authoritative legitimacy of the Commission, by employing rhetorical strategies that presented their interests and motives as in line with the actions and wishes of the Commission.