Re: Political turf problems

[<WRCENTER@lucy.ch.pdx.edu>]

On  Wed, 31 Jan 1996 Wendy Wagner <wendy@panix.com>
wrote, in part:

>While my gut reaction is to agree with Michael, I think I'll play devil's 
>advocate again.

OK,  Wendy, and I'll try out for the part of whipping-post here.

>As I mentioned in the now-departed "short conferences" thread a few weeks 
>ago, I see our writing center as a resource for faculty and students, as 
>a way to help students meet the expectations of faculty, the standards 
>faculty set for success in the classroom, not as a "diagnoser" and 
>"curer" of a problem.

I'll concede, in a small way, that I'd like faculty to be pleased with the WC, but
"[T]he expectations of faculty, the standards faculty set for success in the
 classroom" are the least of my worries when responding to a writer.  For one,
it would be highly presumptuous of me to act as though I had some clear
sense of what these expectations and standards are.  And, I think, that these
 would vary from faculty member to faculty member, from class to class.
Oh, I could guess, but to what end?   I'm concerned with the writer here.  Now 
if the writer is trying to figure out faculty agendas, then I can share my
academic experiences--but I would not try to second guess faculty--besides,
if faculty are not being clear about their standards and expectations, shouldn't
they shoulder the responsibility of making themselves clearer?  I'd probably
suggest that the writer not let the faculty member off the hook and to go to
them and press them for clarification. 

You use "diagnose" in a sense that suggests whatever is identified is to 
be rooted out like crab grass (sorry Eric).  My sense of diagnosing is
indentifying what the writer is actually doing on his/her pages, offering
possible alternatives to those things identified, and  feeding back to the
writer how I as a reader (not a faith healer, not an M.D., not an expert)
react while reading the paper.   What I identify is not necessarily a
problem--that's for the writer to decide.

>Michael, I wonder whether you are suggesting that a writing center should 
>not only have a philosophy of being a writing center but should also have 
>a philosophy of teaching writing. If the latter, then isn't conflict 
>inevitable? Isn't it probable that the writing center philosophy of 
>teaching writing will come into conflict with _some_ faculty members' 
>philosophy of teaching writing? Is the only answer to have a philosophy 
>of being a writing center with no other philosophy than to help the student 
>understand the professor's philosophy?

I think WCs need to have a philosophy of how to usefully and respectfully
respond to someone's writing--to react as a reader, to explain how what
their reading affects them and to offer some possible explanations for 
their reactions.  If this constitutes an ontology of WCs or a pedagogy
of composition instruction, then so be it.

>In other words, I may not like the way the faculty member is teaching
>writing, but it's my responsibility as a writing tutor to help the student
>understand the philosophy and perform up to the professor's expectations.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!  No, no, no!  Ain't I articulate?

>I'm not sure how, institutionally, it could be otherwise.  And as a
>faculty member myself, I would hate for someone to question the way I
>teach (unless, of course, that someone were my dept. chair or someone 
>else whose input I asked for).

Why?  If you're comfortable with your pedagogy, I'd think you'd welcome
the questioning as a way of sharing, of disseminating what you know,
what you'd like to know, etc.  If you mean you would hate for someone to
simply criticize you rather than actually show some interest in what you're
doing and why you're doing it, then you're right.

Well, here I stand, bare-backed and ready.

Cliff Barnett


Portland State University Writing Center
PO BOX 751
Portland, OR  97207-0751
503-725-3570
wrcenter@lucy.ch.pdx.edu