Conference on College Composition and Communication Logo

Call for Submissions: CCCC 2024 Convention Companion Publication

In September 2023, the CCCC Officers announced that CCCC 2024 will be a reimagining of the Convention as we know it through what they referred to as a distributed, semi-synchronous hybrid model for CCCC 2024. In an effort to increase access and opportunity for CCCC members to participate in the Annual Convention and enjoy the professional rewards associated with presentation and publication in CCCC venues, we are calling for those intending to submit papers to be considered for the CCCC 2024 Convention Companion Publication to complete this form by December 15, 2023. Following the Intent to Submit form’s completion, paper submissions are due by January 29, 2024. Papers may be up to 2,000 words in length (the equivalent of six pages, similar to that of a short roundtable paper).

The highest priority will be placed on publishing the papers of CCCC members whose proposals were accepted for presentation at the 2024 CCCC Annual Convention but who are unable to attend for one or a number of the following reasons:

  • Health (disability, physical or mental illness, or caregiving responsibilities)
  • Religious observances (Ramadan or other religious accommodations)
  • Funding (graduate students, adjunct faculty, and international scholars)
  • Employment precarity (graduate students, adjunct faculty and lecturers, those experiencing austerity cuts at their institutions)

The CCCC 2024 Convention Companion Publication will be made available for free to all CCCC members on the new NCTE publications platform, with print-on-demand copies of the volume available for purchase, expected in June 2024.

Who’s invited to submit a proposal?

We welcome proposal submissions from the following groups:

A. Those whose CCCC 2024 proposal was accepted, yet they are unable to attend the convention in person due to extenuating circumstances (e.g., health-related issues including immunocompromised individuals, need-based issues including funding inaccessibility and cost barriers, religious commitments, etc.).

B. Those who did not submit a CCCC 2024 proposal as a result of concerns related to being immunocompromised, funding inaccessibility or cost barriers, or having religious commitments that would make attendance difficult.

Again, please note that preference will be given to those who are unable to present at the 2024 CCCC Annual Convention because of accessibility, health related issues, or religious commitments.

How to submit

  1. Complete the Intent to Submit form by December 15, 2023. Submitters will be notified when the platform to submit papers is open for submissions. Note: If you did not submit a CCCC 2024 proposal as noted in item B under “Who’s invited to submit a proposal?” above, you will be asked to provide a brief abstract for your paper on the Intent to Submit form.
  2. Submit your paper (no more than 2,000 words in length including any notes and references) by January 29, 2024. Additionally, papers should:
    • be in Times New Roman, 12-point font;
    • be double-spaced; and
    • saved as an MS Word file.

Please email with questions.


November, 2023
CFP and intent to submit form posted

December 15, 2023
Intent to submit form due

January 29, 2024
Papers due

January–February, 2024
Papers reviewed by Editorial Management Team: Antonio Byrd, Romeo Garcia, Jamila Kareem, Amy Lueck, Ligia Mihut, Timothy Oleksiak, Zhaozhe Wang, and Kim Wieser

February 26, 2024
Decisions sent

March–April, 2024
Editing and review of page proofs

June 2024
Proceedings published

CCCC Ukraine Statement of Support

April 2023

CCCC has a long history of publishing statements on social and political issues related to the teaching of writing and rhetoric. The focus of these statements has often but not exclusively been US-centric. The organization has been silent on too many international issues of injustices; examples include the earthquake response in Haiti and Turkey, war in Syria and Afghanistan, organized terrorism in Nigeria, incarceration of Uyghurs in China, and the internal wars of many other nations. CCCC has also been silent on the US’s indifference toward issues that destroy the lives of international citizens such as the allowance of human trafficking and immigration policies that continue to break families apart and deny refugees safety in American cities. Given Vladimir Putin’s continued commitment to inflicting war upon Ukraine and its citizens, this changes.

CCCC stands in solidarity with our colleagues and students in Ukraine and those displaced from Ukraine for their safety. We also stand in solidarity with our Russian colleagues and students who oppose the war crimes inflicted on Ukrainian citizens and visitors. At the time of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees reported that 83 percent of young adults between 18 and 24 in Ukraine were enrolled in higher education. Today, many universities and academic institutions have been either destroyed, shut down, or transformed into temporary housing and resource centers. Access and opportunities related to higher education in Ukraine remain threatened. The bombing of Karazin University, home to a rare collection of books central to Ukrainian history, serves as evidence of the direct threats made by Russia on behalf of Vladimir Putin to not only erode education but destroy the presence and preservation of Ukrainian culture.

As scholars and teachers of rhetoric, composition, and writing studies, we are keenly aware of the power of language through textual and other means both to disseminate harmful social and political ideologies as well as challenge such ideologies. As Russia wages war against Ukraine via military violence and pillage in Ukraine, the Russian government, through state-sponsored and state-censored media networks, wages a war of propaganda in Russia to justify its violent invasion of Ukraine and vilify Ukrainian people. We are deeply troubled by the dehumanizing rhetoric aimed at Ukrainian people, the usurpation of historical trauma in Vladimir Putin’s reframing of a military invasion as an attempt to “denazify” Ukraine, and propagandistic efforts to erase both the unique history and culture of Ukrainian people and the shared history and humanity among Ukrainian and Russian people. At the same time, we are also cognizant of the historicity of anti-Russia sentiment and propaganda in the United States. While we expressly condemn the violence and censorship perpetrated by the Russian government, we recognize and are cautious of the means by which condemnations by US-based media outlets, politicians, and individuals may themselves slip into or recycle historically situated tropes, and we resist the ethnocentric imperative to make sense of the war using only US frameworks. We can hold these truths simultaneously.

We denounce the targeted attacks on Ukrainian schools, universities, and libraries. These bombing and shelling assaults continue to devastate the educational progress, mental health, and social development of Ukrainian children and adolescents and ravage the well-being of educators across the region. We acknowledge and decry the Russian military assault on museums and cultural-historical preservation sites, an assault meant to eradicate Ukrainian history and culture. We stand in solidarity with the librarians, curators, archivists, researchers, and scholars who oppose this warfare and continue their vital work in the face of tactical terror. We stand with organizations, such as the American Historical Association, who refute the Russian president’s claims of historical precedence for military campaigns against Ukraine. Conscious of the intersectional oppression facing international students from Africa in Ukraine, we additionally detest the openly racist treatment of Black African students on the Ukrainian/Polish border evacuating the war-torn country in the same ways their white European classmates and colleagues were permitted to do. These racist actions forced Black Africans escaping Ukraine for their safety to seek alternatives to evacuation that most white Europeans did not face, such as walking for hours to find border authorities that would permit their evacuation only to be turned back several times or receiving rejection from accessing transportation by train out of the country. We stand in support of and seek requests for assistance from our members and their colleagues working in the region.

We affirm those working to support the safety and ensure the academic freedom of our fellow Ukrainian students and scholars as well as Russian students and scholars actively resisting the legitimacy of this war. We recognize the work of the International Institution of Education, which, in the wake of this ongoing violence, created the IIE Emergency Student Fund for Ukraine, ensuring the financial safety for Ukrainian students cut off from critical resources to students currently studying in the US. We encourage continued support of the IIE Scholar Rescue Fund offering assistance through funds and fellowships for threatened and displaced scholars in Ukraine and Russia. These efforts—along with countless others not listed here—underscore the necessity to ensure academic freedom and access to education in war-inflicted areas, including Ukraine. We view the tactics to silence scholarly voices and prohibit educational access as tools of warfare meant to annihilate cultural knowledge and histories. As such, we call upon our members who teach about the importance of cultural knowledge and its connections to rhetoric and literacy to commit to the following actions:

  • demand/petition our institutions to provide financial, mental health, and food security support to Ukrainian students and faculty both in the country and displaced from their homes;
  • hold book drives and online courses;
  • teach media literacy on the war and propaganda;
  • hire displaced and refugee Ukrainian and Russian faculty of composition studies and other fields;
  • enact letter campaigns to our representatives; and
  • sponsor events and lectures that support the anti-war work of Ukrainian and other scholars in the region.

We encourage those whose access to education has been disrupted by conflict and combat to continue educational progress by supporting organizations working to ensure educational access in Ukraine. The UN Refugee Agency is one organization that offers specific actions related to educational access in Ukraine.

While the actions outlined above largely address the threats to access to higher education in Ukraine, we would be remiss not to mention the multitude of coordinated attacks on the innocent. These threats are actions aimed to demoralize Ukraine’s future. We denounce strikes on medical and mental healthcare facilities throughout Ukraine. The missile strikes and other attacks on children’s hospitals, cancer centers, ambulances, healthcare workers, and patients have impeded the capabilities of these facilities and services to care for critically and fatally wounded individuals. We recognize that unjustified attacks on the children and other innocent Ukrainians are strategic tactics by the Russians to erode hope for a free Ukraine. We affirm the need for democracies and institutions committed to academic freedom to continue providing resources and refuge as the fight for Ukraine continues.


This statement was generously drafted by the following 2023 CCCC Executive Committee members:

Mara Lee Grayson
Jamila Kareem
Maria Novotny

CCCC Executive Committee Introductions

Listen to introductions from CCCC Executive Committee members and why they have chosen to serve CCCC in this role!

Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Chen Chen, Utah State University, Logan

Darin Jensen, Des Moines Community College, IA (TETYC Editor)

Maria Novotny, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Timothy Oleksiak, University of Massachusetts Boston

Ruth Osorio, Old Dominion University, VA

Mudiwa Pettus, Medgar Evers College, New York City

Mya Poe, Northeastern University, Boston, MA

Zhaozhe Wang, University of Toronto, Canada (Graduate Student Representative)

CCCC Statement in Response to Proposed Cuts at WVU and Academic Austerity in Higher Education

September 7, 2023

We, the officers of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), write this statement to express our deep concern about the proposed elimination of 32 programs and retrenchment of faculty across West Virginia University, including in English, Communication Studies, and World Languages and Literatures. As the officers of the largest professional organization of teachers and scholars of writing, rhetoric, and composition studies in the world, we are alarmed at how these proposed cuts resemble similar austerity measures that too often disproportionately impact the most vulnerable to the benefit of the ultra-wealthy. The pattern that emerges involves the weakening of tenure protections alongside the language of “financial exigence” and “efficiencies” and “cost savings” that do not affect the highest-paid employees at the institution. Often, these decisions are made in partnership with external for-profit consulting companies and without regard for principles of shared governance.

Academic austerity is not new. These measures have been impacting higher education—especially two-year colleges and regional colleges and universities—for some time now. What’s more, academic austerity has had disproportionate effects on members of our profession, who are frequent targets of labor abuses such as “intensified workloads and the casualization of labor (exploited adjunct labor)” (Kynard 134) in contingent and precarious positions that are stripped of resources (Kalish et al.). Not surprisingly, composition and rhetoric has had a long history of scholarship analyzing and resisting labor exploitation in higher education (Bousquet; Cox et al.; Kahn et al.; Kynard; Schell and Stock; Welch and Scott). In following this tradition, we call for a recommitment to shared governance, including meaningful faculty involvement and the consultation of scholars in the humanities before making decisions to eliminate academic programs. Furthermore, we stand for fair treatment and equitable working conditions for faculty, graduate instructors, and staff alike.

Given our mission to support “the agency, power, and potential of diverse communicators inside and outside of postsecondary classrooms”; “diverse language practices”; and “ethical scholarship and communication,” we find it imperative to advocate against measures that undermine the core values pivotal to promoting equity-oriented education and scholarly engagement. CCCC urges that WVU leadership follow AAUP guidelines on shared governance and consult widely with their on-campus experts before proceeding with either proposed or alternative plans for cost-saving predicated on efficiency-based models that neither reflect knowledge and best practice in affected disciplines nor serve the needs and interests of the University’s constituents.

— The Officers of the Conference on College Composition and Communication

Further Readings

CCCC Statement on Working Conditions for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

CCCC Principles for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing, Principle 11

Cole, Kirsti, et al. A Faculty Guidebook for Effective Shared Governance and Service in Higher Education. Routledge, 2023.

AAUP Shared Governance

AAUP Financial Crisis FAQs


Bousquet, Marc. How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation. New York UP, 2008.

Cox, Anicca, et al. “The Indianapolis Resolution: Responding to Twenty-First-Century Exigencies/Political Economies of Composition Labor.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 68, no. 1, 2016, pp. 38–67.

Kahn, Seth, et al. Contingency, Exploitation, and Solidarity: Labor and Action in English Composition. WAC Clearinghouse / UP of Colorado, 2017.

Kalish, Katie, et al. “Inequitable Austerity: Pedagogies of Resilience and Resistance in Composition.” Pedagogy, vol. 19, no. 2, 2019, pp. 261–81.

Kynard, Carmen. Fakers and Takers: Disrespect, Crisis, and Inherited Whiteness in Rhetoric-Composition Studies. Composition Studies, vol. 50, no. 3, 2022, pp. 131–36.

Schell, Eileen E., and Patricia Lambert Stock, editors. Moving a Mountain: Transforming the Role of Contingent Faculty in Composition Studies and Higher Education. National Council of Teachers of English, 2001.

Strickland, Donna. The Managerial Unconscious in the History of Composition Studies. Southern Illinois UP, 2011.

Welch, Nancy, and Tony Scott, editors. Composition in the Age of Austerity. UP of Colorado, 2016.

Call for Volunteers: 2023–2026 CCCC Parliamentarian

The CCCC Executive Committee is seeking a volunteer to serve in the role of Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian is a nonvoting member of the Executive Committee who ensures that official CCCC meetings are run in accordance with Alice Sturgis’s The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure.

Application Deadline: October 4, 2023
Application Form

  • Selection Process: The Parliamentarian is selected by the current members of the Officers’ Committee from a pool of volunteers. The Parliamentarian is selected using the following criteria:
    • Relevant experience with committee and governance leadership within a department, university, or at the national level
    • Engagement with the CCCC organization (committee service, presenting at the Annual Convention, etc.)
    • Demonstrated attention to detail
    • Preferably, familiarity with parliamentary procedure
  • Responsibilities
    • Introduces incoming Executive Committee members to and advises them on meeting procedures.
    • Ensures business meetings are conducted in an orderly, transparent, and equitable fashion according to Alice Sturgis’s The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure.
    • Guides Officers and Executive Committee members through the rules of conduct.
    • Offers support to all Officers and Executive Committee members regarding proposed motions and amendments.
    • Identifies actions on the floor that are out of compliance with procedure and offers alternatives.
  • Term of Office: The Parliamentarian serves a three-year term, staggered with previous and incoming Parliamentarians. The term for the Parliamentarian selected in 2023 begins Monday, December 18, 2023, and concludes in December 2026.
  • Time Commitment: The CCCC Executive Committee meets in person twice annually, during the NCTE Annual Convention (November) and the CCCC Annual Convention (spring). The CCCC Executive Committee typically meets two to three times annually in virtual format. The CCCC Parliamentarian also serves in an advisory capacity to the CCCC Resolutions Committee (CCCC Annual Convention); advises and assists the CCCC Chair during the CCCC Annual Business Meeting (CCCC Annual Convention), including helping to prepare the script; and has a key role in the CCCC Executive Committee Orientation (typically held virtually in the fall).
  • Funding: The CCCC Parliamentarian receives reimbursement for travel, as well as both a per diem and reimbursement for lodging on days when services are requested to participate in official CCCC business.
  • All CCCC members are eligible to apply. Applicants must be members of CCCC at the time of application and maintain CCCC membership through the position term.

To nominate yourself for this role, please complete the application form by October 4, 2023. Email with questions.

Statement on Editorial Ethics

Conference on College Composition and Communication
April 2023

Exigence and Purpose

Editorial work—including every stage in the process by which scholarly work is reviewed and guided toward publication in academic journals and edited collections—is an important area of research, and CCCC recognizes that it is vital to maintain only the highest standards of ethical behavior, integrity, and professionalism in our academic publications. However, as others have noted, the process by which academic work enters the scholarly conversation through publication is often invisible (Ianetta; Sparks; Giberson, Schoen, and Weisser), and editorial work is, thus, both an understudied and undertheorized area of our field. This lack of intentional engagement with the behind-the-scenes work of scholarly publishing, and the occlusion of our editorial and peer review practices, may challenge our field’s work toward social justice and halt our best efforts to engage more diverse, inclusive, and equitable publication practices. As Blewett et al. write:

Just as equality in the classroom doesn’t manifest simply because well-intentioned people want it to, incorporation of diverse perspectives, bodies, and knowledge-making approaches in scholarly conversations requires what we are calling inclusion activism. To be inclusion activists, editors must be aware of how power relations operate in a field, be willing to challenge operations that exclude and diminish the experience and knowledge of some while propping up that of others, and be supportive of those who have not traditionally had access to or representation within field conversations (cf. Ahmed, Living a Feminist Life). Inclusion activism is an intentional effort to ensure participation and access as well as leadership opportunities to people of all backgrounds, at all career stages (274).

As Blewett et al. also note, “If we want equitable representation in our scholarship and in our field at large, we have to create the conditions to make it happen” (274). With this statement, our task force acknowledges the need for editorial transparency, ethical practices, and professional guidelines to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in our scholarly publication practices. We also believe that it is only through intentional measures to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion that our field may make space for new or underrepresented disciplinary perspectives, for transformative conversations, and for innovative research and practices.

The guidelines we offer below have been shaped the most by one resource in the field of writing studies that asserts the role editors, reviewers and authors can play in pushing back against institutional racism. That document, “Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices: A Heuristic for Editors, Reviewers and Authors,” was created by scholars in the field of technical communication and argues powerfully for the need to recognize and resist when academic review processes “reinscribe racism.” This CCCC statement was inspired and informed by that heuristic and aims to be an extension of that work, but with a broader emphasis on the various ethical dilemmas that may emerge in scholarly publication given disparities in power due to multiple and often intersecting positionalities, including ethnicity, gender, ability/disability, class and sexuality, but also related to access to resources, theoretical and scholarly orientation, institutional affiliation, and location on an academic career trajectory.

Our goals, therefore, are as follows:

  1. To open up a conversation about the complicated ethical issues that often emerge in the process of soliciting work, reviewing contributions to journals and edited collections, providing feedback, and guiding authors toward publication.
  2. To provide a set of guidelines or suggestions for ways to encourage generative, empathetic, and productive relationships among all participants in the process of academic publication in journals and edited collections. We hope these guidelines can be used by authors as they advocate for a better experience while navigating the publication process; by reviewers as they perform their vital service evaluating and responding to manuscripts; and by editors, as they seek to guide reviewers and develop their own journal-specific guidelines.
A Note about the Process of Developing Guidelines

The guidelines that follow draw upon our own experiences as authors, editors, and reviewers but are also informed by the generous contributions of members of the scholarly community. In an attempt to hear other voices and learn about situations outside our own experiences, the authors of this statement invited authors and editors to share stories about their experiences with publication, both positive and negative. We observed, in reviewing the stories our colleagues shared, that they coalesced around the following categories:

  1. Transparency about time and timelines
  2. Mentoring and revision
  3. Publication decisions: gatekeeping and inclusivity
  4. Conflicts of interest
  5. Intellectual property and citation
  6. Journal management
  7. Naming and citation practices

We used these categories to organize our recommendations in order to highlight the different aspects of editorial work that need to be considered and to suggest that all participants in academic publishing have a role to play in fostering ethical editorial practices. Because individuals inhabit different roles at different times in their professional careers, sometimes simultaneously, it may be helpful to think of editorial ethics as a larger ecosystem with all participants contributing to the health and sustainability of that environment.

Guidelines and Recommendations

I. Transparency about time and timelines

  • Editors should communicate publication time frames, letting authors know if a submission will be sent to reviewers and alerting authors to any delays in the process. Editors should give authors ample time to perform tasks, such as copyediting, and to address corrections speedily, letting authors know when they have done so.
  • To the extent it is possible, editors should set and publish approximate timelines and turnaround times for each step in the review and publication process.
  • Editors should make the decision over whether a piece can move on to the reviewer stage quickly and let the author(s) know whether the piece has moved to the next stage or whether it is not a good fit for the publication. If not a good fit for the publication, it is helpful whenever possible to suggest other publications that might be interested in the piece.
  • Authors should recognize that editing requires considerable time spent in fielding questions from authors, identifying and securing reviewers for submissions, managing the peer review process, and bringing issues to press.
  • Journals and editorial boards might choose to adopt policies to protect editors from harassment and excessive demands on their time, such as standardized language to communicate with authors who challenge editors’ judgments.

II. Mentoring and revision

  • Editors should write memos to authors synthesizing reviewer feedback and clarifying which of the reviewers’ requests the editors would like to see implemented and which are optional. For instance, if a reviewer suggests a long list of secondary sources, editors might point to the most relevant ones. As the ones who know their publication most intimately, editors can explain how they would like to see the draft transformed, whether or not those issues were brought up by reviewers.
  • Editors should invite authors to write a memo when they resubmit their piece and offer guidelines for authors to follow as they fulfill this request. These guidelines can ask authors to respond to the reviewers’ and editors’ suggestions, explaining which ones they took into account and how they did so. If authors decide not to make a suggested change, the rebuttal memo is the ideal place for them to explain why. Having the rebuttal memo as a guide allows editors and reviewers to have a clearer sense of the authors’ intentions and choices as they read the revision.
  • Editors should consider offering face-to-face feedback to authors who may benefit from it. Through conversation, editors can help authors figure out what they want to say and how to say it. Although it may seem time consuming, this practice may end up saving time, as it prevents misunderstandings by allowing authors to ask questions (and editors to answer them) in real time instead of requiring back and forth emails.
  • Journals should be transparent about their review processes—whether multiple “Revise and Resubmits” can be expected, whether formal mentoring is provided, whether the editors engage in developmental editing. When clearly stated in the submission guidelines, this allows authors to choose to send their work to the kinds of journals that engage in the practices that best suit their needs, timelines, and revision styles.

III. Publication decisions: gatekeeping and inclusivity

  • Editors, editorial board members, reviewers, authors, and special issue editors should all agree to follow the “Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices” heuristic. Review requests should include a link to this statement.
  • Editors and reviewers should recognize the value of diverse language practices and linguistic choices within articles and other publications, as opposed to enacting linguistic racism by privileging “white linguistic and cultural norms” (Baker-Bell et al.).
  • Editors and reviewers should recognize that these professional roles position them as gatekeepers who should be reflexive about what perspectives are included and excluded in our disciplinary publications. For example, if a submission initially seems jarring or too different from already established practices and ways of thinking, editors and reviewers should keep an open mind and consider what new directions such a submission might open for the field.
  • Reviewers should make their comments in a respectful manner even if they strongly disagree with a submission, whether partially or in its entirety.
  • Editors should create a brief training document to share with reviewers alongside the submission and the review questionnaire. Such a document can reflect explicit, conspicuous, and transformative editorial and review practices that support linguistic justice.
  • Editors should provide feedback in a way that is generative for and generous to all scholars. Editors, in other words, should see themselves as not only nurturing their own journals/special issues/edited collections and the authors they publish, but also those whose work they choose not to publish. That nurturing should emerge through generative feedback that takes into account where authors are in their development even if that particular piece is not accepted for publication. Suggestions for further development and of other publications that might be interested in that piece are ways to help graduate students and emerging authors grow as scholars.
  • Because publishing is a high-stakes activity as it is used to demonstrate progress on research for continued employment, job security, and promotion, editors should make every effort to reduce editorial review times for, and communicate about delays to potentially vulnerable colleagues.
  • Editors should recognize that publishing only 6,000- to 10,000-word research or theoretical articles may be an impediment to authors with limited time and institutional resources. Alternative journal features like pedagogical articles, course descriptions, roundtables, responses, editorials, and symposia may provide more inclusive options, providing space for these colleagues to contribute to the field’s knowledge and practices.
  • Editors and reviewers should accept work on the merit of its arguments, research, and insights, not on its perceived broad appeal. Editors and reviewers should question and transcend the belief that work by and about marginalized populations has a limited appeal.
  • Editors should use the desk rejection feature when faced with submissions that are exclusionary, narrow-minded, poorly sourced, harmful, or otherwise problematic. If a work is not likely to be published for the reasons listed above, it should be rejected without sending the work out to reviewers.
  • When authors are asked to engage with the work of diverse scholars as they revise their submissions, editors should insist that they fully engage with those scholars’ work—the questions, findings, and recommendations. Because “we give particular ideas power and visibility in how we cite,” editors should discourage the use of parenthetical citations as an inclusive strategy (“Anti-Racist” 7). For example, if an editor or reviewer recommends that an author address relevant works by antiracist scholars, that author should engage with those works, not simply provide a parenthetical reference to them, as follows: “(see Chavez, Inoue, Pough).”

IV. Conflicts of interest

  • Editors should be mindful of reviewers’ motivations and egos as they engage with the work they are reviewing. If reviewers become defensive about the authors’ fair and valid questioning of the reviewers’ own work in the piece, editors should intervene by (1) dismissing that aspect of the review; (2) seeking a different reviewer; and/or (3) not using that reviewer again if it appears that they may be unable to keep some level of impartiality as they engage with the work of others.
  • A situation may occur where a reviewer has accepted an invitation to review a manuscript and, upon reading the manuscript, does not believe they can provide a fair and ethical reader’s report. In such a situation, the reviewer should notify the editor, so that a replacement reviewer can be assigned.

 V. Intellectual property and citation practices

  • Editors and reviewers should respect the intellectual property of authors. While a work may not yet be published, it is unethical for editors and/or reviewers to later make similar arguments in their own work. If authors see that their ideas have been exploited, they should turn to the journal’s editors for help. In response, editors should provide the needed proof in terms of dated communication in case the authors want to argue (through legal means or otherwise) for credit as the ideas’ originators.
  • Editors should consider providing credit to reviewers in articles, chapters, journals, and edited collections. There are various ways of doing this. For instance, College English publishes the names of all their reviewers in the “Editors’ Introduction” every year, Kairos makes reviewers known to authors (and each other) from the beginning, and constellations gives reviewers a choice to de-anonymize themselves once the peer-reviewed process has been completed. If using the latter model, reviewers should know from the start that de-anonymizing will be a choice later on in the process.
  • Editors can encourage authors to include an acknowledgment section where they thank those who helped them shape the publication in ways that may not be visible in the text or citations. Colleagues, friends, partners, relatives, teachers, mentors, and reviewers with whom they had conversations or who provided information, resources, or viewpoints that contributed to the manuscript could be recognized in this section.
  • Editors should encourage authors to cite diverse scholars, referencing the “Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices” heuristic and the new CCCC Position Statement on Citation Justice in Rhetoric, Composition, and Writing Studies.

VI. Journal management

  • Professional organizations should work toward creating more inclusive journals by appointing and supporting diverse editorial teams and editorial boards who may promote the value of diverse content, foster connections with diverse reviewers and authors, and enrich editorial conversations. When recruiting editors, it is useful to think about how the position may benefit those editors. Diversity should be the norm, more than the exception, for an editorial team.
  • When searching for new editorial teams, professional organizations should make transparent what material support editorial teams will require, and what support the organization is able to provide (financial, production, etc.). Editorial search committees should work with prospective editors to help them petition their department chairs, deans, and provosts for additional support, including travel expenses, course releases, student interns/workers, and dedicated office space for the journal at its new institutional home.
  • Journal editors should provide special issue editors with clear and unambiguous guidelines explaining the review and publication processes for special issues, outlining the journal editors’ roles in reviewing and approving works (if any), and accounting for who will be responsible for citation checks, copy edits, proof reviews, etc. The journals’ editors should, at a minimum, read all special issue content to make sure it doesn’t conflict with the values, standards, and practices of the publication. Special issue editors should know in advance of circulating their CFP how hands-on the journal editors will be and whether final approval by the journal editors (or feedback) will be a required part of the process.
  • To ensure the integrity of the work, journal editors should establish clear processes by which special issues are developed. For instance, a journal may require that proposals to edit special issues be reviewed by two or more experts in the topic/field when the editor does not have expertise in the subject matter of the special issue. Other journals may require that special issues go through the same review process as other submissions and/or that special issue articles be fact checked prior to publication.
  • The relationship between journal editors and special issue editors is a complex one since they are sharing responsibilities in ways that aren’t always clear or easy to navigate. If a work published in a special issue is found to be inaccurate, problematic, or harmful, responsibility should be shared by both sets of editors and the response to these issues—whether it be a retraction, an apology, or whatever else is needed—should be determined and executed by both the journal and special issue editors. When necessary, editors of journals with editorial and/or advisory boards should seek guidance from these boards regarding appropriate responses and how those responses should be delivered.
  • Journal editors should require that proposals for special issues include a distribution plan that explains how the special issue editor(s) will reach a diverse group of potential contributors. Special issue editors should include this information in their proposals even when it is not required.

VII. Naming and citation practices

  • Journals should adopt citation formatting policies that allow for a diversity of sources and respect cultural differences. If an article cites works from languages, alphabets, or calendars that are not available in English, it is acceptable to use the original version of the citation. If a translation is available, the citation could appear in both the original language and in English.
  • Editors need to be careful to portray authors’ information (name, place of work/school, contact information) exactly as it was provided. If mistakes appear in the published version of a manuscript, editors should make it a priority to address those errors as speedily as possible. Correctly spelling an author’s name, for example, has major consequences for that author in terms of the searchability of that publication and its inclusion in their publication profile on Google Scholar and other aggregators.
  • Editors should allow trans authors to remove their deadnames from the electronic versions of prior publications, when possible. As journals work toward being supportive of their transitioning authors, they should make this work a priority and professional organizations should set aside any funds necessary to make these changes to the electronic record.
  • Just as it is important for authors’ names to be properly spelled, it is vital for those cited to be accurately represented. Authors, editors, and copy editors should pay attention to double-compounds and hyphenated last names, accents, capitalization, punctuation, and so on as they cite others throughout a work.
  • Editors can request that authors provide their pronouns in their author bios (if they’re comfortable doing so), and incorporate positionality statements into their work wherever it may be appropriate for them to reflect on aspects of their identity that shape their perceptions/experiences and analysis/findings. This suggestion should be limited to aspects of their identity that the authors are comfortable sharing.

This statement was created by the 2022 Task Force to Develop a “Position Statement: Principles for Equitable and Ethical Scholarship in Writing, Rhetoric, and Composition Studies.” The members of the Task Force include:

Alexandra Hidalgo, University of Pittsburgh
Rachel Ihara, Kingsborough Community College
Lori Ostergaard, Oakland University
Leigh Gruwell, Auburn University
Sheila Carter-Tod, Co-Chair, Denver University
Jennifer Sano-Franchini, Co-Chair, West Virginia University


Cagle, Lauren E., et al. “Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices: A Heuristic for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors.” 2021–,

Baker-Bell, April, et al. This Ain’t Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice! Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2020,

Blewett, Kelly, et al. “Editing as Inclusion Activism.” College English, vol. 81, no. 4, 2019, pp. 273–296.

Giberson, Greg, Megan Schoen, and Christian Weisser. Behind the Curtain of Scholarly Publishing: Editors in Writing Studies. Utah State UP, 2022.

Ianetta, Melissa. “From the Editor.” Scholarly Editing: History, Performance, Future special issue of College English, vol. 81, no. 4, 2019, pp. 267–272.

Position Statement on Citation Justice in Rhetoric, Composition, and Writing Studies. Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2022,

Sparks, Summar C. “From Gatekeepers to Facilitators: Understanding the Role of the Journal Editor.” Jenna Pack Sheffield, Summar C. Sparks, and Melissa Ianetta, “Symposium: Revaluing the Work of the Editor,” College English, vol. 77, no. 2, 2014, pp. 153–157.


Cagle, Lauren E., et al. “Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices: A Heuristic for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors.” 2021–,

Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, and the World Association of Medical Editors. “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.” 2022,

Committee on Publication Ethics. “Core practices.” 2017–,

Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, and The World Association of Medical Editors. “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.”

Council of Science Editors. “2.7 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Scholarly Publishing.” 2022–,–equity–and-inclusion-in-scholarly-publishing.

Council of Science Editors. “Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.” 2006–,

Rockwell, Sara, Ph.D. “Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers.” Yale University, “Peer Review Resources,” Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Statement on Support for Gender Diversity/Trans, Two-Spirit, and Nonbinary Students, Staff, and Faculty

Conference on College Composition and Communication
February 2023

In response to the recent legislative onslaught targeting LGBTQIA+ communities, and to federal inaction, the CCCC Executive Council convened an LGBTQIA+ Task Force focusing on methods for supporting LGBTQIA+ people in our professional spaces. Given the climate of hostility targeting trans and queer people, we remind our colleagues that there is no neutral stance. Passivity in the face of violence is still violence.

As CCCC works to combat white supremacy, create accessible spaces, demand Black linguistic justice, and commit to “the work of antiracist change-making,” this work is incomplete without addressing the transphobia and queerphobia inherent to white supremacy. Queer of color, trans of color, and crip scholars have proven that dominant conceptions of gender and sexuality were built on and built for white supremacy and have been used to exclude, dehumanize, and persecute Black, Indigenous, and other people of color regardless of gender identity and/or sexual orientation (Leonardo and Porter; Pritchard, “For Colored Kids”; Chavez; Martin and Battles; Kearl; Patterson and Hsu; Driskill).

We do not want to provide another superficial statement about the “values” of our discipline that falls short of substantive action. Instead, following the lead of the Black Technical and Professional Writing Task Force, we have created a resource-rich document with a portfolio of ongoing commitments with the express goal of creating campuses that support LGBTQIA+ students’, staff members’, and teachers’ access to the full range of their human experiences.

This statement serves as a model for reframing LGBTQIA+ issues and undertaking specific actions that create supportive institutions and learning environments for students, staff, and faculty working on campuses.

We have composed the statement in three sections, each of which addresses a different audience with its own particular levels of power and institutional constraints and affordances. The first section offers specific action for writing teachers within their individual classrooms. The second offers commitments to hold department and college administrators accountable. The third section articulates actions to hold our own organization accountable for supporting gender diverse/trans and nonbinary students, staff, and faculty. These commitments were approved during the CCCC Executive Committee’s fall 2022 meeting.

Given that most spaces and institutional policies were designed to be hostile to trans and queer people, creating genuinely LGBTQIA+-inclusive settings requires deliberate and ongoing engagement with the many extant and novel attacks on LGBTQIA+ lives. While it is impossible to provide exhaustive recommendations, we offer a set of actionable commitments that make the lives of LGBTQIA+ people richer and more possible. We hope these actions help protect queer and trans people and encourage our campuses to evolve into more just communities.

Section 1: Collaborative Teaching Practice

Gender and sexuality are embedded throughout our rhetorical practices; they are not just the purview of LGBTQIA+ folks. But certain forms of gender, kinship, and intimacy are so normalized that they can go unnoticed, while others are marked as aberrant. At the level of teaching, faculty should create space to reflect on and to enact practices that are affirming of trans and genderqueer students.

Commitment 1: Allow students to introduce themselves rather than calling roll from official rosters, which may not have students’ correct names.

Commitment 2: Intentionally use inclusive/gender-neutral language when referring to groups of students (folks, friends, class, team, y’all, everyone, etc.).

Commitment 3: Correct those who misgender students and move on. Model and provide support for interventions that respect LGBTQIA+ community members.

Commitment 4: Include content by LGBTQIA+ authors and about LGBTQIA+ experiences. This includes LGBTQIA+ theorists as well as practitioners. Further, writing instructors should include these authors, texts, and experiences throughout the learning experience rather than as “special topics” weeks or “niche” subjects.

Commitment 5: Study and practice an intersectional approach to LGBTQIA+ readings that illustrate the ways gender, sex, and sexuality are always already part of the ways we think about other identities, known and emerging.

Commitment 6: Be well versed in your institution’s current policies and guidelines regarding name change, gender-inclusive bathrooms, and insurance, and be able to offer current and relevant resources and information to students.

Section 2: Departments, Colleges, and Institutions

Although departments and institutions exist in unique contexts with particular constraints, the following list begins the work for assessing the support and care of the environment in which students, staff, and faculty learn and work. Administrators can ensure there are clear policies and procedures regarding these actionable items and work toward support and articulation of guidelines and policies that do not yet exist, or need additional clarity, communication, and support that moves beyond current formats. Faculty and staff can work within existing committee structures (e.g., department committees, school committees, etc.) to make sure that these items are addressed and part of ongoing and developing institutional cultures.

Commitment 1: Provide clearly communicated, easily navigable pathways for name changes.

For faculty and staff, these processes ought to be communicated during the onboarding process and on a regular basis through departmental communications. Additionally, your institution could provide support for those members of the community seeking a legal name change. Laws surrounding name change differ by state and can be involved and costly. Working to make these processes—both institutional and governmental—more hospitable and less burdensome is the overall goal.

Commitment 2: Advocate for gender-inclusive bathrooms.

Though there are multiple examples of campuses that have de-centered gendered facilities, conversations and strategies around creating gender-inclusive restrooms on campus are often framed by concerns that reflect budgetary constraints and heteronormative values. Some institutions are governed by local laws and ordinances that require separate facilities for legal gender assignment and funding for such projects. However, departments can support faculty, staff, and students by communicating whether/where these facilities currently exist on campus. Administrators can further support gender inclusivity through efforts to make sure your campus provides fully accessible, nonmarginalizing bathroom facilities for all.

Commitment 3: Use correct names and pronouns.

Using a person’s stated name and pronouns is a matter of respect and validation that clearly communicates to another person their right to be and belong. In support of a person’s self-determination, your institution ought to have

  1. a community-wide expectation that faculty, students, and staff honor the stated names and pronouns of every individual, and allow for faculty, students, and staff to update their names/pronouns in institutional capacities;
  2. clearly articulated and communicated pedagogical practices regarding stated name and pronoun usage in the classroom; and,
  3. resources at the department and institutional levels to assist those who require instruction and support in practicing inclusivity in the classroom, meetings, and all workspaces.

Resource for Learning and Action

Commitment 4: Advocate for insurance coverage for all employees.

Since the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, all those legally married are assured the same institutional rights associated with insurance coverage. That said, it is important to make sure that your institution also continues to offer domestic partnership benefits to those who may not want to legally marry. With perceived challenges to same-sex marriage coming in the future, it is important for institutions to advocate for insurance coverage for all employees to ensure equity and inclusivity—even, and perhaps especially, in organizations with a nondiscrimination policy that includes LGBTQIA+ protections.

Likewise, policies that exclude gender-affirming care can effectively exclude trans people from employment at an institution. Research whether the healthcare policy of your employer excludes coverage for transgender health care and if possible provide the information on job listings.

Resource for Learning and Action

Commitment 5: Include rich resources and training programs on LGBTQIA+ needs during onboarding procedures for all faculty and staff.

Research suggests that a lack of knowledge is an obstacle for many employees trying to overcome and challenge prejudice. Providing faculty and staff with clear information about LGBTQIA+ experiences and the barriers that trans and queer people encounter in social and institutional spaces enables better-informed engagement and clears the path for open discussion. Sessions should include individuals who identify as LGBTQIA+ so that employees are able to hear own-voices stories and cultivate cross-cultural understandings.

Resource for Learning and Action: “Creating a Trans-Inclusive Workplace”

Commitment 6: Actively research and seek out policies relating to the issue above and also acknowledge that additional issues and needs may arise over time.

Anticipate coordinated campaigns against LGBTQIA+ faculty and understand what resources are available to protect faculty who are attacked for working with (or identifying as a member of) LGBTQIA+ communities. Advocate for better protections as needed.

Section 3: Professional Organization*

CCCC is the largest scholarly society for the study of rhetoric, composition, and literacy. The organization must lead by example. CCCC needs to be asking better questions than who is or is not present. The organization’s thinking must be based in trans and queer praxis, praxis that has grown in dynamism and complexity thanks to BIPOC scholars who have pushed trans and queer thought beyond its historic roots in Whiteness (Pritchard Fashioning Lives; Davis; Presley; Peterman and Spencer). At the organizational and institutional level, CCCC will commit to rethinking the way it conducts its business.

Commitment 1: Rethink the way CCCC honors writing programs.

The CCCC Writing Program Certificate of Excellence currently does not require evidence of safety or care work for trans and queer students, staff, and faculty. Programs of Excellence must now demonstrate how they protect trans and queer students, staff, and faculty and engage with trans/queer praxis.

Cultural and political contexts can complicate and set limits to such work. WPAs seeking this certification, therefore, may offer a range of evidence demonstrating their commitments to trans and queer safety.

  • Describe the legal, institutional, ideological, and cultural barriers facing WPAs working toward safety and care work for trans and queer students, staff, and faculty and offer responses to these barriers.
    • Possible data to be included:
      • Formal policies within and beyond the department that deny or work against trans and queer safety
      • Municipal or state laws that make this work illegal or precarious
      • A narrative of the WPA’s sense of the campus climate
  • Create inclusive language that allows students, staff, and faculty the right to identify how they wish to be addressed.
    • Possible data to be included:
      • Online or in-person registration/sign-in forms
      • Signage or other materials about names, pronouns, and queer/trans inclusivity that are easily available to those who enter the space
  • Articulate action steps that WPAs have taken to transform or ease the burden of name change policies in their programs and/or local institutions.
    • Possible data to be included:
      • Official policies for name changes
  • Demonstrate trans- and queer-inclusive training of students, staff, and faculty that allows students, staff, and faculty working in writing programs to enact trans and queer care work.
    • Possible data to be included:
      • Resource guides for trans and queer care work
      • Clear flow charts guiding consultants and informing students of conflict resolution regarding trans and queer issues (i.e., where they can go to resolve and to negotiate challenges)

Commitment 2: Change the Position Statement review process to be more trans- and queer-inclusive.

Position Statements are reviewed every five years for revision, affirmation, or sunsetting. Review of Position Statements should

  • Include trans and queer colleagues in all Statement reviews by appointment or in consultation with Queer Caucus co-chairs.
  • Work queer- and trans-inclusive language into all Statements in addition to the commonplace citation strings.
  • Revise and update Students’ Right to Their Own Language to include the language we use to self-identify, clarifying that LGBTQIA+ belonging is integral to racial justice.

Commitment 3: Transform our approaches to conference location and presence.

CCCC cannot anticipate every policy of consequence in our host cities and states, but it can take steps to use its resources to bring greater awareness to EC members prior to the selection of host cities. CCCC can also use its considerable resources to support queer and trans literacy programs in our host cities in the following ways:

Prior to Conference Host Selection

1. Applications for host cities must now request a list of local queer and trans literacy organizations (this helps prepare for future community collaborations).

2. The CCCC EC should investigate the political climate of potential host cities and states that could be a concern to our queer and trans members as part of its selection criteria.

On-the-Ground Action at Conference

3. CCCC Assistant Chair (Conference Program Chair), the Local Arrangements Committee, and, as needed, the Social Justice at the Convention Committee collaborate on supporting local queer and trans literacy programs in host cities and states during its yearly conference, following best ethical practices in reciprocity with and solidarity for community engagement.

Actions include:

a. Establish community partnerships at least one year prior to the convention.

b. Free badges to local queer and trans literacy leaders and a space on the program should these leaders wish to present.

c. Active queer and trans conference members pair with these communities to help develop panels or consider how best to use CCCC resources. These members should, whenever possible, work in or near the host city.

Commitment 4: Reconceptualize civic and legal actions as community engagement.

Colleagues across the country often use CCCC Statements as part of their rationale for tenure and promotion and other institutional actions. Review committees also can use CCCC Statements to assess the scholarly contributions of our colleagues. As such, we call on CCCC to reconceptualize civic and legal action as community engagement and develop a statement that treats it as professional service and engaged scholarship. CCCC should look to the Coalition on Community Writing and the National Writing Project as resources for entering this conversation and refining this commitment.

Commitment 5: Establish a trans-/gender-expansive editorial policy that CCCC publications will follow.

CCCC is responsible for the publication of College Composition and Communication, FORUM, and the Studies in Writing and Rhetoric book series. There is currently no unified, trans-/gender-expansive editorial policy available to scholars or future editors. To support accountability regarding editorial practices with respect to trans and genderqueer scholars, CCCC Executive Committee should require editorial boards to revise/update their own policies and practices, which may include:

  • Defining the work of and expectations for editorial board membership on publications’ webspaces.
  • Including trans and queer scholars (across institutional types and professional rank) on editorial boards and consulting these editorial board members for their replacement when their term ends.
  • Guiding reviewers toward a more just and empathetic review of MSS. Examples of this include actions such as:
    • Insisting that correct pronouns are used in MS and reviewer comments
    • Rejecting as baseless and false a grammar-based rationale for the continued misuse of pronouns
    • Rejecting comments that dismiss the personal outright as a location of knowledge and information. Historically, such attitudes have served to disguise whitestream, patriarchal perspectives as “universal objectivity,” and to invalidate experiences that prove otherwise
    • Examining comments that question the veracity or viability of queer and trans methods. There are of course inappropriate applications of queer and trans methods that may not serve queer and trans communities, but too often resistance echoes the blanket disregard of queer/trans perspectives as “aberrant” or “niche,” and passing such remarks on to LGBTQIA+ authors can compound the discrimination they’ve already experienced throughout their careers
  • Expanding reviewers and editorial board members to include experts outside the academy.
  • Considering practices and processes that would update and correct files and documents in response to name and pronoun changes.

*These commitments were approved by the CCCC Executive Committee during their November 2022 meeting.

Selected Resources

Conference on College Composition and Communication. CCCC Black Technical and Professional Communication Position Statement with Resource Guide (2020).

Conference on College Composition and Communication. This Ain’t Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice! (2020).

Conference on College Composition and Communication. Disability Studies in Composition: Position Statement on Policy and Best Practices (2020).

Conference on College Composition and Communication. CCCC Statement on White Language Supremacy (2021).

Conference on College Composition and Communication. CCCC Statement on Recent Violent Crimes against Asians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders.

Patterson, GPat. “Loving Students in the Time of Covid: a Dispatch from LGBT Studies.” Journal of Liberal Arts, vol. 22, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1–16.

Waite, Stacey. Teaching Queer: Radical Possibilities for Writing and Knowing. U of Pittsburgh P, 2017.

Additionally, the Queer Caucus curates a working bibliography of queer/trans rhetoric and writing studies scholarship.

Works Cited

Chávez, Karma R. Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities. U of Illinois P, 2013.

Davis, Seth E. “Trade: Sexual Identity, Ambiguity, and Literacy Normativity.” Literacy in Composition Studies, vol. 9, no. 2, 2022,

Delgado, Richard. “Storytelling for Oppositionists and Others: A Plea for Narrative.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 87, no. 8, 1989, pp. 2411–41,

Driskill, Qwo-Li. Asegi Stories: Cherokee Queer and Two-Spirit Memory. U of Arizona P, 2016.

hooks, bell. “Theory as Liberatory Practice.” Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, vol. 4, no. 1, 1991, pp. 1–12.

Hsu, V. Jo. Constellating Home: Trans and Queer Asian American Rhetorics. The Ohio State UP, 2022.

Kearl, Michelle Kelsey. “‘Is Gay the New Black?’: An Intersectional Perspective on Social Movement Rhetoric in California’s Proposition 8 Debate.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2015, pp. 63–82,

Leonardo, Zeus, and Ronald K. Porter. “Pedagogy of Fear: Toward a Fanonian Theory of ‘Safety’ in Race Dialogue.” Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 13, no. 2, 2010, pp. 139–57.

Martin, Alfred L. Jr., and Kathleen Battles. “The Straight Labor of Playing Gay.” Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 127–140,

Martinez, Aja Y. Counterstory: The Rhetoric and Writing of Critical Race Theory. National Council of Teachers of English, 2020. CCCC Studies in Writing and Rhetoric.

Patterson, GPat, and V. Jo Hsu. “Exposing the Seams: Professional Dress & the Disciplining of Nonbinary Trans Bodies.” The Journal of Multimodal Rhetorics, vol. 3, no. 2, 2020,

Petermon, Jade D., and Leland G. Spencer. “Black Queer Womanhood Matters: Searching for the Queer Herstory of Black Lives Matter in Television Dramas.” Critical Studies in Media Communication, vol. 36, no. 4, 2019, pp. 339–356,

Powell, Malea, et al. “Our Story Begins Here: Constellating Cultural Rhetorics.” Enculturation, no. 18, 25 October 2014,

Presley, Rachel. “Toward a Trans Sovereignty: Why We Need Indigenous Rhetorics to Decolonize Gender and Sexuality.” Transgender Rhetorics, special issue of Peitho, vol. 22, no. 4, 2020.

Pritchard, Eric Darnell. Fashioning Lives: Black Queers and the Politics of Literacy. Southern Illinois UP, 2016.

—. “For Colored Kids Who Committed Suicide, Our Outrage Isn’t Enough: Queer Youth of Color, Bullying, and the Discursive Limits of Identity and Safety.” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 83, no. 2, 2013, pp. 320–345.

Williams, Patricia J. The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Harvard UP, 1991.


This statement was generously created by the CCCC Task Force on Support for Gender Diversity/Trans and Nonbinary Students and Faculty. The members of this task force included:

Chuck Baker
Antonio Byrd
Ames Hawkins
Ada Hubrig
V. Jo Hsu
Timothy Oleksiak
GPat Patterson
Donnie Johnson Sackey

Position Statement on Citation Justice in Rhetoric, Composition, and Writing Studies

Conference on College Composition and Communication
November 2022

This statement is a response to several recent and historical exigencies that have demonstrated a need for a broader conversation about citation justice in rhetoric, composition, and writing studies. Scholars in the discipline and beyond have documented how the works of minoritized scholars are all too frequently excluded, invisibilized, or even co-opted in dominant normative citation practices (Chakravartty et al.; Kynard; Pritchard; Walton, Moore, & Jones; Peña), and professional whisper networks have long told stories of graduate students—oftentimes BIPOC graduate students—having their work plagiarized by tenure-track professors.

With these issues in mind, this statement aims to contribute to ongoing efforts to redress long-standing inequities in the field of rhetoric, composition, and writing studies, which has systemically devalued and overlooked the knowledges of minoritized scholars (Kynard; Parks et al.; Pritchard; Royster). One location where these inequities are often reproduced is in our citation practices, which can alternately legitimate and denigrate various epistemologies, and contribute to the continued minoritization of BIPOC and other multiply marginalized scholars. Citation, then, is political, and can be a tool both for maintaining white supremacy and for advancing racial justice.

Citation is an act of “disciplinary landscaping,” to echo Jacqueline Jones Royster’s language. Royster teaches us to consider how citation practices contribute to our disciplinary landscape, how citations are arguments about whose knowledges are credible and worth learning from. Royster explains, “Highlighting landscaping as an interpretive process underscores the extent to which interpretive enterprises are contingent more generally on perception and more specifically on the limitations of perception” (148). These limits of perception also affect our citation practices, which go on to impact field perceptions of expertise, and relatedly, how minoritized scholars are promoted and tenured (or not), alongside other material outcomes, described further below. Thus, instead of engaging in what Eric Darnell Pritchard has theorized as “literacy normativity,” we must be open to learning from “restorative literacies” that are rooted in the diverse methods of Black LGBTQ people.

This position statement aims to encourage scholars to engage in citation justice in all areas of scholarly production, with the specific goals of:

  • redressing citational erasures and exclusions in the literatures of our discipline,
  • considering the material impacts of citation for minoritized communities and knowledges, and
  • working toward a more just and inclusive disciplinary body of knowledge and academic community.

To do so, we discuss the role of citation in our work as rhetoric, composition, and writing studies teacher-scholars before going on to frame citation as an equity issue. We then discuss systematic and cultural factors of academic workplaces that contribute to citation inequity and thus require redress. This statement closes with a heuristic for practicing citation justice and resources for further engaging this important issue.

Citation is critical to our work as teacher-scholars in rhetoric, composition, and writing studies.

Scholars in rhetoric and composition have theorized the rhetorics and political consequences of citation for some time now (see, for instance, Pritchard, Kynard, Connors, Robillard), and several have offered valuable insights for how to think through such issues. For instance, in Fashioning Lives, Pritchard argues for the need to commit and recommit ourselves “to an ethics of intellectual community that requires epistemological empathy, accountability, humility, and intersectionality”—values that can and should be reflected in our citation practices (247). We cite sources not only in the scholarship that we write for publication, but also in our syllabi, in the development of comprehensive exam and independent study reading lists, and in our calls for proposals, teacher training materials, online resources, social media recommendations, as well as in other contexts. We also frequently teach writing students about appropriate and ethical citation practices. As a result, this statement may be relevant to several audiences and contexts of scholarly production, including but not limited to:

  • writers who are making decisions about citation in our writing practices, or who are working to justify our citation practices to reviewers and editors;
  • instructors who are developing course materials and syllabi that engage with a diverse, inclusive range of material;
  • graduate students who are developing their independent study or exam reading lists, writing their dissertation/thesis, or doing an academic job search and need to justify their citation practices to their advisors, committee members, graduate faculty, hiring committees, and others;
  • writing program administrators who are developing teacher training materials;
  • reviewers who want to explain citation-related recommendations for writers;
  • editors of journals, books, and book series, who want to explain citation-related recommendations for writers or who are developing guidelines for reviewers; and
  • guest editors and conference organizers who are developing CFPs.
Citation is an equity issue.

Citation is not only a way we build ethos and credibility for making arguments, but, perhaps more importantly, a decision to amplify some voices over others, and an argument about whose voices and perspectives are valid, credible, and worth drawing from as we build knowledge in the discipline. Citation practices affect our material realities, how people are sustained and promoted, what knowledge is honored in the discipline, and who we see as knowledge producers. For instance, Parks et al.’s 2022 CCCC Convention panel highlighted how citations are powerful metrics with material import for our work as they affect raises, compensation, grant funding, international scholars’ visa applications, and more. They also affect the ability of minoritized scholars to publish with presses that are concerned with marketability and readership for a broader, predominantly white audience (Firestone).

Citation is about giving credit to those whose thinking has informed and preceded our own. It is also how disciplines determine epistemological legitimacy. It is thus crucial that we attend to the politics and social justice implications of citation. As a field, it is important to consider how an intersectional analysis of the politics of power and citation inequality disrupts discriminatory practices by rethinking what is considered scholarship, what are considered scholarly means of sharing knowledge, and by consciously addressing the ways in which value is assigned through the politics of citation practices. When we make choices about who we may deem “foundational” or “influential” to our work, we are making decisions about who and what we value disciplinarily. These decisions have power, and as such need to be examined in terms of how this power is understood and forwarded. Selectively choosing who to acknowledge is not only an ethical consideration, but also a way of limiting and/or expanding the range and scope of what it means to make and share knowledge within and across the field of rhetoric, composition, and writing studies.

Dominant, normative academic cultures and values contribute to citation inequity.

Citation justice requires that we consider issues of intersectionality (Crenshaw) and equity. It takes time and requires a more thoughtful and comprehensive view that questions established citation conventions and accounts for power, privilege, and history. Yet BIPOC scholars often face additional scrutiny when they do the work of thoughtfully attending to citation politics, where their work is dismissed as “overly narrow,” “irrelevant,” or inadequately citing canonical sources in ways that are legible to scholars trained according to dominant conventions (Gutiérrez y Muhs et al.; Monberg et al.). To engage in citation justice we must resist neoliberal imperatives that demand higher expectations for scholarly production and fast scholarship, especially during a global pandemic that has made this even more difficult for many to do.

In addition, many undergraduate and graduate programs continue to train students with exclusionary Eurowestern reading lists and knowledges. This tendency means that BIPOC students in particular who are interested in gaining a more diverse view of the field are required to engage in additional reading and research that centers BIPOC voices. It also means that those who do not or cannot do this additional work feel underprepared to engage in justice-oriented scholarship and teaching.

Moreover, long-standing and persistent normative perceptions within the humanities that place greater value on individual scholarly contributions than on collaborative efforts, or that encourage graduate students to find a “gap”—an absence—that their research might fill may further encourage hegemonic citation practices that maintain the status quo. Such expectations and frameworks contribute to folks engaging in what Carmen Kynard has referred to as “white settler logic in suggesting new arrival, new beginnings, and/or new possibilities on already hallowed grounds” (187). That is, folks may be resistant to cite others when the goal is to set out and claim a “new” area of study. Yet, we can and should resist and make academic empire building visible when we see it.

We also acknowledge that all of this is taking place in a time when tenure-track positions are becoming rarer and demanding more. Yet if we are truly concerned about equity and justice in rhetoric, composition, and writing studies, it is imperative that we attend to each of these systemic aspects of the discipline that contribute to citation inequity. We also need to keep these issues in mind when we assess and evaluate job candidates and faculty up for tenure and promotion.

Practicing Citation Justice

With these broad contexts and implications in mind, we offer the following heuristic for practicing citation justice in the various kinds of scholarly work that we do:

  • Citation justice is intersectional.
  • Citation justice reflects the full scope of multiply marginalized people’s intellectual contributions.
  • Citation justice resists and rejects intellectual empire building.
  • Citation justice is accountable.

Citation justice is intersectional. Because, as Kimberlé Crenshaw has explained, multiple, intersecting oppressions shape the experiences of multiply marginalized people, it is important to not limit our inclusion efforts to existing demographic categories such as race, gender, and class separately. Instead, taking context and subject matter into account, we should ask ourselves if we are citing only non-Black scholars of color to stand in for the perspective of “people of color,” or only cis Black men to stand in for Black perspectives and rhetorics. Just as it would be inappropriate to cite only white scholars to make generalizations about people in general, it is likewise inaccurate to cite only cisgender men of color as a stand-in for people of color more generally. Given the degree of exclusion they’ve faced on multiple levels, especially in proportion to the contributions they’ve made, it is important to make an effort to cite Black women in particular (Williams & Collier; Smith).

It is also important to be aware of the tendency to come up with excuses to not cite multiply marginalized scholars, whether it’s that their work is not directly related at first glance, because they aren’t using the exact same terminology, because their work is not in an academic journal or published by a well-reputed university press according to dominant normative standards, because they aren’t affiliated with certain kinds of institutions (e.g., a research-intensive university), or because it’s a dissertation or master’s thesis and not peer reviewed in the strictest sense of the term. This is not to say that we shouldn’t pay attention to publication venue; rather, the point is to catch oneself when rationalizing why one should not cite a multiply marginalized scholar. We should also be open to a wide range of thinkers, regardless of their academic affiliation, as well as a wide range of genres and venues, both scholarly and otherwise.

Finally, citation justice demands confronting whiteness, heteronormativity, and able-bodiedness, not treating these frameworks as ​​neutral and universal, but making them visible by naming them. For instance, if you identify the ways in which BIPOC scholars are racialized, you should also name whiteness. If one is citing only or mostly scholars of European ancestry, that should be reflected in how the work is framed and contextualized (e.g., European American perspectives on X). Likewise, if you identify queerness and disability, it would similarly make sense to also name heteronormativity and able-bodiedness or neurotypicality.

Citation justice reflects the full scope of multiply marginalized people’s intellectual contributions. To do so, citation justice requires making an effort to see and make visible the fullness of BIPOC and other multiply marginalized scholars’ contributions to various areas of scholarly inquiry. In other words, there is an important difference between providing a passing string citation and engaging with the fullness of a scholar’s ideas (Pritchard). We should also be careful not to minimize the work of BIPOC scholars to mattering only to others of their own racialized community (Itchuaqiyaq et al.). Instead, citation justice means being open to the possibility that sources written by multiply marginalized scholars should be used to not only support one’s existing argument, but to contextualize and transform that argument.

In addition, when citing theories and ideas developed by BIPOC scholars, it is important to attend to the contexts and communities from which those theories and ideas were developed, further demonstrating how members of multiply marginalized communities have important things to teach all members of the discipline.

Citation justice resists and rejects intellectual empire building. At times, folks are quicker to address the need to cite marginalized scholars by citing folks outside of our discipline, to the exclusion of marginalized folks doing relevant work within our own discipline. This is white settlerism as Kynard describes it. Usually these multiply marginalized scholars outside the discipline are established and widely regarded and thus those who have been accepted by normative academic structures. Although it is important to not be constrained by disciplinary boundaries, we should be careful not to send the message that there are no multiply marginalized scholars in the discipline doing the work and who have been doing the work for some time. Usually this is not the case and is an erasure of history. It is important to think about the kind of epistemological authority your citations are (re)producing, both for your piece specifically as well as the discipline more broadly.

Citation justice is accountable. It considers the material impacts of citation, not only for minoritized communities and knowledges, but also for our disciplinary knowledge more broadly. For instance, we must be aware of how citation functions as academic capital in ways that acknowledging a person by name or mentioning their name in the text of your publication does not. In other words, don’t just mention a multiply marginalized person’s name when you could cite their work as a way to actually credit them for their contribution to your own thinking. There are also symbolic implications when it comes to publication venue and citation location, and we should ask ourselves if we could have cited something that might “count” more for the scholar being cited (e.g., a peer-reviewed work), as well as whose works are thoroughly engaged and centered versus whose works are buried within a string citation or relegated to the footnotes.

Citation justice, like all efforts toward racial justice, is challenging and demands time, reflexivity, an openness to learning from one another, and patience with ourselves. We must hold each other responsible for striving toward citation justice: this work must not be undertaken solely by multiply marginalized scholars but instead should be the shared responsibility of all members of the broad field of rhetoric, composition, and writing studies. And when we are called to be accountable for our citation practices, we can and should respond with humility and generosity, acknowledging that such feedback is a gift that the person did not have to take the time to give, that it required intellectual and emotional labor as well as vulnerability on their part and trust in us that we can do better. We can be patient with ourselves, remembering that the work of equity and justice is difficult and is an ongoing, discipline-wide effort that will demand reimagining all aspects of the work that we do.

Works Cited

Chakravartty, Paula, et al. “#CommunicationSoWhite.” Journal of Communication, vol. 68, no. 2, 2018, pp. 254­­–66.

Connors, Robert J. “The Rhetoric of Citation Systems—Part II: Competing Epistemic Values in Citation.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 17, no. 2, 1999, pp. 219–45.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” The Public Nature of Private Violence: The Discovery of Domestic Abuse, edited by Martha Albertson Fineman and Roxanne Mykitiuk, Routledge, 1994, pp. 93–118.

Firestone, Kate. “Asian American Literacies: A Review of Haivan Hoang’s Writing Against Racial Injury.” Enculturation, vol. 27, 2018, Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

Gutiérrez y Muhs, Gabriella, et al., editors. Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia. Utah State UP, 2012.

Itchuaqiyaq, Cana Uluak, Nupoor Ranade, and Rebecca Walton. “Theory-to-Query: Developing a Corpus-Analysis Method Using Computer Programming and Human Analysis.” Technical Communication Online, vol. 68, no. 3, 2021, Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

Kynard, Carmen. “‘Troubling the Boundaries’ of Anti-Racism: The Clarity of Black Radical Visions amid Racial Erasure.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 44, no. 3, 2021, pp. 185–92.

Monberg, Terese Guinsatao, Jennifer Sano-Franchini, and K. Hyoejin Yoon. “Asian/American Movements Through the Pandemic and Through the Discipline Before, During, and After COVID-19.” Reflections: A Journal of Community-Engaged Writing and Rhetoric, vol. 21, no. 1, 2022, Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

Parks, Steve, Sweta Baniya, Laura Gonzales, and Chris Lindgren. “The White Supremacy of Academic Scholarship: A Data Analysis of Composition/Rhetoric Top Journals and the Denial of Equity.” Conference on College Composition and Communication Virtual Annual Convention, 9–12 March 2022.

Peña, Lorgia García. Community as Rebellion: A Syllabus for Surviving Academia as a Woman of Color. Haymarket Books, 2022.

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

Pritchard, Eric Darnell. “‘When You Know Better, Do Better’: Honoring Intellectual and Emotional Labor Through Diligent Accountability Practices.” Education, Liberation & Black Radical Traditions for the 21st Century: Carmen Kynard’s Teaching & Research Site on Race, Writing, and the Classroom, 8 July 2019, Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

Robillard, Amy E. “‘Young Scholars Affecting Composition: A Challenge to Disciplinary Citation Practices.” College English, vol. 68, no. 3, 2006, 253–70.

Royster, Jacqueline Jones. “Disciplinary Landscaping, or Contemporary Challenges in the History of Rhetoric.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 36, no. 2, 2003, pp. 148–67.

Smith, Christen A., et al. “Cite Black Women: A Critical Praxis (A Statement).” Feminist Anthropology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2021, pp. 10–17.

Walton, Rebecca, Kristen R. Moore, and Natasha N. Jones. Technical Communication After the Social Justice Turn: Building Coalitions for Action. Routledge, 2019.

Williams, Brittany, and Joan Collier. #CiteASista: Today and Everyday—Defend Black Womanhood. Accessed 5 Feb. 2023.

Additional Resources

On Citation Justice

BIPOC and Multiply Marginalized and Underrepresented Scholars Bibliographies

Other Relevant Resources

  • Cagle, Lauren E., Michelle F. Eble, Laura Gonzales, Meredith A. Johnson, Nathan R. Johnson, Natasha N. Jones, Liz Lane, Temptaous Mckoy, Kristen R. Moore, Ricky Reynoso, Emma J. Rose, GPat Patterson, Fernando Sánchez, Ann Shivers-McNair, Michele Simmons, Erica M. Stone, Jason Tham, Rebecca Walton, and Miriam F. Williams. Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices: A Heuristic for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors. (2021).
    • A document outlining how editors, reviewers, and authors might employ antiracist reviewing practices.
  • ScholarNames.” Kairos.
    • A compilation of scholars in Writing Studies pronouncing their names.

This statement was generously created by the Task Force to Develop a “Position Statement: Principles for Equitable and Ethical Scholarship in Writing, Rhetoric, and Composition Studies.” The members of this task force included:
Sheila Carter-Tod
Leigh Gruwell
Alexandra Hidalgo
Rachel Ihara
Lori Ostergaard
Jennifer Sano-Franchini

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.

2023 Resolutions

The following resolutions were passed at the CCCC Annual Business Meeting held on Friday, February 17, in Chicago.

Resolution 1

Whereas Julie Lindquist invited us to consider whether and how our scholarly and pedagogical practices reflect our fundamental commitments to equity, inclusion, and access;

Whereas she called on us to consider our field’s traditions, tensions, dialogues, and innovations in the context of our labors as scholars and teachers;

Whereas she built out and designed a new means of engaging, participating, and building knowledge through our conferencing spaces in the role of Documentarian as well as through Engaged Learning Experience session slots;

Whereas Julie Lindquist led the CCCC organization through the challenges, anxieties, fears, and losses associated with the COVID-19 pandemic with generosity, grace, intelligence, and dignity;

Whereas her dedication to examinations of working-class experience and ethos, class affect, and strategic empathy have helped to shape our field’s understanding of the criticality of class struggle to teaching and learning within and beyond the composition classroom; and

Whereas Julie Lindquist managed the cancellation of the 2020 CCCC Convention with care, attending to the needs and interests of scheduled participants by enabling presentations to be recorded and made available online;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2023 Conference on College Composition and Communication thanks Julie Lindquist for her exceptional dedication to our profession and our organization.

Resolution 2

Whereas Holly Hassel, in picking up the theme of commonplaces, returned our attention to our field’s shared practice and commitment to the teaching of writing;

Whereas she insistently returned us to questions about how the field’s body of knowledge about teaching and learning reflects the diverse spaces, places, and people within it;

Whereas she built from and invited continuity and engagement from Julie Lindquist and her team in building the 2021 Convention given the cancellation of the 2020 Convention entirely;

Whereas she modeled inclusivity and accessibility through explicit invitations, spaces, and opportunities for distinct constituencies and communities to connect in different ways across the Convention; and

Whereas she launched the first fully virtual CCCC Convention under extraordinary circumstances;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2023 Conference on College Composition and Communication thanks Holly Hassel for her ongoing and long-standing commitments to designing equitable, ethical, and engaged professional spaces and organizations.

Resolution 3

Whereas Staci Perryman-Clark called our field to attend anew to our commitments to equity and inclusion, to access and race- and gender-based exclusions, and to the justice or injustice of our everyday and field-wide gatekeeping practices;

Whereas she continues to make clear and certain the relationship between our work as teachers and scholars of writing, rhetoric, and communication and the creation and maintenance of inclusive classroom and programmatic spaces;

Whereas Staci Perryman-Clark’s scholarly work offers a powerful contribution to our field’s understanding of the inextricable interlocking of racial justice, gender justice, and linguistic justice;

Whereas Staci Perryman-Clark’s public advocacy of equity, access, and inclusion and linguistic justice shapes and inspires collective advocacy for public recognition and understanding of equitable, inclusive, and historically accurate education; and

Whereas with grace, dignity, and intelligence, she shepherded an unforeseen shift from planning for an in-person Convention and transitioned to a fully virtual event under continuing pandemic conditions;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2023 Conference on College Composition and Communication thanks Staci Perryman-Clark for her exceptional dedication to our profession and our organization.

Resolution 4

Whereas Frankie Condon invited us to do hope, to recognize both the inequitable and difficult situations around us and how we might look to one another, creating meaningful relationships with one another and recognize our interdependence, to live our convictions while embracing uncertainty;

Whereas Frankie Condon commits herself to this work, inviting others on her own website to hold her accountable in her work resisting and dismantling white supremacy;

Whereas she has enacted her convictions to antiracist organizing in the face of institutional racism through various institutional roles, doing hope in concert with students and colleagues;

Whereas she invites us all to act on our convictions, modeling what it means to live with and for one another by graciously receiving feedback and criticism, challenging members of CCCC to take up antiracism and social justice in our teaching, our scholarship, our service to the profession, and our lives; and

Whereas she models for us the labor of hope in her scholarship, her teaching, and her antiracist organizing;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2023 Conference on College Composition and Communication thanks Frankie Condon for her outstanding and transformative contributions to us and to the profession.

Resolution 5

Whereas Charitianne Williams and members of the Local Arrangements Committee have made significant contributions to support new attendees and returnees and to enhance the Convention experience;

Whereas Charitianne Williams and the Local Arrangements Committee created a vibrant, inviting, and comprehensive guide to Chicago that covered various sections of the Windy City and its local history;

Whereas they worked diligently to provide attendees with detailed information about the city’s rich history of jazz, local cuisine, and area museums;

Whereas they provided pertinent access information to traverse the city;

Whereas Local Arrangements Committee members were ever-present in the Hilton Chicago helping guide conference attendees to registration and events, making recommendations for nearby restaurants, and generally welcoming more than 2,500 visitors; and

Whereas Charitianne Williams and the Local Arrangements Committee curated a wide selection of local events and labored to connect conference attendees with the vibrancy of the city of Chicago;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2023 Conference on College Composition and Communication expresses our deepest appreciation to Charitianne Williams and the Local Arrangements Committee by applauding their energy and efforts in creating a welcoming conference experience during these particularly difficult times as we return to in-person conferencing for the first time since 2019 before COVID-19 upended so many lives across the globe and in our professions.

Resolution 6

Whereas Margaret Fink and the creators of the 4C23 Accessibility Guide—a volunteer Accessibility Committee created by members of the Committee on Disability Issues in College Composition, the Standing Group for Disability Studies, and members of the Local Arrangements Committee—have labored toward a culture of access, broadly imagined;

Whereas Margaret Fink and the Accessibility Committee created a detailed, comprehensive guide that highlights accessibility features at the conference and the surrounding area, responsive to the access requests of attendees;

Whereas they worked diligently to provide attendees with detailed accessibility information including 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 for those in recovery, and access information for nonbinary and gender-nonconforming attendees; and

Whereas the Accessibility Committee, in community with the Committee on Disability Issues in College Composition and the Standing Group for Disability Studies, were vigilant in staffing an access table, working toward collective access with conference visitors;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2023 Conference on College Composition and Communication expresses our deepest appreciation to Margaret Fink and the Accessibility Committee by applauding their commitment and labor toward creating a culture of access that we hope will be part of conferences to come.

Sense of the House Motions

S1. The Intellectual Property Standing Group moves that teachers and administrators work with students to help them understand how to use generative language models (such as ChatGPT) ethically in different contexts, and work with educational institutions to develop guidelines for using generative language models, without resorting to taking a defensive stance.

2024 Call for Proposals

Submit a Proposal

Important Dates

Proposal database opens: March 30, 2023

Proposal submission deadline: 9:00 a.m. ET on Tuesday, May 9, 2023
Proposal notifications: Late Summer 2023
Convention dates: April 3–6, 2024, Spokane, WA

Questions and requests for coaches can be sent to

Writing Abundance: Celebrating 75 Years of Conversations about Rhetoric, Composition, Technical Communication, and Literacy

The 2024 CCCC Annual Convention in Spokane, Washington, will mark 75 years since the first CCCC Convention was held in Chicago in April 1949. Since that time, the Convention has expanded from a two-day program with around 500 attendees to a four-day convention with several thousand participants, and a program bursting with more panels, workshops, roundtables, Standing Group and SIG meetings, and networking events than any one person could fully take in. Yet it is important that we have grown not only in terms of number of participants and panels, but also in terms of the increasingly diverse positionalities and breadth of issues from which our members work. From the beginning, CCCC has been concerned with issues of pedagogy, program administration, and research related to the teaching of college composition and communication, especially first-year writing (Bird 35). Today, our members teach and do research in areas including but not limited to African American, American Indian, Asian/Asian American, Latinx, Jewish, Islamic, Appalachian, queer/trans/LGBTQ+, disability, global, and feminist rhetoric, writing, and literacy studies; critical race theory (CRT) and antiracist approaches in rhetoric and writing studies; cultural rhetorics; environmental rhetoric and writing; digital, multimodal, and sonic rhetoric and composition; writing and rhetorics of code; community engagement; multilingual writing; writing centers; technical communication; and online writing instruction. Often, members work at the intersections of these areas of inquiry, drawing connections between, for instance, Black diasporic rhetorics and technical communication (Mckoy et al.), and disability rhetoric, labor, and course design (currie and Hubrig).

In these and many other ways, the 2024 CCCC theme, Writing Abundance, is a way of understanding both what we do and who we are as an organization and as a discipline. Indeed, CCCC members write, work, and think in abundant topics, contexts, and approaches. Yet “writing abundance” can also serve as a theory and method for taking stock of the work that we do, for reassessing the material flow of resources, for attending (Shimabukuro 22) to the deep knowledges, experiences, and capacities that all of our diverse students and colleagues bring into our courses and programs, and for imagining more just futures in rhetoric, composition, and writing studies (Royster and Kirsch; Jones and Williams; Kynard, “All I Need”).

This theme is inspired by Candace Fujikane’s Mapping Abundance for a Planetary Future: Kānaka Maoli and Critical Settler Cartographies in Hawai‘i, which foregrounds “Indigenous economies of abundance” as a refusal and rejection of capitalist rhetorics of scarcity. Fujikane, a fourth-generation Japanese settler, extends on the work of Haunani-Kay Trask, kumu hula Pualani Kanaka‘ole Kanahele, Noelani Goodyear-Ka‘ōpua, and Samuel Mānaiakalani Kamakau, among other Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) writers, thinkers, and practitioners, as she considers how Kānaka Maoli ancestral understandings of planetary abundance offer a fruitful foundation for responding to global climate change, capitalist extraction, and settler colonialism. Fujikane describes how “Capital expands its domain through the evisceration of the living earth into the inanimacies of non-life, depicting abundant lands as wastelands to condemn them and make way for the penetration of black snake oil pipelines under rivers, the seeding of unexploded ordnance in militarized zones, and the dumping of toxic wastes on sacred lands” (3). We have seen this pattern in many places, including my current home state of West Virginia and the region of Appalachia more broadly, where problematic representations of the region as “trash” have been used to justify ecological violence including mountaintop removal in the service of the coal and prison industries (Schept). Instead, Fujikane argues that “Rather than seeing climate change as apocalyptic, we can see that climate change is bringing about the demise of capital, making way for Indigenous lifeways that center familial relationships with the earth and elemental forms” (3). In this way, foregrounding abundance can serve as “a refusal to succumb to capital’s logic that we have passed an apocalyptic threshold of no return” (4)—a material manifestation of hope. Moreover, as Fujikane explains, “To map abundance is not a luxury but an urgent insistence on life” (5).

As I read this work, I began to think about how the concept of abundance as informed by Kānaka Maoli ways of knowing can inform and help us to reinterrogate various aspects of the work that we do as teacher-scholars in rhetoric, composition, and writing studies. Writing Abundance suggests that we critically interrogate how capitalist logics of scarcity, surplus, and competition circulate and influence our working conditions, research, and pedagogical praxis. For instance, how often do we hear that “there’s just not enough in the budget” as a way of upholding oppressive arrangements—as a way to rationalize layoffs, create competition among departments and programs, reject curricular revisions that better reflect the realities and lived experiences of multiply marginalized students, or to refuse to recruit and retain faculty of color, pay adjunct or graduate student workers a living wage, or reduce class sizes? How often are we told that there are simply not enough candidates of color to admit into our graduate programs or to hire and promote? What realities do such rhetorical strategies obscure? How are abundant feelings and expressivities of racialized people perceived and at times rejected in academe and other predominantly white spaces (Yoon 33)? And yet it is indeed important to acknowledge that abundant does not mean infinite. How often are we as academic workers made to feel like there’s just not enough time to do all the things that we need or want to or are supposed to do? When we understand our work in terms of abundance, what other questions and paths forward emerge?

Writing Abundance encourages me to take stock of how the growth we have seen in this organization is largely a result of the abundant and ongoing work of BIPOC scholars who have, for decades, spoken up about CCCC’s “hidden policies and practices [that] . . . prohibited and discouraged full participation by African Americans” (Davis 9), took action as part of the 1969 NCTE Task Force on Racism and Bias in the Teaching of English, advocated for Students’ Right to Their Own Language (Smitherman) and linguistic justice for Black students (Baker-Bell 20), increased access through the creation of the Tribal College Faculty Fellowship with the leadership of the American Indian Caucus in 2003 (Neff), made space for BIPOC and other minoritized attendees at the Convention (Adsanatham; Anderson, “The Words”; Bizzaro; Davis), and fought for the broader inclusion of BIPOC knowledges and experiences in conversations about rhetoric and the teaching of college composition and professional writing (Blackmon  et al.; García et al.; Sano-Franchini et al.). As often as we may be told that we need to create new knowledge by finding “gaps” to fill, we might ask ourselves—what does it mean to attend to these abundant histories? How is writing abundance restorative as it “enables us to experience moments of wonder, even in the difficult work we do, and we grow the desire to return to this work again and again” (Fujikane 17)?

This abundance is sometimes felt as a source of anxiety by some, as it raises questions about the identity of our scholarly communities, and the affordances of making space for others. At times, this anxiety is a manifestation of white supremacy—a fear of displacement among the dominant, oppressive group. I think, for instance, of the murder of Vincent Chin, and how scarcity rhetorics are so often weaponized to exclude Asian, Mexican, and other immigrants of color in the service of white supremacy. After all, to work from an economic model of scarcity is to work from the presumption of competition, exclusion, and gate-/boundary-keeping. It comes with the mindset that if “they” get more, I get less. Yet we should also consider what structures must be disrupted, altered, expanded, reconfigured to make room for new abundances, including high school dual enrollment teachers, or folks from adjacent fields. How do we make sense of how change—which can certainly be uncomfortable—is a necessary part of the growth of any discipline or professional organization, and how do we plan a way forward with this necessity in mind? How can we adopt an abundant mindset that actively resists what bell hooks referred to as imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy—the interconnected, global systems of domination that inform our current social order?

For me, abundance is a way of foregrounding how much I don’t know and should not ever presume to know about Kānaka Maoli ways of knowing, nor of other cultures and communities of which I am not a part. I come to this work as a yonsei (fourth-generation Japanese), second-generation Korean person of settler ancestry born and raised in Waipahu, a former sugarcane plantation town, and Honolulu, the capital of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1850. My paternal great-grandfather came to Hawai‘i as a “workman” from Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan, on July 29, 1898, weeks after the annexation of Hawai’i, and five years after the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by white American businessmen in 1893. He settled on the island of Maui, where my father later grew up, in the town of Wailuku. My mother came to Hawai‘i from South Gyeongsang Province, Korea, by way of California in the 1970s, not long after the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which eliminated quotas based on national origin, and at a time when South Korea was under authoritarian rule by a military dictator (Im; Kim and Vogel; Kim and Klug) who came to power with the support of the US government (Kim 70). I eventually left Hawai‘i for a PhD in rhetoric and writing, and I stayed away for a career in academia. As I reflect back on this personal history, I feel grateful to have grown up in a place where the culture, language, history, and ongoing presence of the people indigenous to the land were clear and present in my schooling and day-to-day life. I remember how we learned ‘Ōlelo Hawai’i, the language of the Indigenous people, from a kumu who regularly visited with our class in kindergarten. I remember how the food of the Indigenous people was regularly served for public school lunch. I think of how the local vernacular, Hawai‘i Creole English, is heavily influenced by Hawaiian language. I remember how Native Hawaiian history and culture was an ongoing and important part of my education from elementary school through college. Inevitably, all of these things and more—including the places I have lived since then—have influenced how I experience the world around me. Still, my knowledge of Hawaiian culture, history, and rhetorics is so very limited.

It’s been 15 years since I lived in Hawai‘i, yet these experiences instilled in me an understanding of the importance of coming to a place that is not one’s own as a visitor and with a mindset of learning. I now recognize this mindset as one that relies on a Kānaka Maoli ontology of planetary abundance. So, how does writing abundance encourage a mindset of humility and responsibility with our specific positionalities and discursive contexts in mind, as scholars like Bo Wang suggested (387)? How is the need for this mindset made clearer by Brandy Nālani McDougall and Georganne Nordstrom’s articulation of the rhetoric of kaona, which is often understood as a Native Hawaiian poetic device that describes the layers of “hidden meaning” within Kānaka Maoli meaning-making practices? How does writing abundance encourage us to come to Native Hawaiian and other BIPOC and marginalized rhetorical traditions not to know or to understand, but to re-frame and re-think what we thought we knew, to feel out the limits of our own knowing (Homer)? How are these limits also reflected in the line in Kiese Laymon’s Heavy, when LaThon says, “This that black abundance. Y’all don’t even know [emphasis mine]” (66)?

Attending to Abundance in Spokane

Spokane, Washington, where we will convene for CCCC 2024, is a place with an abundant and ongoing history of Indigenous presence, labor, organizing, and other rhetorical activity. The Spokane Tribe of Eastern Washington fished, hunted, harvested, and gathered along the Spokane River long before European contact. “The Spokane Tribe of Indians ancestors inhabited much of northeastern Washington which consisted of approximately 3 million acres” (“The History of the Spokane Tribe of Indians”). “The people of the Spokane Tribe have persevered through loss of land, forced relocation, and loss of their economic and spiritual base (the salmon). They are resilient, and they are thriving” (“Spokane Tribal History”). According to the Pacific Islander Community Association of Washington, “Historical records suggest that the presence of Pasifika [Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders] date back to the 18th century . . . [Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders] were brought in to support the early missionaries, laboring for early business ventures in the area, and contributing to the economic tenure of enterprises, such as the Hudson Bay Company. These early NH/PIs, many of whom eventually settled in the Northwest, left their imprint on Washington’s social and economic life” (“Our History”). The earliest known Latinx settlers came to eastern Washington with Spanish ships in the late 1700s (Guzman). Europeans began settling in the area in 1810 (Ruby and Brown 38). African Americans settled in Spokane in the 1880s and 1890s and opened businesses, founded churches, and made advancements in civil rights (Mack, Black Spokane xvii; Mack, “Crusade”). From the 1880s to the 1940s, there was a thriving Chinatown in Spokane, which supported Chinese laborers who came to Spokane in the 1850s and 1860s to work in the railroad and mining industries (Kershner). Japanese settlers came to Spokane in the 1890s as railroad workers (Harbine). Spokane also has a long history of labor organizing.

This too-brief history barely scratches the surface, but I offer it here because I believe it is important to recognize how these diverse and abundant communities have taught, made meaning, and nurtured relationships in Spokane for many generations. Demographic data shows us that Spokane is a predominantly white place. Yet if there is one thing I have learned from working and living in predominantly white spaces in academia, it’s that if we pay attention, we will find that even in these places there are long histories of BIPOC, queer, feminist, disabled, and other communities who are present and who have been doing the work of advocacy and justice and community building and culture making. These folks have been at the front lines, and their abundant histories are important. Yet white supremacy so frequently overtakes and covers over the presence and persistence of minoritized people, and as a result, their histories, needs, concerns, and ways of knowing and being, rendering them scarce and seemingly insignificant. Why does white supremacy become the single story we tell about certain places? How might writing abundance help us better attend to these spaces and ongoing presence? As we come together in Spokane next April, let us all consider how we will approach this place with care, most of us as visitors, alongside and in relation to these abundant communities and lands. Let us all be open to learning from the abundant knowledges and practices of the diverse Indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America. For instance, how might the Indigenous practice of potlatch, the ceremonial sharing of gifts and property (“Potlatch”), connect with our theme of writing abundance, and what might we learn from these practices? How might we come to this place with deep, abundant, and diverse histories and communities to learn, not to know or to understand, but to feel out the limits of what we thought we knew, to better situate ourselves amongst these multiple relationships?

Proposal Development for CCCC 2024

I invite proposals that enact Writing Abundance in diverse and numerous ways, but that are always grounded in material realities, keeping in mind that the embodied, cultural, and virtual are also material. Below are some questions that may help folks connect their work with the conference theme. This, of course, is not a comprehensive list, and proposal writers are encouraged to think beyond what’s provided here in ways that are most helpful for them.

Writing Abundance as Heuristic
  • How can writing abundance encourage us to take stock of where we are and how the material flow of resources within postsecondary institutions corresponds with what we say we value? How can sensing material abundance help us reckon with inhospitable labor conditions and unequal distribution of resources in the academy? How might it be a way into what James Rushing Daniel refers to as an anticapitalist composition?
  • How do scarcity rhetorics circulate in postsecondary institutions, and what are the implications as related to the teaching of writing and to the administering of writing programs? For instance, how do scarcity rhetorics impact graduate student and adjunct labor exploitation? What strategies and approaches might we use to disrupt capitalist economies of scarcity in the academy?
  • How might the abundant knowledges of Black, Indigenous, people of color, and other multiply marginalized communities bring nuance to our understandings of rhetoric and writing broadly? How might such perspectives challenge how we understand technology and who is technological (Banks; Haas)? How might such perspectives challenge logics of scarcity within our research, teaching, and service? How will we highlight this abundance by not relegating the works of, for example, Asian American rhetorical scholarship, “to independent study, final seminar papers, individually tailored reading lists for prelims—in short, restricted roads of individual inquiry, special interest topics, segregated study” (Shimabukuro 5)?
  • Relatedly, how does writing abundance challenge deficit models of thinking about minoritized communities, including our students and colleagues of color? (Giovanni). What abundant perspectives do two-year-college or newer generations of scholars bring to larger disciplinary conversations, and how will we seriously and openly attend to these perspectives?
Writing Abundance as Pedagogy
  • How can a practice in writing abundance contribute to the work that we do in the classroom (including the virtual “classroom”)? What would it look like for a theory of writing abundance to make its way into our writing assignments, literacy narratives, writing center sessions, and service-learning pedagogies? For instance, how can a pedagogy informed by Indigenous economies of abundance encourage us to teach writing in ways that are attuned to local native histories and knowledges (Anderson, “Remapping”) or attentive to land-based literacies and rhetorics (Rìos)? How might writing abundance inform the assessment of student writing? And what are the limits of trying to think through how Indigenous ways of knowing can ever truly come together with established systems of formal education (Meyer)?
  • What are effective and thoughtful ways to invite students’ abundant knowledges and experiences to shape our teaching with care and reflexivity? For example, how will we do so in ways that do not treat marginalized students as representatives of their culture? Or, how might we engage in what Terese Guinsatao Monberg referred to as “recursive spatial movement” for service-learning courses, a theory and pedagogy that recognizes the positionalities of students of color and students from other underrepresented communities? (21).
  • How can writing abundance encourage us to teach college composition and professional writing in ways that do not reinforce capitalist logics, including logics of scarcity and competition; narrow, anti-Black definitions of professionalism; or the prioritization of job preparation as the sole or even primary purpose of postsecondary education?
Writing Abundance as Scholarly Practice
  • How is settler colonialism—the displacement, suppression, and marginalization of Indigenous people and culture for the benefit of settlers (which includes all nonnative people) who have come into dominance (Trask, From a Native Daughter 25)—embedded into academic work? How does this displacement and marginalization of Indigenous people and culture in higher education intersect with capitalist economies of scarcity? Moreover, how do such capitalist economies of scarcity position us to interact with places and lands, for instance, when we do a national or international job search? How are we positioned to interact with places and lands when conferencing? What are ways to disrupt these positionings on an individual or systematic level?
  • How do current research, writing, and publication norms reinforce settler colonial logics and capitalist economies of scarcity, and how might we revise those practices? How can writing abundance help challenge what Carmen Kynard called out as “white settler logic in suggesting new arrivals, new beginnings, and/or new possibilities on already hallowed grounds” (“Troubling the Boundaries” 187)? How can writing abundance trouble narrow conceptions of expertise and point us in the direction of citation justice?
  • How does writing abundance encourage us to disrupt colonial divisions of humanity (Lowe), for instance, through the siloing of minoritized rhetorics in syllabi and edited collections, or through “divide and conquer” approaches to writing program administration?
Writing Abundance as Administrative Practice
  • How can “Indigenous economies of abundance” help us understand the phrase “not enough in the budget” as a capitalist ontology? How might it suggest that we translate such discourses into statements about what is materially valued within postsecondary institutions and in society more broadly? What are equitable and just ways to communicate those values within and beyond organizations?
  • Relatedly, how can attention to writing abundance enable a more just redistribution of resources in our institutions and in our broader communities? What possibilities exist for pushing back on unjust and inequitable budget models in our institutions? How can writing abundance help us create structures for supporting the diverse students we recruit and enroll in tangible ways that they can recognize and feel? How are scarcity rhetorics used to justify the exclusion of content that centers minoritized perspectives in university curricula, and what options exist for responding to such rhetorics?
  • How are rhetorics of abundance and scarcity present in conversations about academic hiring and the availability of various positions in academia? How might such rhetorics foreclose other viable possibilities within or beyond academia?
Writing Abundance as Methodology
  • How can writing abundance support restorative and social justice–oriented projects and practices? How can abundance help us reimagine and take action toward just futures in the discipline and in our communities (Jones and Williams)? How can it encourage us to take on projects that challenge logics of competition and foreground possibilities for alliance across, for instance, Indigenous and Asian immigrant communities (Carpenter and Yoon; King)? That is, how can writing abundance help us trouble what Lisa King referred to as a risk of “creating parallel narratives of oppression . . . rather than finding ways to dismantle the systems that created that oppression” (47)? Moreover, how might it help us build more thoughtful and responsible coalitions between Indigenous and settler peoples (King; Trask, “Coalition-building”)? How might it help us “turn potentially devastating conditions into renewed possibilities for abundance”? (Fujikane 3)
  • What does it mean for settler scholars to learn from “Indigenous economies of abundance” without engaging in cooptation or appropriation? How will we take the time to learn about the broader context from which such ideas have emerged, and how will we share what we have learned while acknowledging or even foregrounding the Indigenous thinkers and writers who have inspired us?
  • How does writing abundance coalesce with other methodologies in rhetoric and writing studies—such as “rhetorical attendance” for the study of rhetorical history to help us “‘recognize . . . invisibility’ in our research,” for example? (Shimabukuro 23).
Criteria for Proposal Review

Regardless of role or session type, reviewers for the 2024 Convention will use the following criteria to evaluate proposals:

  • Engages with the conference theme, Writing Abundance in postsecondary writing research, teaching, and/or administration, whether explicitly or implicitly. In other words, proposal writers are not required to use the conference theme in their panel titles. Given the conference theme, writers are welcome to pose questions they may not yet be able to answer, that speak to a recognition of existing abundances, in their proposal.
  • Reflects an awareness of diverse audience needs relevant to the topic.
  • Practices citation justice. The proposal is situated in relation to existing scholarship and research in the field, and uplifts and amplifies Black, Indigenous, Asian, Latinx, and other multiply marginalized perspectives. The proposal may also describe how the presenters will learn from other minoritized communities to further their thinking about the topic.
  • Demonstrates a concrete and specific plan that aligns with the criteria for the selected session type.
Due Date for Proposal Submission

Proposals are due to the CCCC 2024 submission portal by 9:00 a.m. ET on Tuesday, May 9, 2023.

I hope you will join us in Spokane. 💙

Jennifer Sano-Franchini
2024 Program Chair


My deep appreciation to Sheila Carter-Tod; Robyn Tasaka; Peter Krch; Julie Lindquist; Terese Guinsatao Monberg; Carolyn Commer; the CCCC American Indian Caucus Co-Chairs: Lisa King, Andrea Riley-Mukavetz, and Kimberly Wieser; and the CCCC Officers—Holly Hassel, Staci Perryman-Clark, Frankie Condon, and David Green—who provided feedback on previous drafts and discussed ideas with me during the development of this CFP. Thank you, all, for your time, intellectual labor, and support.

Graphic elements for the 2024 CCCC Convention feature the work of Remelisa Culitan, a Spokane-based artist and arts advocate. For more about Remelisa’s work, see their online portfolio at


Adsanatham, Chanon. “‘To Establish a Home within a Home’: An Interview with LuMing Mao.” Building a Community, Having a Home: A History of the Conference on College Composition and Communication Asian/Asian American Caucus, edited by Jennifer Sano-Franchini, Terese Guinsatao Monberg, and K. Hyoejin Yoon, Parlor Press, 2017.

Anderson, Joyce Rain. “Remapping Settler Colonial Territories.” Survivance, Sovereignty, and Story: Teaching American Indian Rhetorics. edited by Lisa King, Rose Gubele, and Joyce Rain Anderson, Utah State UP, 2015, pp. 160–69.

———. “The Words to Speak: The American Indian Caucus at CCCC.” Reflections, vol. 8, no. 1, 2008, pp. 251–257.

Baker-Bell, April. Linguistic Justice: Black Language, Literacy, Identity, and Pedagogy. Routledge and NCTE, 2020.

Banks, Adam Joel. Digital Griots: African American Rhetoric in a Multimedia Age. Southern Illinois UP, 2010.

Bird, Nancy Kenney. The Conference on College Composition and Communication: A Historical Study of Its Continuing Education and Professionalization Activities, 1949–1975. 1977. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State U, PhD dissertation. VTechWorks,

Bizzaro, Resa Crane. “A Community of Scholars: The Native American Caucus.” English Journal, vol. 101, no.1, 2011, pp. 91–92.

Blackmon, Samantha, et al., editors. Listening to Our Elders: Working and Writing for Change. Utah State UP, 2011.

Carpenter, Cari M., and K. Hyoejin Yoon. “Rethinking Alternative Contact in Native American and Chinese Encounters: Juxtaposition in Nineteenth-Century US Newspapers.” College Literature, vol. 41, no. 1, 2014, pp. 7–42.

currie, sarah madoka, and Ada Hubrig. “Care Work through Course Design: Shifting the Labor of Resilience.” Composition Studies, vol. 50, no. 2, 2022, pp. 132–53.

Daniel, James Rushing. Toward an Anti-Capitalist Composition. UP of Colorado, 2022.

Davis, Marianna White. The History of the Black Caucus of the National Council of Teachers of English. NCTE, 1994.

Fujikane, Candace. Mapping Abundance for a Planetary Future: Kānaka Maoli and Critical Settler Cartographies in Hawai’i. Duke UP, 2021.

García, Romeo, et al. Viva Nuestro Caucus: Rewriting the Forgotten Pages of Our Caucus. Parlor Press, 2019.

Giovanni, Nikki. “Nikki-Rosa.” Black Feeling, Black Talk, Black Judgment. HarperCollins, 1968.

Guzman, Gonzalo. “Latino History in Washington State.” 27 Aug 2006. Accessed 13 Jan 2023,

Haas, Angela M. “Wampum as Hypertext: An American Indian Intellectual Tradition of Multimedia Theory and Practice.” Studies in American Indian Literatures, vol. 19, no. 4, 2007, pp. 77–100.

Harbine, Anna. “Welcome to the Japanese Americans of Spokane Tour.” Spokane Historical. Accessed 13 Jan 2023.

“The History of the Spokane Tribe of Indians.” Spokane Tribe of Indians. Accessed 1 February 2023,

Homer, Matthew Jordan. Towards a Decolonial Haole Rhetoric. 2022. Virginia Tech U, PhD dissertation.

hooks, bell. Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Pluto Press, 2000.

Im, Hyug Baeg. “The Origins of the Yushin Regime: Machiavelli Unveiled.” The Park Chung Hee Era: The Transformation of South Korea, edited by Byung-Kook Kim and Ezra F. Vogel, Harvard UP, 2011, pp. 233–262.

Jones, Natasha N., and Miriam F. Williams. “The Just Use of Imagination: A Call to Action.” ATTW Blog, 10 June 2020,

Kershner, Jim. “Spokane Neighborhoods: Old Chinatown—Trent Alley‚ Thumbnail History.”, 30 Mar 2007, /

Kim, Byung-Kook, and Ezra F. Vogel, editors. The Park Chung Hee Era: The Transformation of South Korea. Harvard UP, 2011.

Kim, Hyung-A. Korea’s Development under Park Chung Hee: Rapid Industrialization, 1961–79. Routledge, 2004.

Kim, Tong-Hyung, and Foster Klug. “S. Korea Covered Up Mass Abuse, Killings of ‘Vagrants.’” Associated Press, 21 April 2016,

King, Lisa. “Competition, Complicity, and (Potential) Alliance: Native Hawaiian and Asian Immigrant Narratives at the Bishop Museum.” College Literature, vol. 41, no. 1, 2014, pp. 43–65.

Krulwich, Robert. “Let’s Weigh the Internet (Or Maybe Let’s Not).” NPR, 21 Dec 2011,

Kynard, Carmen. “‘All I Need Is One Mic’: A Black Feminist Community Meditation on the Work, the Job, and the Hustle (& Why So Many of Yall Confuse This Stuff).” Community Literacy Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, 2020, pp. 5–24. doi:10.25148/14.2.009033.

———. “‘Troubling the Boundaries’ of Anti-Racism: The Clarity of Black Radical Visions amid Racial Erasure.” Writing Program Administration, vol. 44, no. 3, 2021, pp. 185–193.

Laymon, Kiese. Heavy: An American Memoir. Simon and Schuster, 2018.

Mack, Dwayne A. “Crusade for Equality: Spokane’s Civil Rights Movement during the Early 1960s.” The Pacific Northwest Quarterly, vol. 95, no.1, 2003, pp. 16–25.

———. Black Spokane: The Civil Rights Struggle in the Inland Northwest. U of Oklahoma P, 2014.

McDougall, Brandy Nālani, and Georganne Nordstrom. “Ma ka Hana ka’Ike (In the Work Is the Knowledge): Kaona as Rhetorical Action.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 63, no. 1,  2011, pp. 98–121.

Mckoy, Temptaous, et al. “Introduction to Special Issue: Black Technical and Professional Communication.” Technical Communication Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3, 2022, pp. 221–228.

Meyer, Manu Aluli. “Native Hawaiian Epistemology: Sites of Empowerment and Resistance.” Equity & Excellence, vol. 31, no. 1, 1998, pp. 22–28.

Monberg, Terese Guinsatao. “Writing Home or Writing as the Community: Toward a Theory of Recursive Spatial Movement for Students of Color in Service-Learning Courses.” Reflections, vol. 8, no. 3, 2009, pp. 21–51.

Neff, Joyce Magnotto. “CCCC Secretary’s Report, 2002–2003.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 55, no. 2, 2003, pp. 377–387.

“Our History.” Pacific Islander Community Association of Washington. Accessed 12 Jan 2023, ​​

“Potlatch.” Living Tradition: The Kwakwaka‘wakw Potlatch on the Northwest Coast. Accessed 1 February 2023,

Reames, Nicolette. “Spokane’s Chinatown.” Spokane Historical. Accessed 12 Jan 2023,’s%20chinatown%20began%20in%20the,of%20around%20six%20hundred%20Chinese.

Rìos, Gabriela Raquel. “Cultivating Land-Based Literacies and Rhetorics.” Literacy in Composition Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2015, pp. 60–70.

Royster, Jacqueline Jones, and Gesa E. Kirsch. Feminist Rhetorical Practices: New Horizons for Rhetoric, Composition, and Literacy Studies. Southern Illinois UP, 2012.

Ruby, Robert H., and John Arthur Brown. The Spokane Indians: Children of the Sun. U of Oklahoma P, 2006.

Sano-Franchini, Jennifer, et al., editors. Building a Community, Having a Home: A History of the Conference on College Composition and Communication Asian/Asian American Caucus. Parlor Press, 2017.

Schept, Judah. Coal, Cages, Crisis. New York UP, 2022.

Shimabukuro, Mira. Relocating Authority: Japanese Americans Writing to Redress Mass Incarceration. UP of Colorado, 2016.

Smitherman, Geneva. “‘Students’ Right to Their Own Language’: A Retrospective.” English Journal, vol. 84, no. 1, 1995, pp. 21–27.

“Spokane Tribal History.” Spokane Tribe of Indians. Accessed 12 Jan 2023, .

Trask, Haunani-Kay. From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawai‘i (Revised edition). U of Hawaii P, 1999.

———. “Coalition-Building Between Natives and Non-Natives.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1197–1213.

Wang, Bo. “Engaging Nüquanzhuyi: The Making of a Chinese Feminist Rhetoric.” College English, vol.  72, no. 4, 2010, pp. 385–405.

Yoon, K. Hyoejin. “Learning Asian American Affect.” Representations: Doing Asian American Rhetoric, edited by LuMing Mao and Morris Young, UP of Colorado, 2008, pp. 293–322.

Important Dates

Proposal database opens: March 30, 2023
Proposal submission deadline: 9:00 a.m. ET on Tuesday, May 9, 2023
Proposal notifications: Late Summer 2023
Convention dates: April 3–6, 2024, Spokane, WA

Questions and requests for coaches can be sent to

Renew Your Membership

Join CCCC today!
Learn more about the SWR book series.
Connect with CCCC
CCCC on Facebook
CCCC on LinkedIn
CCCC on Twitter
CCCC on Tumblr
OWI Principles Statement
Join the OWI discussion


Copyright © 1998 - 2023 National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved in all media.

1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096 Phone: 217-328-3870 or 877-369-6283

Looking for information? Browse our FAQs, tour our sitemap and store sitemap, or contact NCTE

Read our Privacy Policy Statement and Links Policy. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use