Author: ksuchor

Institute Date: November 3, 2025
Proposal Deadline: Wednesday, August 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. ET
Submit a Proposal

Important Dates

* Informational Meeting with Co-chairs:
Tuesday, July 22, 2025, 3:00–4:00 p.m. ET (Optional)
Register to Attend via Zoom
* Proposal deadline: Wednesday, August 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. ET
* Proposal notifications: Early September 2025
* Fall Virtual Institute: Monday, November 3, 2025

Please email cccc@ncte.org with questions.

Several need-based waivers will be offered for accepted presenters. An application will be shared when acceptances are sent in early September.

About the Virtual Institute

The CCCC Virtual Institute is an opportunity for teachers and researchers in composition and rhetoric to be in conversation with one another outside of the Annual Convention. This one-day event will have a program of presentations, roundtables, showcases, and workshops, all of which will be open to registered attendees. The goal of the annual Virtual Institute is for CCCC members to learn from one another and engage with each other on a topic of broad significance to the field. 

Teaching Writing as a Public Good

2025 Virtual Institute Program Co-chairs: Sherita Roundtree, Towson University, and Amy J. Wan, Queens College and CUNY Graduate Center, CUNY

“The engaged voice must never be fixed and absolute but always changing, always evolving in dialogue with a world beyond itself.”
—bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress

SUBMIT A PROPOSAL

The theme of the second annual CCCC Fall Virtual Institute is Teaching Writing as a Public Good. CCCC selected this theme given the ongoing push in the United States to privatize public services, and the continued attacks on public education (Commer 2024), revocation of grants for higher education (Cantwell 2025), and deconstruction of other public services and resources more broadly. Personhood itself is also under threat as evidenced by dehumanizing anti-trans, anti-immigrant, and anti-choice legislation and policies. And minoritized people continue to face precarity due to state-sponsored violence, such as the increased militarization and authoritative freedom of police, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, and some political representatives. These material and ideological conditions make our work not only more challenging but also devalued. These sociopolitical understandings about the relationship between writing classrooms and the public lead us to consider the following questions, which serve as a guide for this year’s institute:

• What role does composition as a field play amidst such hostility toward ourselves, our students, and our communities? 
• How is writing a vital practice in the struggle to survive?

Writing as a public good, and the teaching of writing as a way to cultivate that public good, is a political commitment—an urgent one. This commitment calls for our collective movement, efforts, and thinking inside and outside our academic institutions. Writing as a public good is often assumed to be a goal of writing classes from the first year and beyond in two- and four-year institutions. It implies a shared benefit, community, and relationality, as well as a writing practice that has an impact beyond the classroom door (Mathieu 2005). Writing classes that take up the mantle of the public good often move beyond the classroom and institutional space by allowing students to practice writing in community, social, disciplinary, and professional contexts. But such classes might also be making assumptions about who the “public” is and what serves as good for them, ignoring community dreams and desires. 

Our hope is that the institute’s conversations will complicate common assumptions that writing is always a public good while also examining ways to strengthen writing’s efficacy in public spaces. We recognize the variety of frameworks that conceive of writing as a public good, including ones that emerge from considerations of virtue and ethics (Duffy 2019), justice (Kynard 2018, Hubrig 2020), citizenship and democracy (Jacobson and Shah 2023, Wan 2014), civic engagement (Holmes 2016), community writing (Blancato et al. 2022, Johnson 2017, Moss 2010, Pritchard 2017, Sackey 2024), work (Bollig 2025), technology (Pigg 2021), multimodality (Tham and Jiang 2024), social movements (Richardson and Ragland 2018), and public policy (Commer 2024, Flowers 2024). We also draw from literacy studies to avoid assumptions that writing’s “good” is autonomous (Street 1984, Vieira et al. 2020). In addition, we encourage that we all keep in mind how writing—and the teaching of writing—can enact and perpetuate great harm for various publics.

And while composition as a field has a long history of both explicitly and implicitly connecting our work with the public and imagining what we do as/for a public good, our relationship with the public has not always been reciprocal. Our expertise often feels ignored when public discourse on social media, major news outlets, and public-facing academic publications address issues of literacy and writing through a narrow scope of what it is and is not, what can and cannot be—despite our field challenging binaric literacy assessments and documenting the multiplicity of literacies over time. To that end, this year’s Virtual Institute provides an opportunity for us in rhetoric and composition to consider how we might do more to foster reciprocity with the public through public writing, collaboration, service, instruction, and so on. 

We hope that part of these discussions will question the idea of writing as a public good while also prioritizing idea generation, interaction, and collaborative learning toward the cultivation of hooks’s “engaged voice.” This year’s institute provides a space for us, as teachers and researchers, to be in conversation with one another about the ways we can realize that commitment. We seek proposals that address some of (but are not limited to) the following questions:

• Teaching Public Writing:
  • What are best practices for projects and classroom practices that can guide students with their public writing?
  • How does critical thinking help bridge the gap between writing classrooms and public spaces? 
  • What are the conflicts between teaching and believing in the value of writing for the public good and the way that the concept of “public good” has been weaponized toward different student populations? 
• Public Perceptions of Writing
  • What does the public understand writing to be? 
  • How does our work as writing researchers and practitioners engage public perceptions about the purposes and possibilities of writing?  
• Reassessing the Idea of a “Public Good”
  • What are our assumptions about what is “good” for ourselves and others? 
  • How are our assumptions about the public good informed by our own subject positions and/or local contexts?
  • How do we manage the labor (emotional, physical, institutional) of public writing?
• Contexts for Public Writing
  • Who and/or what informs how the public is defined and what communities are/are not accounted for within those definitions? 
  • How do public policies limit and/or expand the potentialities of writing as a public good? 
  • How do we teach when there is active local legislation against it? 
  • How do institutional and political contexts affect public writing projects? 
• Public Writing Technologies 
  • What affordances and constraints accompany digital and multimodal public writing projects?

Program Format

We invite Group (4–6 people) and Individual proposals for this year’s CCCC Fall Virtual Institute, devoted to critical conversations on “wicked problems” challenging rhetoric and composition. We will prioritize proposals that speak to the ways they might engage a virtual audience. 

Presenters will choose one of four session formats that prioritize interaction and application among themselves, attendees, and the public—broadly defined. Across these session formats, presenters and attendees will have an opportunity to workshop in-process materials; connect theory to practice; respond to topic-specific positionings; and learn from others who are doing this work. Session formats include the following:

1. Public Writing in Process: This session format invites presenters to collaboratively workshop in-process program plans, curricula, assignments, or other forms of public writing beyond the classroom and/or lead virtual institute attendees to workshop their classroom and other public writing materials. Presenters will facilitate a participatory, process-based session that practices the steps of document revision in real-time. This session structure is ideal for those who have materials that are in draft form or in need of reimagining and could benefit from collaboratively generated feedback.
2. Material Showcase: This session format invites those who have incorporated public writing into their programs, courses, assignments, or other forms of scholarship. Presenters will describe a program, class, assignment, or other context for public writing, offering an opportunity to share details about implementation, considerations of local contexts, success stories, as well as frictions and roadblocks, and offer advice for those interested in developing their own projects. We imagine that these sessions are an opportunity for attendees to hear from and ask questions of colleagues who have worked on public writing projects and learn about best practices.
3. Roundtables: This session format invites both groups and individuals to discuss an element of public writing including but not limited to theory and history to practice considerations; administration; curriculum; assessment; writing for public audiences; translating the concerns of our field for the public, including in public policy and legislation; community writing; labor and public writing. Roundtable participants should propose a topic and their stance, and they should be prepared to present a short position, participate in a conversation with other presenters, and prepare a couple of questions that invite attendees to the conversation.
   
4. Generative Groups: This session format mirrors the approaches of a think tank where a group (or more) discusses a series of questions, offers a set of instructions, and/or provides a set of tools for idea building. This session is meant to not only prioritize creation and development for presenters but also for attendees. Proposals for these generative groups should identify a problem of policy or practice, using the session time to work together to develop a response and/or plan of action. In this case, presenters should consider an activity structure that encourages attendees to identify the implications of the group activity for their own communities and contexts.

Guidelines and Evaluation Criteria

For Group (4–6 speakers) Proposals

• Proposals should be no more than 1,000 words long.
• The proposal should speak directly to the session format—public writing in process, material showcase, roundtable, generative group.
• The proposal is grounded in a concept or series of concepts related to public writing and the session format.
• The proposal offers explicit ideas about how the presentation will engage a virtual audience.

Although this is not a deal breaker for program acceptance, we encourage and will prioritize proposals that include presenters from two or more of the following institution types: community colleges, HBCUs, tribal colleges, colleagues from institutions outside the United States, teaching colleges, HSIs, and/or AANAPISIs. 

For Individual Proposals

• Proposals should be no more than 500 words long.
• The proposal speaks directly to the session format—public writing in process, material showcase, roundtable, generative group.
• The proposal is grounded in a concept or series of concepts related to public writing and the session format.
• The proposal offers explicit ideas about how the presentation will engage a virtual audience

Please note that you do not need to be on the program to attend scheduled sessions and share ideas with the larger learning community at the Virtual Institute.

SUBMIT A PROPOSAL

Works Cited

Blancato, Michael, et al. “Brokering Community-Engaged Writing Pedagogies: Instructors Imagining and Negotiating Race, Space, and Literacy.” Literacy in Composition Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, 2022, pp. 23–46.

Bollig, Chase. “Postcapitalist Professionalization: Civic Education and the Future of Work.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 76, no. 3, 2025, pp. 370–95.

Cantwell, Brendan. “What Will Be Left of Higher Education in Four Years?” Chronicle of Higher Education, 18 June 2025. https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-will-be-left-of-higher-ed-in-four-years

Commer, Carolyn D. Championing a Public Good: A Call to Advocate for Higher Education. Penn State UP, 2024.

Duffy, John. Provocations of Virtue: Rhetoric, Ethics, and the Teaching of Writing. Utah State UP, 2019. 

Flowers, Katherine S. Making English Official: Writing and Resisting Local Language Politics. Cambridge Press, 2024. 

Holmes, Ashley J. Public Pedagogy in Composition Studies. National Council of Teachers of English, 2016.

Hubrig, Adam. “‘We Move Together’: Reckoning with Disability Justice in Community Literacy Studies.” Community Literacy Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, 2020, pp. 144–53. 

Jacobson, Brad, and Rachael W. Shah. “Building Our Ideals into Program Structures: Democratic Design in Program Administration.” Composition Studies, vol. 51, no. 2, 2023, pp. 86–105. 

Johnson, Latrise P. “Writing the Self: Black Queer Youth Challenge Heteronormative Ways of Being in an After-School Writing Club. Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 52, no. 1, 2017, pp. 13–33. 

Kynard, Carmen. “Stayin Woke: Race-Radical Literacies in the Makings of a Higher Education.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 69, no. 3, 2018, pp. 519–29. 

Mathieu, Paula. Tactics of Hope: The Public Turn in English Composition. Boynton/Cook, 2005.

Moss, Beverly J. “‘Phenomenal Women,’ Collaborative Literacies, and Community Texts in Alternative ‘Sista’ Spaces.” Community Literacy Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–24.

Pigg, Stacey. Transient Literacies in Action: Composing with the Mobile Surround. WAC Clearinghouse, 2021. 

Pritchard, Eric Darnell. Fashioning Lives: Black Queers and the Politics of Literacy. Southern Illinois UP, 2017.

Richardson, Elaine, and Alice Ragland. “#StayWoke: The Language and Literacies of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement.” Community Literacy Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, 2018, pp. 27–56. 

Sackey, Donnie Johnson. “How Community Means.” Community Literacy Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, 2024, pp. 50–55.

Street, Brian. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge UP, 1984.

Tham, Jason, and Jialei Jiang. “Understanding Writing Instructors’ Feelings toward the Affordances of Multimodal Social Advocacy Projects: Implications for Service-Learning Pedagogies.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 76, no. 1, 2024, pp. 4–34.

Vieira, Kate, et al. “Literacy Is a Sociohistoric Phenomenon with the Potential to Liberate and Oppress.” (Re)Considering What We Know: Learning Thresholds in Writing, Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy, edited by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle, Utah State UP, 2020, pp. 36–55.

Wan, Amy J. Producing Good Citizens: Literacy Training in Anxious Times. U of Pittsburgh P, 2014. 

The following resolutions were passed at the CCCC Annual Business Meeting held on Friday, April 11, in Baltimore, Maryland.

Resolution 1

Whereas Kofi J. Adisa gathered us to celebrate the 76th CCCC Convention, bringing together a wide range of diversity in cultural identities, disciplinary interests, approaches, and intersections to college composition and communication;

Whereas Kofi J. Adisa called us to consider “Computer Love” with his call to engage with “Extended Play, B-sides, Remix, Collaboration, and Creativity,” inviting attendees to engage in the playful musicality of language and joy in composition pedagogy and praxis; and

Whereas Kofi J. Adisa “let the music guide [him],” inviting us to Baltimore, home of the Soundgarden, where he has tasked us with composing “our song,” as “an obligation to remix what is now into what will be”; and

Whereas Kofi J. Adisa engages the B-sides, seeking collaboration and interdisciplinary approaches that invite us to remix and sample in our pedagogical approaches to writing. His scholarship similarly invites us to imagine how we might work toward a culture of Generative AI Literacy;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2025 Conference on College Composition and Communication extends our many, many thanks to Kofi J. Adisa’s dedication to our profession, our organization, and our discipline.

Resolution 2

Whereas E. Mairin Barney and members of the Local Arrangements Committee have made significant contributions to support new attendees and returnees and to enhance the Convention experience;

Whereas E. Mairin Barney and members of the Local Arrangements Committee created a comprehensive guide in the form of an inviting website that highlighted the various sections in the Baltimore area and its local history; and

Whereas they worked diligently to provide attendees with detailed information about the city’s local cuisines, about record stores, independent bookstores, thrift stores, and other attractions, and about the literary and cultural historical significance of Baltimore;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2025 Conference on College Composition and Communication expresses our deepest appreciation to E. Mairin Barney and members of the Local Arrangements Committee by applauding their energy and efforts.

Resolution 3

Whereas Elaine MacDougall, Carmen M. Meza, and James Wright coordinated development of the Accessibility Guide for the 2025 Conference on College Composition and Communication Annual Convention, deepening the field’s commitment to a culture of access at all levels;

Whereas Elaine MacDougall, Carmen M. Meza, and James Wright drew on the wisdom of predecessors and experts in the field to create a guide that aims to simultaneously sponsor accessibility literacy for all participants and render the conference experience meaningfully accessible to attendees across differences;

Whereas they worked diligently to provide attendees with detailed accessibility information, including descriptions of conference spaces for visual and auditory access, access for people with mobility impairments, access for parents and lactation rooms, access for neurodivergent attendees and others who benefit from quiet spaces, access information for nonbinary and gender-nonconforming attendees; and crucial information on how to collectively co-create a loving culture of access; and

Whereas they fostered development and organized volunteer staffing of an Access Hub that, in line with best practices highlighted by disability studies scholars in the field, invited both those with identified access needs and those without into communal thinking and practice of access as a mode of loving commitment to shared possibility;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2025 Conference on College Composition and Communication expresses our deep gratitude to Elaine MacDougall, Carmen M. Meza, and James Wright, and to all who worked with them on growing and enacting a culture of access that we hope will continue to flower in conferences to come.

Resolution 4

Whereas the current onslaught of presidential Executive Orders and pronouncements from the Department of Education, as well as legislation in many states, have attempted to dictate what faculty can and cannot teach and research, as well as which programs should and should not exist;

Whereas Vice President Vance has targeted professors as “the enemy,” leading to faculty harassment, intimidation, and threats for carrying out research and fostering culturally responsive teaching and learning environments;

Whereas Project 2025 explicitly calls for an end to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and programs of any kind in higher ed, and calls for reduced if not entirely eliminated enforcement of Title IX protections for our marginalized colleagues;

Whereas CCCC has built on the subject-matter expertise of faculty who teach and research writing, rhetoric, communication, and program administration to publish statements committing to linguistic diversity, linguistic justice, students’ rights to their own language, disability studies, ethical research, social justice, and supporting fair standards and practices regarding promotion, tenure, and reappointment of faculty; and

Whereas CCCC members recognize that vigorous and tough-minded academic disagreements are a vital aspect of participation in free expression and in the candid and courageous thinking required in university intellectual life;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the CCCC Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure Appointment and Renewal, and Employment Security requests that NCTE/CCCC leadership

1. Publicly reaffirm faculty’s rights to select instructional materials and pedagogical approaches for use in their classrooms, while citing existing position statements and resources.
2. Commit to working with other academic associations (whether discipline-based or not) to resist policies that violate principles of professional autonomy, academic freedom, and shared governance.
3. Develop tools and resources for faculty, graduate students, staff, and administrators that respond to legislative and government actions at the federal, state, and local levels that impinge on academic freedom.
4. Develop public-facing resources that define academic freedom as an indispensable working condition required in writing and communication classrooms.

Committee Members

Kofi Adisa, Howard Community College
Michael Black, University of Massachusetts Lowell
Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Dana Driscoll, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Maggie Fernandes, University of Arkansas
David Green, Howard University
Holly Hassel (Co-Chair), Michigan Technological University
Sarah Z. Johnson, Madison Area Technical College
Carmen Kynard, Texas Christian University
Megan McIntyre, University of Arkansas
Patti Poblete, South Puget Sound Community College
Jennifer Sano-Franchini (Co-Chair), West Virginia University

Committee Charge

The CCCC Special Committee on Generative AI in College Composition and Writing Studies is charged with identifying and developing a set of deliverables to roll out over the next three years intended to guide how rhetoric, composition, and writing studies teacher-scholars, students, and administrators think through the question of Generative AI in the profession.

To do so, the Special Committee is encouraged to consider: (1) the impacts and implications of Generative AI especially as related to our professional practices, e.g., research, teaching, publication, theory-building, public and community engagement, hiring, peer review, editorial work, etc.; and (2) what members of our discipline need to navigate these issues, keeping in mind how factors like labor, disability, language diversity, access, and other ethical concerns must be taken into consideration.

Deliverables may—but need not—include:

• a CCCC Position Statement on Generative AI,
• a brief guide on the topic designed for undergraduate student audiences,
• teaching materials and lesson plans related to Generative AI or the development of digital literacies that can help students navigate questions about GenAI;
• a speaker series foregrounding refusal perspectives; and/or
• a review of existing CCCC Position Statements that would benefit from the inclusion of points related to Generative AI.

Whatever they are, the deliverables will be grounded in disciplinary scholarship, and they will foreground the ethical and political implications of Generative AI for writing instruction and literacy development broadly understood, as well as the ethical and political concerns surrounding Generative AI use.

 

Important Dates

Proposal database opens: April 12, 2025
Proposal coach request deadline: May 2, 2025 (submit draft in proposal database, then email CCCCevents@ncte.org with request)
Proposal submission deadline: 9:00 a.m. ET on Monday, June 2, 2025
Volunteer to review proposals or to be a proposal coach: May 19, 2025
Proposal notifications: Early September 2025
Session schedule notifications: October 2025
Convention dates: March 4–7, 2026, Cleveland, Ohio

Questions and requests for coaches can be sent to CCCCevents@ncte.org.

The 2026 CCCC Annual Convention will include offsite participation options for those who are not able to physically travel to Cleveland. In addition, CCCC has convened a Task Force to Develop a Plan for Actionable Accessibility at the Convention, as part of our ongoing efforts to develop a long-term, sustainable plan for foregrounding accessibility at the Convention.

Melissa Ianetta, program chair for the #4C26 Annual Convention, breaks down what you need to know to create a proposal for next year’s Convention in Cleveland.
Watch the Video or Read the Outline

SUBMIT A PROPOSAL

Conference and Our Conversations

2026 CCCC Program Chair: Melissa Ianetta

My Convention poem has elevator eyelids and a concierge’s phone ringing without remorse all night.
My Convention poem flaunts its badges and free samples in the face of a chafing dish lobby breakfast bar with sad fruit baskets and scorched coffee urns.
My Convention poem bursts at the heart-seams when the crowd likes its paper even if they didn’t attend, didn’t listen, didn’t seem to quite understand.
My Convention poem goes down on its knees in the exhibit hall trampled by a pod of discount purchasers and last day pack-aways.
My Convention poem is an expectant handshake and wink late night lobby dark where the unsayable is finally said and concerns are translated into conversations of sudden sociability.
—Wendy Bishop, from “My Convention Poem,” included in her 2001 Chair’s address, “Against the Odds in Rhetoric and Composition”

Why go to the conference? What does being together in real time afford that print, digital, and asynchronous online interactions cannot? What do conferences offer that recent “un-conferences” cannot or do not? Naming the theme as Conference and Our Conversations offers attendees the opportunity to create visions of future conferences and share what we’ve enjoyed in the past, even while encouraging us to push forward the current scholarly conversations of the field. At the 2026 conference, I invite you to imagine what CCCC can be, and what your scholarship and ideas about teaching, learning, and the work we do in higher education contribute to CCCC—and to each other. Why do we conference? Why do you conference? 

Conference Is Conversations

The first steps to learning to think better, therefore, are learning to converse better and learning to establish and maintain the sorts of social context, the sort of community life, that foster the sorts of conversation members of the community value.
—Kenneth Bruffee, “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind,’” 640

Conference as the theme, however, does not work to steer your scholarship—as Bruffee reminds us, the “Conference” in CCCC represents our conversations, the sharing of scholarship and praxis in our panel presentations and hallway chats; the discovery and sharing of new ideas is what makes our community strong. Rather than encourage you to frame your contributions to the 2026 theme, I instead invite you to share what you are working on right now, to offer up what contribution matters to you most. For regardless of our annual theme, we are essentially defined by the learned conversations that take place in our field and in our classrooms. That is, our theme of Conference should inspire some of the 2026 conversation in Cleveland but does not presume to direct a year of research. As you draft your proposal, then, instead of looking to the theme for inspiration, consider this reviewer rubric that will be used to accept proposals and issue invitations. Thus, do not see the Convention theme as a desire to shape *your* scholarly concerns—rather, this theme works to add one more strand to the many conversations that already comprise our community and creates the opportunity to discuss the very specific event that brings us together each year.

Conference Is Community

As framed in the epigraph to this call, the 2026 Convention vision, in part, is shaped by Wendy Bishop’s 2001 CCCC keynote. For Bishop, a conference is community, a place to encounter old friends and new ideas—and new friends and old ideas. So too, in Cleveland we’ll share notions of what the Convention is now and visions of what it might be in the future. To discuss this theme, there will be conversation circles and focus groups to reflect on the idea of a conference and what it can offer to our members. These ideas from our community and about our community will be brought back to the CCCC leadership and shared with membership at the next Convention.

We talk to each other through journals, newsletters, and Web pages. We converse formally through panels and informally in the hallways at our conferences. In our search for understanding how the written word works, we simplify for our students (the five-paragraph essay) and complexify for each other (a Bakhtinian moment in a Vygotskyan process on the margins of the contact zone). Often our unum gets lost in our pluribus [thesis statement].”
—John Lovas, “All Good Writing Develops at the Edge of Risk,” 265

Review Process

As in past years, proposals will be assigned to evaluators using the area clusters. Proposals are generally accepted in proportion to numbers received in the clusters. Selecting a particular cluster neither advantages nor disadvantages your proposal. Sometimes, a single proposal might fit into two or three areas, or a proposal might not fit well into any area. However, if you do not choose a category, your proposal will not be complete and therefore will not be accepted for the program. Please consider these categories as a heuristic and understand that in selecting, you emphasize the primary focus of and the best reviewing audience for your proposal.

Program Format

Proposers should review the program format information carefully prior to selecting their session type for their proposal(s). If you are proposing a Concurrent or Roundtable Session, note that these are 75-minute sessions and require the proposer to submit three or more presenters in the proposal. Members may also submit individual proposals for a 30-minute presentation with one or two presenters included in the proposal.

SUBMIT A PROPOSAL

Important Dates

• Proposal database opens: April 12, 2025
• Proposal coach request deadline: May 2, 2025 (submit draft in proposal database, then email CCCCevents@ncte.org with request)
• Volunteer to review proposals or to be a proposal coach: May 19, 2025
• Proposal submission deadline: 9:00 a.m. ET on Monday, June 2, 2025
• Proposal notifications: Early September 2025
• Session schedule notifications: October 2025
• Convention dates: March 4–7, 2026, Cleveland, Ohio

Questions and requests for coaches can be sent to CCCCevents@ncte.org.

We know that each year, some CCCC members are unable to travel to the CCCC Annual Convention for a variety of reasons. CCCC is currently working on a long-term vision for the Convention that provides multiple ways for engagement. Although we are not yet prepared with a viable solution and plan for implementation, we believe it is important to think about ways that we can make participation in the Convention more accessible to more of our members right now. To that end, below are four options for offsite participation for those who had a proposal accepted for CCCC 2025 but are not able to physically travel to Baltimore. We acknowledge that there are limitations with each of these options during this transitional phase, none of which can entirely replicate the Convention experience for those who are not able to attend physically.

Asynchronous Remote Option

1. The CCCC 2025 Convention Companion Publication

Following its launch in 2024, we will continue to offer the option to share your work with others by having your short paper published in the CCCC 2025 Convention Companion Publication. The Companion Publication will be made available to all CCCC members on the NCTE publications platform, with print-on-demand copies available for purchase, the summer following the Convention. Papers will undergo light editorial review as opposed to a double-anonymous, peer-review process.

If you plan to select this option, please review the submission information and complete the Intent to Submit form by December 11, 2024. Paper submissions should be no more than seven pages in length and uploaded by January 8, 2025.

Synchronous Remote Options

We understand the value of connecting with colleagues synchronously. At the same time, we believe it is important to make members aware of several important factors to consider with regard to synchronous remote engagement:

• With an estimated 2,500 attendees, almost all of whom will be connected to the Convention venue’s internet, CCCC is unable to guarantee stable, consistent, or strong WiFi for live-streaming presentations.
• Maintaining WiFi at the Convention venue is an accessibility issue. Stable WiFi is necessary for attendees to look up information, connect with others, and access assistive technologies such as CART. For this reason, we ask that all members who are interested in a synchronous remote option weigh out their presentation needs alongside consideration of how their chosen mode of engagement might impact the venue’s Internet bandwidth.
• We can all do our part to lessen the strain on the Convention WiFi, such as, by turning off apps when not in use; turning off video when not speaking; avoiding use of high-bandwidth applications such as TikTok, YouTube, and Netflix on the Convention WiFi; downloading files in advance; and using cellular data if your phone plan allows for it.
• CCCC does not currently have the staffing and resources necessary to provide technical support for remote participation. Any presenters who choose a synchronous remote option should keep this context in mind, and plan for the possibility that technological issues may happen.
• In an effort to avoid some of the issues that arise when combining individual papers into three- to four-person panels including unfocused panels and uneven amount of time for each paper, and to rededicate the significant time and energy required to create these panels toward other longstanding organizational priorities, individual presentations are not arranged into panels this year. If your individual proposal was accepted and you cannot travel, please plan accordingly and choose the option that best supports your situation.

With these factors in mind, those who are unable to attend the Convention on site may consider one of the following synchronous remote presentation options:

2. Pre-recorded Video

You may choose to pre-record your presentation, to be played by an onsite co-panelist or contact that you identify and arrange.

We request that those who select this option caption and transcribe their presentation, send it to their onsite contact in advance, and arrange for the onsite contact to download the file prior to the time of presentation, so that its viewing is not dependent on the Convention WiFi.

Those with pre-recorded videos may choose to join via livestream for the Q&A.

3. Prepared Paper

You may opt to have a prepared paper read by an onsite co-panelist or contact that you identify and arrange.

4. Live-Streaming

Because live-streaming takes a more significant toll on the venue’s internet bandwidth than other presentation modes, we ask that presenters live-stream only when absolutely necessary for the success of the panel. In addition, live-streamers may consider taking steps to reduce bandwidth usage, e.g., turning off cameras during non-speaking times.

All presenters who are interested in synchronous remote presentation should read through the following requirements and complete the Intent to Present Remotely form by March 12, 2025.

Requirements for Remote Presentation

• All presenters, whether onsite or offsite, are required to register for the Convention. Your registration fee helps pay for the cost of WiFi at the Convention venue. Please visit the CCCC Professional Equity Project to learn more about financial assistance for the registration fee for eligible presenters (Note: If selected for this grant, remote presenters are not eligible to receive the $310 travel stipend.)
• In the case of panels and roundtables, we recommend that at least two panelists are physically present at the Convention to facilitate any remote presentations and to field questions for remote presenters connecting via live-stream.
• CCCC can only make remote presentations available to in-person Convention attendees who attend the session.

We recognize that these options for offsite participation in CCCC 2025 are imperfect. We are aware of the need to provide more opportunities for members to present and share their work and learn from others in ways that are inclusive and equitable, and that encourage a sense of belonging—values we hold dear to our endeavors. We are committed to continuing to work toward a more sustainable plan that keeps in mind the financial realities of the organization and its annual event in the short- and long-term. Most of all, we are thankful for all who have taken up the collaborative effort to create a more accessible professional organization and scholarly community, whether by speaking up about lack of access, gathering and relaying perspectives as a way to advocate for accessibility, coming up with concrete ways to address these issues, and/or by doing the work of planning and implementation.

In an effort to increase access and opportunity for all CCCC members to share their work with our intellectual community, we are calling for presenters accepted to the 2025 CCCC Annual Convention but who cannot attend to submit papers to be considered for the CCCC 2025 Convention Companion Publication. Papers may be up to seven pages in length (similar to that of a roundtable paper). To inform us of your intent to submit a paper, please complete this form by December 11, 2024. Following the completion of the Intent to Submit form, paper submissions are due by January 15, 2025.

While all CCCC members whose proposals were accepted for presentation at the 2025 CCCC Annual Convention but who are unable to attend are eligible to apply, those attendees impacted by one or more of the following considerations will be prioritized:

• Graduate student status
• Health (disability, physical or mental illness, or caregiving responsibilities)
• Religious observances (Passover, Ramadan, etc.)
• Funding or financial constraints (graduate students, adjunct faculty, and international scholars will be prioritized)
• Employment precarity (graduate students, adjunct faculty and lecturers, those experiencing austerity cuts at their institutions)

Only proposals that have been accepted to the CCCC 2025 program are eligible for inclusion in the Companion Publication.

The lead author/submitter must be a CCCC member at the time of submission to the Companion Publication. Submitters are not required to register for the 2025 CCCC Annual Convention.

The Companion Publication is one of a few options that CCCC is making available for those who are not able to physically attend the 2025 Convention in Baltimore. Please note that those interested in remote presentation should choose only one of the options. To provide equitable access for all presenters, we kindly request that members make a wise choice for where they want to submit their papers or presentations.

How to submit

1. Complete the Intent to Submit form by December 11, 2024. Paper submitters will be notified when the submission platform is open.
2. Once notified, submit your paper (no more than seven pages in length including any notes and references) by January 15, 2025. Additionally, papers should:

• • follow MLA style (MLA Handbook 9th edition);
  • be in Times New Roman, 12-point font;
  • have 1-inch margins;
  • be double-spaced; and
  • saved as an MS Word file.

The CCCC 2025 Convention Companion Publication will be made available for free to all CCCC members, with print-on-demand copies of the volume available for purchase, expected in Summer 2025.

Please email cccc@ncte.org with questions.

Proposed Timeline

October 2024: CFP and Intent to Submit form posted.

December 11, 2024: Intent to Submit form due.

January 15, 2025: Papers due.

December 2024–January 2025: Papers reviewed.

February 21, 2025: Decisions sent.

March 17, 2025: Any manuscript revisions due.

March–June 2025: Editing and review of page proofs.

Summer 2025: Proceedings published.

Thursday, November 14, 2024 | 5:00 p.m. ET
Thursday, December 5, 2024 | 6:00 p.m. ET
Thursday, January 23, 2025 | 4:00 p.m. ET 

This series invites members to talk with their colleagues and gain support in the areas they identify as most salient right now. Here’s a brief overview of the agenda for each session. Please note that we’ve kept these sketches rather rough to ensure that you, our members, have the opportunity to direct the conversation to the areas of most immediate concern for you as teachers. 

Session 1—Thursday, November 14, 2024, 5:00 p.m. ET

REGISTER TO ATTEND

We’re here to hear from you: What’s going on right now in your teaching, in your classroom, with your students, or in relation to your program? What’s at the top of your mind? What kind of conversations do you want to have with your colleagues? What kind of support can we provide? We’ll use facilitated breakout rooms to hear your concerns and identify topics for future discussion. 

Session 2—Thursday, December 5, 2024, 6:00 p.m. ET

REGISTER TO ATTEND

Building on the patterns observed during Session 1, facilitators will host breakout discussions and mini-workshops in each identified area of interest. Attendees will receive readings, ideation activities, and additional resources in advance of the session, and will leave with clear takeaways and suggestions. 

Session 3—Thursday, January 23, 2025, 4:00 p.m. ET

REGISTER TO ATTEND

What next? This session looks forward to possibilities that can continue to support members around teaching. We’ll consider whether communities of practice should be formed, whether we can provide specific resources or support, and what kinds of conversations we may want to have in the future. 

Though these sessions build on one another, participants may attend one, two, or three sessions. To ensure productive conversation, we will treat these circles as safe and brave spaces wherein we honor each other’s identities, perspectives, and concerns and remain cognizant of our own. These sessions will not be recorded. 

These events are available exclusively to CCCC members. Not a member? Join today! 

Facilitators 

This teaching circle will be facilitated by CCCC members: 

Sweta Baniya, Virginia Tech
Joanne Baird Giordano, Salt Lake Community College
Mara Lee Grayson, Independent Scholar 

 

Information for Students

If you are not currently an NCTE or CCCC student member, please follow the steps below to access the $70 registration rate for the 2025 CCCC Annual Convention.

1. Log in to your My NCTE Profile. If you do not already have a login, you will need to create a free account.
2. Click Edit Profile in the left menu.
3. Set the Current Primary Professional Status to Student/Pre-Service Teacher and click Save at the bottom of the form.
4. Navigate to the CCCC 2025 registration page and proceed through the registration process.

Information for Part-Time Faculty, Retirees, and Veterans

Whether or not you are a current NCTE or CCCC member, please take the following steps to access the $115 registration rate for the 2025 CCCC Annual Convention if you are not already seeing this rate through the registration process.

1. Log in to your My NCTE Profile. If you do not already have a login, you will need to create a free account.
2. Click Edit Profile in the left menu.
3. For Part-Time or Retiree, set the Current Primary Professional Status to one of the options below.
   • Adjunct or Part-Time
   • Retired
4. For Veteran, set the Military Status to either “I am active duty” or “I am a veteran.”
5. Click Save at the bottom of the form.
6. Navigate to the CCCC 2025 registration page and proceed through the registration process.

Registration for the 2024 CCCC Fall Virtual Institute will close at 9:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, October 23.

All registrants will receive an email with connection information on the evening prior to the Institute (October 22) and a reminder email on the morning of the event (October 23).

Institute sessions will NOT be recorded.

2024 CCCC Fall Virtual Institute: Machine Writing and the Work of Rhetoric and Composition
Program
October 23, 2024 | 10:45 A.M.–8:00 P.M. ET

ALL-ATTENDEE OPENING — 10:45–11:00 A.M. ET

Institute Co-Chairs:

• Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri–Kansas City
• Timothy Oleksiak, University of Massachusetts Boston

CONCURRENT ROUNDTABLE SESSION A — 11:00 A.M.– 1:00 P.M. ET

Option 1 — Administration
This roundtable will invite users to play an interactive adventure game in order to consider how writing program administrators facilitate real, low-stakes, complex conversations with layered audiences around AI. This gaming experience, directed and facilitated by the roundtable panelists, will ask participants to employ a concept-tactic approach of rhetorical listening. The virtual session aspires to disrupt the narrative(s) that generative AI has wreaked havoc on operations. Step outside of (or at least next to) the milieu, for a few minutes, in order to examine the roles, responsibilities, challenges, and opportunities in ways that open dialogue and sustain interest. In short, we will play and in doing so discover ways to engage with what may seem almost insurmountable.

11:00–11:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Sherry Rankins-Robertson, University of Central Florida
  • Aurora Matzke, Chapman University
  • Angela Clark-Oates, California State University, Sacramento
  • Kyle Jensen, Arizona State University
  • Priscila Santa Rosa, University of Central Florida
  • Anastasia Salter, University of Central Florida

11:45–12:15 — Focused Writing

12:15–12:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

12:35–12:45 — Large-Session Report Back

12:45–1:00 — Personal Break

Option 2 — Theory
This panel positions AI hype as an opportunity to develop grant proposals in writing studies with reproducible, aggregable, data-driven (RAD) designs. Panelists will share examples from their own research, such as corpus-driven analysis of AI prompts, and discuss how these projects can be adapted to collaborative RAD frameworks. The session will provide a collaborative space for participants to theorize and develop study designs aimed at fostering cross-institutional collaborations in the field while enabling researchers to evaluate those designs, thereby preventing confirmation bias.

11:00–11:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • John Gallagher, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
  • Anuj Gupta, University of Arizona
  • Shiva Mainaly, University of Memphis
  • Fatima Zohra, University of Waterloo

11:45–12:15 — Focused Writing

12:15–12:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

12:35–12:45 — Large-Session Report Back

12:45–1:00 — Personal Break

CONCURRENT ROUNDTABLE SESSION B — 1:00–3:00 P.M. ET

Option 1 — Pedagogy
Our pedagogy roundtable will encourage discussions about the affective and emotional responses we have had to generative AI in university writing classrooms. Both undergraduate and graduate writing instructors alike must respond to the affordances and pitfalls of generative AI by first considering the various rhetorical situations and individual student challenges already present in their classrooms. Our roundtable will allow participants to take stock of their existing pedagogy and grapple with the need for critical AI literacy while examining its place alongside our time-tested pedagogical strategies like critical genre awareness, reflective writing, and experiential learning opportunities. 

1:00–1:45 — Roundtable Facilitators 

• • Marsha W. Rhee, Johnson C. Smith University
  • Stephen Kim, Cornell University
  • Quang Ly, University of Miami
  • Jessica Mattox, Radford University
  • Lydia Wilkes, Auburn University

1:45–2:15 — Focused Writing

2:15–2:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

2:35–2:45 — Large-Session Report Back

2:45–3:00 — Personal Break

Option 2 — Assessment
Join us in a Composition II Course Committee meeting where diverse views on AI in assessment are discussed with the goal of creating a program assessment rubric for the age of Machine Writing. Together, we’ll explore innovative ways to integrate AI into meaningful evaluation of student writing. #EdTech #AIinEducation

1:00–1:45 — Roundtable facilitators

• • Eugenia Novokshanova, Georgia State University
  • Michelle Kassorla, Georgia State University
  • Jennifer Duncan, Georgia State University
  • Jennifer Hall, Georgia State University

1:45–2:15 — Focused Writing

2:15–2:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

2:35–2:45 — Large-Session Report Back

2:45–3:00 — Personal Break

CONCURRENT ROUNDTABLE SESSION C — 3:00–5:00 P.M. ET

Option 1 — Theory
This roundtable will feature the editors of College Composition & Communication, Computers & Composition, and Written Communication, who will consider several “live questions,” created by moderator Ira Allen, about the role that AI plays or might play in academic publishing. These editors will discuss how generative text technologies are and will inflect the processes and policies of their respective journals. The roundtable will also reserve time for attendees to consider those same questions, thus allowing editors and participants to collaborate on the future of academic journal publishing in rhetoric and composition.

3:00–3:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Matthew Davis, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Ira Allen, Northern Arizona University
  • Jason Tham, Texas Tech University
  • Mya Poe, Northeastern University
  • Dylan Dryer, University of Maine
  • Kara Taczak, University of Central Florida

3:45–4:15 — Focused Writing

4:15–4:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

4:35–4:45 — Large-Session Report Back

4:45–5:00 — Personal Break

Option 2 — Pedagogy
As college students’ reading abilities decline (allegedly), educators face new challenges in teaching effective reading and composition skills. While much attention has been given to AI writing tools like ChatGPT, other emerging technologies are also transforming how students read and research, such as AI-powered PDF readers and advanced research applications. A working group from the University of Texas at Austin’s Digital Writing & Research Lab explores how these machine reading and research technologies reshape composition pedagogy and impact student learning. By combining established reading theories with a survey of new technologies, the group aims to provide insights into how machine reading may impact composition pedagogy, considering both its potential benefits and challenges. 

3:00–3:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Casey Boyle, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Ali Gunnells, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Maddie Bruegger, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Carlee Baker, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Samantha Turner, The University of Texas at Austin

3:45–4:15 — Focused Writing

4:15–4:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

4:35–4:45 — Large-Session Report Back

4:45–5:00 — Personal Break

CONCURRENT ROUNDTABLE SESSION D — 5:00–7:00 P.M. ET

Option 1 — Assessment
What do equitable and effective assessment practices look like in an era of artificial intelligence? This roundtable focuses on designing and revising writing assessments to integrate AI and learning objectives related to critical AI literacy. Exploring assessment in a variety of classroom and institutional contexts, we consider equitable assessments, ecological models, new rhetorics and rhetorical theories of assessment, and resistance of assessment-as-surveillance. Participants are invited to create or revise their own writing assessments informed by reflection on the roundtable discussion.

5:00–5:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Salena Anderson, Georgia Southern University
  • Xiao Tan, Utah State University
  • Rodrigo Gomez, San Diego Miramar College
  • Lynn Briggs, Eastern Washington University
  • Kate Crane, Eastern Washington University

5:45–6:15 — Focused Writing

6:15–6:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

6:35–6:45 — Large-Session Report Back

6:45–7:00 — Personal Break

Option 2 — Administration
How does AI challenge what we do in the classroom, department, and institution? Why do we need AI policies and statements? Our roundtable invites participants to join us in a charette-style experience, in which organizers and stakeholders work together to create solutions, to collectively work through the thornier issues involved in creating, administering, and enforcing equitable and just AI policies. We will take participants through three scenarios that embrace the complications that AI administrative genres—which include but are not limited to policy—create for students, staff, faculty, and other campus community stakeholders. Participants will draft actionable policy artifacts in real time to effectively respond to generative AI policy decisions across learning and administrative contexts.

5:00–5:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Rebecca Hallman Martini, University of Georgia
  • Virginia Costello, University of Illinois Chicago
  • Lainie Pomerleau, College of Coastal Georgia
  • Franziska Tsufim, Wake Forest University

5:45–6:15 — Focused Writing

6:15–6:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

6:35–6:45 — Large-Session Report Back

6:45–7:00 — Personal Break

ALL-ATTENDEE OPEN TOWN HALL AND MOVING FORWARD FOR OUR MEMBERS — 7:00–8:00 P.M. ET 

Institute Co-Chairs:

• Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri–Kansas City
• Timothy Oleksiak, University of Massachusetts Boston

Registered Attendees

Both roundtable participants and attendees that participated in the 2024 CCCC Fall Virtual Institute are listed below.

Alaa Abdelghaffar
Anoud Abusalim
Heather Adamson
Jun Akiyoshi
Sam Alexander
Christine Alfano
Ira Allen
Abram Anders
David Anderson
Salena Anderson
Tracey Anderson
Jennifer Arena
Jean Arthur
Michael Avery
Adrianna Aviles
Maggie Ayala
Raegan Babb
Lana Baeumlisberger
Austin Bailey
Carlee Baker
Paige Banaji
Sarah Banting
Layla Barati
Benjamin Barckholtz
David Barndollar
Rodolfo Barrett
Mary Barry
Aryn Bartley
Nathan Bauer
Aaron Beasley
Stacey Beauregard
Erin Beaver
Estee Beck
Marne Benson
Sherrin Berezowsky
Catherine Berkenfield
Siddharth Bhogra
Michael Black
Kelly Blewett
Ann Bomberger
Melissa Borgia-Askey
Casey Boyle
Kate Bradley
Kirsten Bradley
Alicia Brienza
Lynn Briggs
Marilee Brooks-Gillies
Mary Brower
Maddie Bruegger
Beverly Burch
Melanie Burdick
Dolphia Butler
Antonio Byrd
Megan Callow
Adam Camarena
Kyndra Campbell
Lillian Campbell
Ellen Carillo
Brooke Carnwath
Maria Carvajal Regidor
Ruiming Cash
Christopher Castillo
Geneve Champoux
Erin Chandler
Laura Clapper
Angela Clark-Oates
Catherine Clifford
Rachel Cofield
DeSilver Cohen
Sarah Coletta-Flynn
Joanna Collins
Denise Comer
Frankie Condon
Katherine Condra
Thais Cons
Ana Contreras Charmelo
Janice Cool Stephens
Kris Cory
Virginia Costello
Katheryn Crane
Jamie Crosswhite
Christopher Davidson
Laura Davies
Matthew Davis
Jennifer Dawes
Ann Dean
Thomas Deans
Rachel Del Signore
Renee DeLong
Michael-John DePalma
Lorise Diamond
Lorrie DiGiampietro
Amy Dohm
Jayne Doneskey
Michael Donnelly
Dylan Dryer
Michael Dufresne
Jennifer Duncan
Michelle Eble
Michael Edwards
Nicole Emmelhainz
Diana Epelbaum
Jason Evans
Adam Fajardo
Robert Faunce
Maggie Fernandes
Jake Ferrington
Ann Fetterman
Jenn Fishman
Maureen Fitzpatrick
Laura Flint
Christopher Foree
Ashley Fortner
Jen Foster
Elle Fournier
Monica Fox
Kimberly Freeman
Susie Fries
Bridget Fullerton
John Gallagher
Jeff Gard
Sarah Garelik
Lindsey Gendke
Barbara George
Carolyn Geraci
Catherine Gillespie
Brian Gogan
Emma Gomez
Joanne Gonzalez
Michelle Graber
Valerie Gramling
Leslie Grant
Jillian Grauman
Meredith Gravett
Kindall Gray
Angela Green
Nicole Green
Brent Griffin
Charles Grimm
Rachael Groner
Allison Gross
Elliott Gruner
Eric Grunwald
Elisabeth Gumnior
Alexandra Gunnells
Anuj Gupta
Emiliano Gutierrez-Popoca
Pamela Haji
Jennifer Hall
Susanne Hall
LewEllyn Hallett
Rebecca Hallman Martini
Talisha Haltiwanger Morrison
J W Hammond
Cheryl Hampton
Barbara Handt
Susanmarie Harrington
Holly Hassel
Wendy Hayden
Ling He
Edwina Helton
Jill Heney
Joel Heng Hartse
Brandon Herring
Susan Hesemeier
Heather Hill
Matt Hill
Wendy Hinshaw
Corrine Hinton
Kelsey Hixson-Bowles
Titcha Ho
Deborah Hodgkins
Mara Holt
Lauren Hornberger
Analeigh Horton
Andrew Hudgins
Paul Huey-Burns
Rik Hunter
Zita Hüsing
Rossitza Ivanova
Lindsey Ives
Krista Jackman
Lubna Javeed
Kyle Jensen
Helen Jeoung
Chelsea Johnson
Maureen Johnson
Emily Johnston
Leigh Jones
Mikala Jones-Wall
Jay Jordan
Linda Jordan
Tyler Julian
Sean Kamperman
Martha Karnes
Adrienne Kaufmann
Tara Kazmark
Megan Keaton
Erin Kelly
Sara Kelm
Jack Kenigsberg
Stephanie Kerschbaum
Jessica Kester
Stephen Kim
Elizabeth Kimball
Ana King
Carie King
Kristen Kirkman
Amanda Knopf
Laura Kovick
Denise Krane
Maureen Kravec
Sarah Kruse
Joy Kwon
Sarah Lacy
Marisa Lamb
Brenda Lanphear
Ethna Lay
Lisa Lebduska
Meredith Lee
Soyeon Lee
Erica Leigh
Barbara Leplattenier
Ruth Li
Sasha Litzenberger
Andy Jiahao Liu
Janet Lively
Maria Perpetua Liwanag
Nick LoLordo
Nattaporn Luangpipat
Amy Lueck
Jennifer Lutman
Breanna Lutterbie
Quang Ly
Christina Lynch
Kathleen Lyons
Sasha Maceira
Yogita Maharaj
Shiva Mainaly
Shirley Manigault
christina Mar
Holly Marich
Farah Marklevits
Bruce Martin
Londie Martin
Cynthia Martinez
Christine Martorana
Carrie Matthews
Jessica Mattox
Tina Matuchniak
Aurora Matzke
Gabriella Mazal
William McCarter
Megan McIntyre
Adam McKee
Beatrice McKinsey
Cruz Medina
Kristi Melancon
Cynthia Miecznikowski
Benjamin Miller
Daisy Miller
Lynn Miller
Sandra Mills
Lilian Mina
Cynthia Mishlove
Jennifer Mitchell
Kendra Mitchell
Tiffany Mitchell
Jackie Mohan
Kathleen Mollick
Stephen Monroe
Jenna Morton-Aiken
Paul Muhlhauser
Colette Murphy
Brigitte Mussack
Melinda Myers
Nimmy Nair
Siskanna Naynaha
Heather Nelson
Alissa Nephew
lisa nienkark
Trishena Nieveen-Phegley
Matt Noonan
Krystia Nora
Euguenia Novokshanova
Ildi Olasz
Timothy Oleksiak
Adrienne Oliver
Matthew Osborn
Amanda Oswalt
Lana Oweidat
Grant Palmer
Donna Paparella
Courtney Parker
Jessica Parker
Joy Pasini
Kalani Pattison
Matthew Pavesich
Shanna Peeples
Vanessa Petroj
Kelly Peugh-Forte
Danielle Pieratti
Emily Plummer Catena
Mya Poe
Lainie Pomerleau
Kate Pond
Phatik Poudyal
Steven Price
Melody Pugh
Jill Quandt
Jill Quinn
Juval Racelis
Alma Ramirez
Sherry Rankins-Robertson
Diane Ransdell
Kyle Ratsch
Lynn Reid
Rhonda Reid
Brandi Reyes
Marsha Rhee
Tonya Rickman
Tanya Robertson
Glendal Robinson
Shelley Rodrigo
Christine Ross
Kacey Ross
Deborah Rossen-Knill
Jonathan Rovner
Kezia Ruiz
Larissa Runyan
Kate Ryan
Heidi Saenz
Consuelo Salas
Anastasia Salter
Catherine Savini
Sherri Sawicki
Martha Schaffer
Erika Scheurer
Priscila Schilaro Santa Rosa
Anne Schnarr
Amata Schneider-Ludorff
Jennifer Scott
Amanda Scukanec
John Seabloom-Dunne
Emily Sendin
Inês SIGNORINI
Jillian Skeffington
Heidi Skurat Harris
Jenn Sloggie
Alexander Slotkin
Elizabeth Smith
Jason Snart
Lingshan Song
Lauren Springer
Jess Stallings
Jadwiga Staniszewska-De Mott
Jessica Steele
Jennifer Stewart
Stephanie Stewart
Wendy Stewart
Jennifer Stumphy
Billie Tadros
Xiao Tan
Michelle Taransky
Kathleen Tarr
Gina Terry
Jason Tham
HoaiAnh Thanh
Jenny Thomas
Julie Thompson
Lizbett Tinoco
Tamara Toomey
Rachel Trnka
Mika Troutman
Mariya Tseptsura
Franziska Tsufim
Samantha Turner
Kimberly Turner-Shukis
David Tver
Onur Ural
Melissa Valerie
Marisol Varela
Molly Vasich
Elizabeth Vincelette
Beth Virtanen
Nicole Vogler
Jori Waldron
Dana Walker
Amy Wan
Tiffany Wang
Christine Watson
Daniel Weinstein
Rebecca West
Grace Wetzel
Sarah White
Kinlee Whitney
Lydia Wilkes
Mary Williams
Kelly Wilson
Natalie Wilson
Katie Winkelstein-Duveneck
Erica Wnek
Tara Wood
Allison Wright
Allison Wynhoff Olsen
Wei Xu
Ashley Yuckenberg
Grace Zanotti
James Matthew Zarnowiecki
Robert Zawatski
Jesseka Zeleike
Havva Zorluel Ozer
Damian Zurro