Author: ksuchor

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

WORKS CITED

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

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, https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/demand-for-black-linguistic-justice.

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, https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/citation-justice.

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.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

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

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, https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12.

Committee on Publication Ethics. “Core practices.” 2017–, https://publicationethics.org/core-practices.

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.” https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12

Council of Science Editors. “2.7 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Scholarly Publishing.” 2022–, https://cse.memberclicks.net/2-7-diversity–equity–and-inclusion-in-scholarly-publishing.

Council of Science Editors. “Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.” 2006–, https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/recommendations-for-promoting-integrity-in-scientific-journal-publications-.

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, https://ori.hhs.gov/peer-review-resources.

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, licsjournal.org/index.php/LiCS/article/view/2192.

Delgado, Richard. “Storytelling for Oppositionists and Others: A Plea for Narrative.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 87, no. 8, 1989, pp. 2411–41, https://doi.org/10.2307/1289308.

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, https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2014.995684.

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, https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2021.1876899.

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, journalofmultimodalrhetorics.com/3-2-issue-patterson-and-hsu.

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, https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2019.1607518.

Powell, Malea, et al. “Our Story Begins Here: Constellating Cultural Rhetorics.” Enculturation, no. 18, 25 October 2014, enculturation.net/our-story-begins-here.

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.

Acknowledgments

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

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 CCCCevents@ncte.org.

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

Acknowledgments

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 https://www.remelisa.com/.

References

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, vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/88638.

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.” HistoryLink.org. 27 Aug 2006. Accessed 13 Jan 2023, www.historylink.org/File/7901.

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. spokanehistorical.org/items/show/566.

“The History of the Spokane Tribe of Indians.” Spokane Tribe of Indians. Accessed 1 February 2023, https://spokanetribe.com/history/.

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, attw.org/blog/the-just-use-of-imagination-a-call-to-action/.

Kershner, Jim. “Spokane Neighborhoods: Old Chinatown—Trent Alley‚ Thumbnail History.” HistoryLink.org, 30 Mar 2007, /www.historylink.org/File/8120.

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, apnews.com/article/south-korea-crime-2020-tokyo-olympics-busan-olympic-games-43ad81ac09564c90bc6e6b3cd005d73d.

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, www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/12/21/144066248/lets-weigh-the-internet-or-maybe-lets-not.

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, ​​www.picawa.org/who-we-are/.

“Potlatch.” Living Tradition: The Kwakwaka‘wakw Potlatch on the Northwest Coast. Accessed 1 February 2023, umistapotlatch.ca/potlatch-eng.php.

Reames, Nicolette. “Spokane’s Chinatown.” Spokane Historical. Accessed 12 Jan 2023, spokanehistorical.org/items/show/400#:~:text=Spokane’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, spokanetribe.com/resources/dnr/preservation/history/ .

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 CCCCevents@ncte.org.

Special Session

Friday, February 17, 8:00 a.m. CT
International Ballroom North, 2nd Floor, Hilton Chicago

ChatGPT, Magical Thinking, and the Discourse of Crisis

In this roundtable, experts in digital technologies, media, and literacies gather to discuss the rise of ChatGPT, its pedagogical implications, and the crisis-speak within and beyond the academy that attended its launch in the fall of 2022, along with its swift user uptake in the months since.

Register for the 2023 CCCC Annual Convention

Moderator: Frankie Condon, CCCC 2023 program chair, University of Waterloo

Panelists:

Antonio Byrd (he/him/his) is an assistant professor of English at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, where he teaches courses in Black literacies, professional and technical communication, multimodal writing and rhetoric, digital rhetoric, and composition. His research focuses on how legacies of liberation carry forward into Black digital literacies, with a special focus on Black adults learning and using computer programming. His work has appeared in College Composition and Communication, Literacy in Composition Studies, Technical Communication Quarterly, and Writer: Craft and Context. He is the winner of the 2021 CCCC Braddock Award. His current book project is tentatively titled The Literacy Pivot: How Black Adults Learn Computer Programming in a Racist World, which is under contract with The WAC Clearinghouse/University of Colorado Press.

Harry Denny is professor of English and director of the On-Campus Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University. He is a co-editor of Writing Center Journal, the flagship journal of the International Writing Centers Association (IWCA). His scholarship focuses on writing center theory and practice, cultural studies, and research methods. Harry is the author of Facing the Center: Towards and Identity Politics of One-to-One Mentoring; a co-editor of and contributor (with Anna Sicari, Rob Mundy, Lila Naydan, and Richard Severe) to Out in the Center: Public Controversies, Private Struggles; and co-author (with Robert Mundy) of Gender, Sexuality and the Cultural Politics of Men’s Identity in the New Millennium: Literacies of Masculinity. His most recent monograph, And Justice for All: Refiguring Civil Rights Rhetoric in the Contemporary U.S., is under review. He is the lead researcher for the Writing Centers Research Project, a survey of global trends for writing-support units across the world in education, as well as a leader of the IWCA Research Incubator.

Gavin P. Johnson is a teacher-scholar specializing in multimodal writing, queer rhetorics, and community-engaged learning. His research has been recognized with the 2021 NCTE/CCCC Lavender Rhetorics Dissertation Award for Excellence in Queer Scholarship, an Honorable Mention for the 2020 Computers and Composition Hugh Burns Best Dissertation Award, and the 2016 NCTE/CCCC Gloria Anzaldúa Rhetorician Award. His writing has appeared in journals, including Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Computers and Composition, Literacy in Composition Studies, and various edited collections. He is a proud first-generation college graduate from southeast Louisiana, and he currently works as an assistant professor of English and director of writing at Texas A&M University-Commerce.

Aimee Morrison is an associate professor of English at the University of Waterloo. She teaches and researches in new media studies, focusing on social media as acts of everyday autobiography. She appears frequently in the media to explain internet culture, is a prolific Tweeter, and co-founded a well-read feminist academic blog that ran for eight years. She spends her time imploring students to stop trying to write like robots, and imploring editors to stop sanding the voice out of her own writing.

Charles Woods is an assistant professor of English at Texas A&M University-Commerce, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in rhetoric, composition, and technical communication. His research interests include digital rhetorics and surveillance studies. He founded The Digital Rhetorical Privacy Collective (drpcollective.com), and hosts the award-winning The Big Rhetorical Podcast.

The CCCC Wikipedia Initiative is thrilled to announce Dr. Matthew Vetter—associate professor of English at Indiana University of Pennsylvania—as the 2023 recipient of the CCCC Wikipedia Initiative Award for Contributions to Public Knowledge. This award provides professional recognition for a CCCC member who is engaging with Wikipedia as a form of global public scholarship. It values significant contributions to Wikipedia articles as they improve public understanding of key topics within our profession.

As a dedicated Wikipedia editor, Dr. Vetter has contributed more than 3,000 edits since he began editing in 2011. He has created and contributed to many Wikipedia articles on prominent scholars and key topics within writing studies, including Victor Villanueva, Amy Devitt, Cheryl E. Ball, Linda Adler-Kassner, visual rhetoric, digital rhetoric, and collaborative writing. He consistently demonstrates high-level collaboration skills with scholars working to increase knowledge equity within our field and in the wider Wikipedia community.

As a high-traffic, global, open-access, digital encyclopedia, Wikipedia stands out as one of the most vital platforms scholars can edit to support citation justice, especially for academics committed to knowledge equity as a fundamental groundwork for social justice. We applaud Dr. Vetter’s work to these ends.

 

Nomination Deadline: March 1

Purpose: As one of the most visited websites in the world, Wikipedia has emerged within living memory as a key knowledge-broker and perception-shaper for readers and writers worldwide. The award exists to provide professional recognition for CCCC members who are engaging with Wikipedia as a form of global public scholarship. It values significant contributions to Wikipedia articles as they improve public understanding of key topics within our profession. Writing expert knowledge into Wikipedia is one important way we can address knowledge gaps, imbalances, and misinformation online.

Eligibility: To be eligible for an award, the nominee or at least one member of a nominated group must be a member of CCCC and/or NCTE at the time of nomination. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

Award Specifics: Nominations must be received by March 1, 2023 and must include a brief statement describing contributions and how they have the potential to affect a broad public audience and/or relate to improving knowledge inequities online. There will be an option to add attachments to include work completed (e.g. Wikipedia articles and/or article sections created, Wikipedia articles significantly revised or expanded, Wikipedia contributions across related articles, etc.).  Submit a nomination.

 

This is an updated version of the 2023 CCCC Annual Convention program that has been printed and will be available onsite in Chicago.
Use ctrl-f to search this pdf.

 

Whova App and Web Portal

Learn more about the Whova App and Web Portal. To automatically log in to #4C23, please make sure to use the email you used when registering for the event. Access to content in the Whova app will be available through May 18, 2023. To view on-demand content or live session recordings, select the agenda tab and select “On Demand Session” or” Live Session” in “Filter by tracks.”

The list below includes full session deletions and additions, plus room changes, since the program was printed.
Please see the Whova Convention app for session details and up-to-date presenter information.

CANCELED

• A.13 “‘That’s Racist AF’: Examining Genres and Assignments to Foster (or Suppress) Linguistic Justice”
• B.38 “Writing Program Administration and Threshold Concepts for Basic Writing in an Era of Remediation Reform”
• C.38 “Writing Self-Efficacy of Dual Credit FYC Students: Are We Setting Students Up for Success?”
• TSIG.22 “Network of Directed Self Placement–Changing Assessment & Placement Practices”
• G.10 “Along the Tightrope: Performativity, Carceral Complicity, and Prison Correspondence in the Time of Pandemic”
• H.34 “Co-Creating Shared-Vocabulary Across Communities: A Research Method for Building Sustainable and Nuanced Partnerships with Local Communities”
• H.31 “Reckoning Pasts to Reimagine Disciplinary Futures: Black Feminist Methodologies, Sexual Violence Response, and White Racial Un/learning”
• I.05 “Making a Case for Writing-Focused Courses in Applied Social Science Graduate Programs: Student-Faculty Collaborations as Radical Liberatory Pedagogical Praxis”
• FSIG.10 “Teaching Adult Writers in Diverse Settings”
• “Invitational Gaming: Incorporating Usability Testing and Inclusive Pedagogy in the Tech Comm Classroom” from J.20 “Innovative Uses of Professional and Technical Writing Pedagogy”
• L.07 “Organizing for Social Justice: Unionization and Institutional Investment among Writing Educators”
• Saturday 8:00 a.m. poster session “Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Navigating the Affective Dimensions of Learning as Productive Loss and Retention in a First-Year Writing Classroom”

ROOMS CHANGED

• A.26 “Collaboration, Community, and Curiosity: Partnerships between Writing Programs and University Archives” is now in Lake Erie (8th floor)
• E.39 “Before Errors and Expectations: Non-Tenure Track Feminist Visions for Curriculum and Writing Program Administration in the CUNY SEEK Program (1966-1969)” is in Marquette Room (3rd floor)
• Thursday, Feb. 16, 7:00-8:00 p.m., Anzaldua Reception is now in Continental C (lobby level)
• H.15 “How Do We Teach Men to Stop Killing Us?: Masculine Threat, Mass Shootings, and Male Gender Role Conflict/Stress” is now in Grand Ballroom (2nd floor)

NEW TITLES

• A.28 “‘Religion’ in Comp/Rhet: The Pedagogical Usefulness of a Ubiquitous but Unstable Category”
• G.23 “Building Micro-Communities: Inclusive & Adaptive First-Year Pedagogy”
• H.21 “Sharing and Preserving Historical and Creative Counter-Narratives”
• H.34 “Co-Creating Shared-Vocabulary across Communities: A Research Method for Building Sustainable and Nuanced Partnerships with Local Communities”
• I.33 “An Experiment in Antiracist Pedagogy and Practice in the College Composition Classroom: What’s Food Got to do with It?”

ADDED

• Friday, 8-9:15 a.m., “Special Session: ChatGPT, Magical Thinking, and the Discourse of Crisis,” International Ballroom North (2nd floor)
• B.38 “Students’ Voices in Public Writing Pedagogy with Online Fandom Communities: Social Tension, Identity Conflicts and Privacy Issues” Room 4G (4th floor)
• D.39 “Doing Hope in UX Research through Testimonios” Lake Michigan (8th floor)
• E.39 “Before Errors and Expectations: Non-Tenure Track Feminist Visions for Curriculum and Writing Program Administration in the CUNY SEEK Program (1966-1969)” Marquette Room (3rd floor)
• TSIG.22 “Writing Across the Curriculum Standing Group Business Meeting and Mentoring Session Room” Room 4D (4th floor)
• TSIG.23 “Cognition and Writing Standing Group (Annual Meeting)” Room 4K (4th floor)
• TSIG.27 “Labor Caucus Buisiness Meeting” Lake Ontario (8th floor)
• TSIG.28 “Appalachian Studies Standing Group” Lake Huron (8th floor)
• F.39 “First-Year Writing and ESL Writing Integration: A Case Study” Salon A-5 (lower level)
• FSIG.23 “Language, Linguistics, and Writing Standing Group” Room 4K (4th floor)
• FSIG.27 “Queer Caucus Meeting 2023” Lake Erie (8th floor)
• FSIG.28 “Asian and Asian American Caucus Business Meeting” Lake Ontario (8th floor)
• FSIG.29 “Undergraduate Research Standing Group Meeting” Room 4C (4th floor)
• K.18 “A Pedagogical Approach to Restoring Trust and Hope in STEM Writing” Williford C (3rd floor)
• L.30 “‘The Truth Is No Longer Enough’: Student-Activist Writing and Rhetorical Authority” from “Students as Producers of Knowledge” moved to E.39 “Before Errors and Expectations: Non-Tenure Track Feminist Visions for Curriculum and Writing Program Administration in the CUNY SEEK Program (1966-1969)” Marquette Room (3rd floor)
• L.39 “Working in Progress: Our Chance to Create a New Model of Graduate Pedagogy Education” Grand Tradition (lobby level)
• M.37 “Autoethnographic Writing as a Pedagogy of Crisis: Student Agency, Personal Writing, and Field Research in the Midst of Global Climate Change” moved to I.11 “Composting, Cookbooks, and Climate Change” Salon A-4 (lower level)

 

Additional program contents:

• General Information
• Wednesday Events
• Thursday Events and Sessions
• Friday Events and Sessions
• Saturday Events and Sessions
• Wednesday Workshops
• Saturday Workshops
• Exhibits and Floorplans
• Index
• Online on-demand sessions
• Full PDF

13 September 2022

Dear CCCC Members,

Thank you for your patience as we make the shift from this year’s virtual Convention to next year’s in-person event in Chicago, with a virtual component for the 2023 CCCC Convention. Planning proceeds apace for the Convention, and I want to give you a few updates about what is to come.

You should receive your program notifications before the end of September.

With regard to virtual components of the Chicago Convention: in addition to livestreaming the opening session, keynote, and a few promoted sessions, we are holding seventy-five on-demand sessions for participants who need to present virtually. Priority for on-demand sessions will go to presenters who are immune-compromised, caregivers, and non-tenure-track or adjunct faculty. In addition to your acceptance email, each presenter will receive, under separate cover, an email asking you to indicate whether you require an on-demand session. We will be operating under the honour system with the hope that we can provide that option to those with the greatest need.

Prior to the Convention, you will receive information about how to upload your proof of vaccination to our Crowdpass app. We encourage participants to wear masks throughout the Convention and will make masks available at the Registration Desk. NCTE will continue to monitor and follow protocols that comply with any applicable local public health requirements and that are consistent with then-prevailing public health standards, as issued by the CDC (or other relevant public health authorities).

This year’s CCCC Annual Convention will offer some new features. These include a Muslim Prayer Room, meeting space for graduate students, and extra space for childcare, breastfeeding, and caregiver respite. I’m also really excited about our pop-up writing centres, where presenters can seek feedback on their Convention papers, workshop materials, and handouts and find guidance on the composing and delivery of land and water acknowledgements. The American Indian Caucus, under the leadership of Andrea Riley Mukavetz, is generously working with representatives from the writing centre community to prepare specialized training for volunteer tutors so they can offer culturally responsive feedback as well as take their new knowledge about land and water acknowledgements back to their home institutions following the Convention.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me or to the staff at CCCCevents@ncte.org should you have any questions. You can also find a detailed FAQ on the CCCC Convention website.

With warmest regards,

Frankie Condon