What passes for "good academic writing" is socially and
culturally constructed by scholars who are both narrow in their vision
and exclusionary about their club. And the terms of membership in this
club are, of course, those of acculturation; to join, one must discard
perfectly reasonable ways of thinking and communication and, in the
process, learn to disparage those ways, and pity those who cling to
them.
--Helen Fox
As a graduate student, I am working hard to break into the
discourse of writing center and composition studies theory and pedagogy.
This requires that I learn a specialized language, read and write in an
academic voice, and in general, assimilate myself within the fields.
Additionally, I am working as a tutor in a midwestern university's
writing center, and I ask for the same willingness to assimilate from
the students who visit. To help them succeed within the university
(which at a minimum means achieving passing grades), I aim to guide them
towards becoming better academic writers who can create effective,
well-organized arguments that include thesis statements, avoid the
passive voice, and adhere to countless other rules. For some students
(myself included), the move toward assimilation is like driving on a
newly paved highway on a Sunday afternoon. For others, it is a process
more similar to sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic in a construction
zone during rush hour. The difference between the two groups of
students, in part, is related to the distance between their primary
discourse and the discourses of the academy; a distance that can be tied
to race, income, class, and other social and political indicators.
As many educators and experts in the field have argued,
non-mainstream students need to acquire dominant discourses in order to
compete within the current system of power and privilege (Fox, Courts,
Delpit, Bizzell). At many colleges and universities, writing centers
function as sites to help these students assimilate, with the
aforementioned goal in mind. However, when writing centers fail to
acknowledge or question the power structure within which they operate,
they perpetuate a loyalty to the current system of domination, which can
work to eliminate diversity and difference (Bawarshi and Pelkowski,
Grimm, Vandenberg). Students of color, in particular, suffer from this
uncritical validation of academic discourses (Barron and Grimm).
RACING TOWARD A SOLUTION
With such a large gap between academic discourses and the
discourses of many students of color, it is not enough for writing
centers to operate as sites of assimilation where students learn how to
change themselves to better fit the mold of academia. Instead, writing
centers need to be aware of the values and ideology inherent in academic
discourses and to rewrite the writing center as a place where students
of all races are able to negotiate the difference between their
discourses and those of the academy. As such, it is crucial for writing
centers to offer a space where differences can be acknowledged,
welcomed, and accommodated--or as Gloria Anzaldua has it, a borderland.
When I tutor students who do not speak (or write) English as a
first language, the tutorial sessions almost always include discussions
about the student's primary language. These conversations help me
to better understand students' writing and acknowledge their
ability and skill in their primary languages. Why then, isn't it as
common or easy to have similar conversations with students of color who
operate outside of standard edited English because of dialects as
opposed to languages? Perhaps it is a symptom of our society's
continual avoidance of the topic of race, or perhaps it is white guilt
(for those of us who are white). Whatever the reason, we owe it to the
students to move past our own anxieties and to provide students with
awareness and understanding of how race and writing intersect.
The first step in this process is to initiate several
conversations: conversations among writing center professionals, among
writing center tutors, between these two groups, and ultimately, between
tutors and tutees. Furthermore, to transform writing centers into sites
of negotiation and change, we may need to differentiate the assumptions
and practices of the center from those of the college. By critically
evaluating the relationship between race and writing and the position of
each within the academy and society, writing centers (including the
directors and the tutors) can enact a critical consciousness of the
values and assumptions of standard edited English and academic
discourses and acknowledge the role of writing in maintaining the status
quo (where white, middleclass students are privileged at the expense of
all others). Ideally, this critical consciousness will better prepare
tutors to address race within the tutorial by guiding tutees in
exploring the conflict between their primary discourses and those of the
academy and to recognize that no one discourse is naturally better than
another.
Furthermore, tutors must caution students that when acquiring a new
dominant discourse (or discourses), they will also be expected to accept
the values inherent within these discourses--most likely values of
white, middle-class Americans. Discourse acquisition, then, can change
students' perceptions of their primary discourse systems, obscuring
the bread-crumb trail that leads back to "the way things
were." However, by providing an opportunity for students of color
to begin thinking and talking about the contention between their primary
discourses and those of the academy, writing centers can offer an inroad
to a critical negotiation of these conflicts.
POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS
The difficulties in initiating this transformation can, at first
glance, be overwhelming. Rewriting the writing center calls for
adjustments in tutor training programs, confronting the time limitations
within the tutoring session, and finally (and perhaps most importantly)
building trust. Despite these limitations, creating a writing center
that better meets the needs of all students is possible.
TUTOR TRAINING
To begin with, even if directors are committed to a vision of
writing centers as a borderland, it is often the student tutors who are
responsible for enacting and representing this position, and their
willingness or ability to do so depends largely on their understanding
of and commitment to the director's vision. Even in the best of
circumstances, where tutors receive training in the form of a
credit-bearing course, given the myriad issues entwined in writing
center theory, tutors are often not prepared to address the relationship
between race and writing in a tutorial. Moreover, orientation training
programs, which are more common, may not be able to address the issue at
all. Without the proper training, tutors will not be qualified to
discuss the role of race in writing and risk offending students or
representing a negative image of the writing center if they approach the
topic unprepared--especially in the potentially charged dynamic of white
tutor and a student of color. Furthermore, even when prepared, white
tutors may be hesitant to talk about race with students-of-color.
To address these issues, writing center directors should initiate
conversations about race (including whiteness) and writing at the onset
of tutor training, thereby making this topic a priority. Through these
discussions, directors can encourage tutors to be critically aware of
and challenge their participation in perpetuating the writing center as
a site for assimilation. Regardless of the length of tutor training
programs, writing center listservs offer an inexpensive forum for tutors
to negotiate their way through theory about race and rhetoric into
addressing the topic in a tutorial. This setting would allow experienced
tutors to provide informal case studies of sessions that address race
and all tutors could discuss their confusion or anxiety regarding this
topic.
TUTORING SESSIONS
In addition to tutor training, the time constraints of the tutorial
session present another challenge. It is often a struggle to fully
address aspects of a student's writing, let alone the relationship
between identity and writing, within one session. The first, and perhaps
most obvious, solution would be to encourage regular appointments with
the same student, which would offer tutors an opportunity to not only
address underlying issues in a student's writing, but also build
trust. However, convincing students to make a weekly commitment to their
writing is not a simple feat. Perhaps when tutors are discussing the
goals for the session with tutees, they can also discuss what they will
not be able to cover given the time constraints, including the
interaction of race (and other social categories) and writing, and they
can then suggest additional appointments. Regardless, reminding students
that academic discourse is simply one option--albeit an option that is
given preference and privilege by those within the academy and the
dominant culture in general--may help them begin to view writing as a
social construct and lift the mask of ideology from some of the
discourse conventions.
BUILDING TRUST
It seems optimistic (at best) to assume tutors will be able to
build trust between themselves and tutees--especially tutees of color
who distrust the institution at large--within one session. Without a
foundation of proper training and trust, it becomes more difficult and
potentially less appropriate for tutors, especially white tutors, to
address this highly sensitive issue with a tutee. Complicating the issue
for many students of color is a deep-rooted distrust of the academy,
resulting from the extended time frame in which marginalized students
have been denied access to academia. John Ogbu links this chronic
distrust, specifically for African Americans, to historical evidence
that academic achievements do not equate with economic success for
blacks and to the belief that academic success is directly tied to
acting white and the loss of identity (235, 238). Although Ogbu focuses
only on African Americans because of their status as "castelike
minorities" (meaning they are involuntary immigrants), I would
argue that his analysis can, in part, be applied to other minority
groups who struggle economically despite their levels of education.
Because distrust exists on an institutional level, so too must the
solution. Writing centers should rewrite themselves as allies for
students of color--once this is accomplished and writing centers are
trusted, the struggle to build trust in one session will become less
important. Furthermore, if students of color see the writing center as a
place where they can critically negotiate the difference between their
primary discourses and those of the academy, they may be more willing to
discuss the effect of race on their writing (assuming it is necessary
and appropriate). Writing centers also should attempt to employ a
racially diverse staff of tutors--again, this would help position the
center as an ally. Finally, writing centers can become liaisons between
faculty and students, discussing the issue of race and writing with
faculty from multiple disciplines to find acceptable ways to push the
edges of dominant discourses from the inside. Connected to the issue of
trust is that of carefully listening to students during the tutoring
sessions. We must be prepared for the real possibility that students may
not want to discuss race at the writing center. In this case, tutors
should respect the students' wishes. However, we can both meet the
needs of the students and approach the topic (when appropriate) if we
are patient, tactful, and not afraid to talk about race. In accordance
with the goals of enacting a critical consciousness and a productive
borderland, tutors should alert tutees to the possible connection
between race and writing. Beyond this, we must honor the students'
wishes.
FIGHTING TRAFFIC
As a new tutor, I am still working to find strategies for dealing
with the many complex situations that can arise during tutorials.
However, when it comes to race in the writing center, I am of the
mindset that if we are not actively working towards a solution, then we
are part of the problem. I am aware that the suggestions I have outlined
above are not simple and cannot be enacted overnight. Furthermore, my
suggestions are merely a first step towards recognizing, addressing, and
erasing the biases that exists within universities and writing centers.
Therefore, in order to affect change, we must be fully committed and
must remind ourselves and those around us to be continually critically
aware of our personal roles and the role of the writing center in either
perpetuating the privilege associating with academic discourse or
challenging the system. As individuals committed to the view of writing
centers as sites where all students can come to negotiate their place
within the academy, we should pay special attention to the students who
are stuck between two discourses, fighting their way through the
traffic. And, when possible, we should not only keep them company, but
also help them find an alternative route to reach their goals. However,
we also must make sure these students understand that once they arrive
at their destination, they may not be able to go back.
Bethany Davila
DePaul University
WORKS CITED
Barron, Nancy, and Nancy Grimm. "Addressing Racial Diversity
in a Writing Center: Stories and Lessons from Two Beginners." The
Writing Center Journal 22.2 (2002): 55-83.
Bawarshi, Anis, and Stephanie Pelkowski. "Postcolonialism and
the Idea of a Writing Center." The St. Martin's Sourcebook For
Writing Tutors. Ed. Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. Boston: Bedford
/ St. Martin's, 2003. 80-95.
Bizzell, Patricia. "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What
We Need to Know about Writing." PRE/TEXT 3.3 (1982): 213-243.
Courts, Patrick L. Multicultural Literacies: Dialect, Discourse,
and Diversity. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 1997.
Delpit, Lisa. Other People's Children: Cultural Conflicts in
the Classroom. New York: New Press. 1996.
Fox, Helen. "Being an Ally." Alt Dis: Alternative
Discourses and the Academy. Ed. Christopher Schroeder, Helen Fox, and
Patricia Bizzell. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 2002. 57-67.
Grimm, Nancy. "The Regulatory Role of the Writing Center:
Coming to Terms with a Loss of Innocence." The Writing Center
Journal 17.1 (1996): 5-29.
Ogbu, John U. "Literacy and Schooling in Subordinate Cultures:
The Case of Black Americans." Perspectives on Literacy. Ed. Eugene
R. Kintgen, Barry M. Kroll, and Mike Rose. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
UP, 1988. 227-242.
Vandenberg, Peter. "Taming Multiculturalism: The Will to
Literacy in Composition Studies." JAC 19.4 (1999): 547-568.