Learning to write in college

 What does a college writing course do for students? 

For many African American students, it marks an early experience of "choose the White way, or fail," a genre of experience that college is full of. 

The chapter on college writing instruction in On African-American Rhetoric emphasizes that often in these classes, writing is seen as a strangely uncontextualized phenomenon. Comp/Rhet classes have, they point out, been "proponents of a prescriptive, analytic paradigm in which the focus is on finished texts and textual features with little regard for the circumstances of their creation."

What will these young people face in college? 

Which is ridiculous. To look at a text without studying the conditions of the writer - in a writing class - is to miss 90% of the piece. Maybe the whole piece. My vehemence on this issue is based in my experience reading Their Eyes Were Watching God in high school, when I didn't understand the circumstances of that text's creation at all, and could not understand the power of Zora Neale Hurston's use of vernacular language. In fact I was snobby about it - thinking that she didn't really know how to write very well. 

The authors in this chapter advocate for writing pedagogy that is intersectional - inviting students to use what they have, all the tools of expression they possess, to respond to a moment or task. 

The debate about whether a black student needs to master "Standardized" (White, elite) English strikes me as a variation or a subcategory of the integration debate. "Can we do this 'language' and 'expression' thing (rhetoric) on our own, or is there much to be gained by dropping it and adopting the colonizer's language? 

This is a debate relevant to my students in Utah, who were language learners, and had to face daily the fact that as they acquired more English, their mastery of home languages, and the viability of those languages, diminished. What is lost there? What is gained when they are able to fill out a job application or submit a resume that is comprehensible and sufficiently "educated" sounding to get a job? Well, quite a bit is gained - the ability to earn an income and be seen as a functioning member of our capitalist society. 

In November 1971 the CCCC (Conference on College Composition and Communication) issued a statement that supported students' use of their own language in schools: 

We affirm the students' right to their own language - the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style. Language scholars long ago denied that the myth of a standard American dialect has any validity. The claim that any one dialect is unacceptable amounts to an attempt of one social group to exert its dominance over another. Such a claim leads to false advice for speakers and writers, and immoral advice for humans. A nation proud of its diverse heritage and its cultural and racial variety will preserve its heritage of dialects. We affirm strongly that teachers must have the experiences and training that will enable them to respect diversity and uphold the  right of students to their own language. 

The point about teacher training is key. It's as central as any other kind of anti-racist training. Teacher training programs throughout the country need to tell white pre-service teachers that their students do not need to speak in a White way to pass the class, and certainly not to write well. 

Speaking of teacher training, I remember reading something when I was in grad school about how the value and legitimacy of language lay in how well it conveyed an idea. That makes me think of how in college, my economics professor would sometimes assign us long readings, then when we came into class, say "Well, they make it very long and complicated in the article, but what he's saying is simple if you think of it in intuitive terms" and proceed to explain the salient points of the article. 

This always annoyed me because I had spent ages reading what was actually poor writing because it did so little to address its audience, and to consider the explanations that might help us grasp their points (the intuitive terms my professor used)

So, yes, the authors of OAAR quote Geneva Smitherman (whom I immediately am inspired by) saying: 

Geneva Smitherman

Communicative competence, quite simply, refers to the ability to communicate effectively. At this point, however, all simplicity ends. For to be able to speak or write with power is a very complex business, involving a universe of linguistic choices and alternatives. Such a speaker or writer must use language that is appropriate to the situation and the audience. He or she must be able to answer such questions as : who can say what to wom, under what conditions? who is my audience? what assumptions can I make about that audience? What are its interests, concerns, range of knowledge? in a given act of speaking or writing, what examples or details will fit best and where?... I am here talking about the aspects of communication such as content and message, style, choice of words, logical development, analysis and arrangement, originality of thought and expression, and so forth. Such are the real components of language power, and they cannot be measured or mastered by narrow conceptions of "correct grammar."

I especially like the question, 'What are its interests, concerns, range of knowledge?' This is a question that every teacher should ask about her students too, before developing curricula. 

Smitherman's student and protege Elaine Richardson refers to today's literacy models as "White supremacist and capitalist based literacy instruction made plain - its emphasis on detachment, objectivity, positivism, conformity, and a mythic meritocracy. 

She uses the term "field dependency" to describe the character of African American literacy. Field dependency is "involvement with and immersion in events and situations; personalizing phenomenon; lack of distance from topics and subjects." 

This is so fascinatingly different from the typical western anthropologists "objective" gaze on an object of study. 

Richardson's data show that when students don't have to worry about matching the dominant language standard, they write more, flow better, make fewer errors, and have better arguments. I have found the same thing with students, and thus do not believe in sentence starters so favored at my school. 

I want to mention that they quote Curtis Campell, saying "our personal lives are in fact arguments, are embedded in argument." This is true, I think for everyone, but we call this "incorrect" when it comes from non-white students. 

My favorite quote in the chapter is, "We should prepare students for societal change, not merely to fit in." I like this because people often counter my ideas about writing instruction by saying "They will need to know this to get a job." Which is true, and of course students need to know how to communicate with potential and current bosses. 

Students need to be prepared for changing media forms and requirements. They need to know how to use the tools they have to do all those things that Smitherman notes: namely, respond to an audience. 

Carmen Kynard points out that getting curricula to reflect the identities of the students has never been sufficiently done by well meaning White teachers. She reminds us that "well-meaning activist students of color were the most important factor in the development of writing pedagogy responsive to their needs.

There is a section about the need for writing instruction to become intersectional too, to include and honor Queer expression. If we don't teach an awareness of intersectionality in writing classes, students won't be able to write about it in their other classes.