Author: ksuchor

Kyle Stedman, University of South Florida

Introduction: Assuaging the Fear

In his keynote address at the 2009 Educause Conference, Lawrence Lessig discussed the intersections of copyright and scholarship. His talk is summarized in a short Inside Higher Ed piece, where it predictably received online comments from both copylefters and copyright supporters (Kolowich). One commenter, writing with concern for underpaid junior faculty whose work is profited on by publishers, writes, “I’m delighted Dr. Lessig can afford to give away the results of his own labor; but it seems a misplaced priority for him to work so hard to assure the lowest paid members of his community have even less opportunity to make ends meet.” In other words, loosening the reins of copyright from scholarship could mean less revenue for producers of academic work.

This comment can be read as one voice of a common fear felt by many content producers, whether of scholarship, fiction, music, or video: I need to reserve all my rights to this content, not just some of them. What will happen if I lose control of my work, if people profit from my labor, and I don’t?

Though there is mounting research and anecdotal evidence to support the claim that distributing free books can actually increase sales (Neilan; Doctorow), the fears of those like the Inside Higher Ed commenter are understandable. But I believe that a recent development from the ever-growing nonprofit Creative Commons (CC) can speak to these fears by offering content producers more avenues for communicating their licensing decisions to (re)users. Creative Commons Plus (CC+) increases communication between composers and users about how content may be used and, importantly, can help composers bridge the gap between giving away content for free and earning money from it. By telling users in plain language exactly what they can and cannot do with content, including information about when and how to pay for a license, composers should be able to breathe easier, knowing that users who should pay for legitimate uses beyond those allowed by an existing CC license can now know exactly how to go about doing so.1

Basic Functionality

The heart of CC+ is simple. All CC licenses allow certain uses of content and forbid others–say, by allowing someone to remix content but forbidding commercial uses. Some doors are opened, and others are closed. By using CC+, a composer in effect says, “Sure I’ve licensed this content in a way that closes some doors, but I could give you the key under certain circumstances. If you’re interested, here’s how you can get the key.” In other words, CC+ provides a way for content creators who have licensed their work with any CC license to easily communicate with users how to get permission for uses beyond those allowed by the CC license.

CC+ is described on the CC Wiki as a “protocol” and an “architecture,” not as a new license. Therefore, a composer’s decision to use CC+ is communicated to users alongside her existing licensing language, not in place of it. When using creativecommons.org to license material, composers are asked a series of questions about what kinds of uses they choose to allow; with the advent of CC+, composers are now given the option of adding a link to a “more permissions URL.” When they add a url in this field, the auto-generated html includes the same material as before–a clickable icon taking users to a plain-language description of the license–but this icon is followed by additional text stating, “Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at . . .” (“CCPlus”).

The code for this link is also automatically given the RDFa attribute rel=cc:morePermissions, following the CC recommendation “for machine-readable expression of copyright licensing terms and related information” (Abelson et al). In other words, the composer’s choice to make it easy for users to obtain more permissions is communicated both visually to users who see the extra link and technologically to other machines that can automatically understand that the link is one that takes users to an explanation of how to obtain more permissions. Because of this RDFa attribute, when users click through to the plain language description of the license, javascript on the license page recognizes the presence of CC+ and adds to the plain language page a + symbol and a link to the more permissions URL.

Three Examples

CC+ makes most sense when considered with some examples:

Example 1: The Musician

A musician hopes to make money from sales of her music, but she also loves sharing her work for free. She licenses her songs with a CC license that allows anyone to download her music and share it on whatever sites they wish, as long as users attribute the music to her, don’t make money from it, and don’t remix it in any way (a CC BY-NC-ND license). This way people will be exposed to her sound and return to her site to buy CDs, find a link to her work on iTunes, and donate.

When she hears about CC+, she returns to creativecommons.org to relicense her material, this time with a link added in the “more permissions url” field. The link takes users to a page of her site that explains the fees she charges for anyone wanting to use her music in a commercial context or to remix it. The html icon and link generated by CC now automatically includes a link to her “more permissions” page; she easily replaces the html on her site with this new code. And if she wants, she can easily design her own new icon to replace the “Permissions beyond the scope of this license” text with a second button that simply says “Looking to license? Looking to remix?” so that users will see two clean buttons on each page of her site: one that takes them to the plain-language description of her license, and one that takes them to her more permissions page.

Before CC+ she could license additional uses on her own, but the CC+ protocol gives her an easier way to communicate her additional license requirements, integrating her additional communication into her existing communication framework (simple new language on her site; a simple new icon that appears on the plain language description of her license).

Example 2: The Scholar

A scholar publishes an article in Kairos, a refereed online journal on rhetoric and technology. Because he retains copyrights to his work, he also posts a copy of the article on his blog under a CC license that allows others to freely reprint and remix his work as long they attribute the work to him and use it only for noncommercial uses (a CC BY-NC license).

But he wants to make sure that readers know that they can request a license to use his work for commercial purposes; all anyone has to do is email him, and he’ll decide whether or not to allow use on a case-by-case basis. To facilitate that conversation, he uses CC+ by inserting a link to a “more permissions” link when licensing the article–in this case, a link to the “contact” section of his professional website, which instructs people simply to email him with licensing questions. A commercial publisher finds this article on the scholar’s blog and wants to anthologize it in a textbook on digital writing; the publisher follows the CC+ link to the page with instructions on how to proceed.

Example 3: The Journal

Molecular Systems Biology, an open access journal published by the Nature Publishing Group, allows its authors to decide between two CC licenses, neither of which allow readers to use the articles for commercial uses. Authors can choose a license that requires any alterations of the articles to be distributed under the same license (CC BY-NC-SA) or a license that doesn’t allow any alterations at all (CC BY-NC-ND). The journal’s site adds, “Any of the above conditions can be waived if users get permission from the copyright holder” (“Open Access”).

If the journal decided to build CC+ into its site architecture, the journal could also ask submitting authors if they would like to manage permissions beyond the CC licenses or if they would prefer the journal to handle all requests (provided the journal has the resources, of course). Each article would then be accompanied with the existing text describing the authors’ chosen license along with information about how to obtain extra permissions–either by contacting the authors or the journal, depending on the authors’ choice.

In practice, use of CC+ can be implemented by the user as described above or by using a content management service like Ozmo, a site owned by the Copyright Clearance Center that helps composers implement CC+ by streamlining the licensing process, managing any licensing fees that users pay, and allowing users to search for content through their site. The musician or scholar in the above example could sign up with Ozmo and then direct users to their Ozmo pages to learn how to use content in ways that exceed their chosen CC license, and Ozmo would handle all the finances.

Implications

Implications for the CC Movement

One major implication of CC+ is its potential as a mediating tool between the rhetoric of the commons that pervades in open access and free culture communities and the rhetoric of fear that pervades in legal and corporate discourses. Let’s return to the online comment I discussed at the beginning of this article: the commenter sees the open education movement as suggesting that he happily work for free, giving away his work to anyone who wants it, leaving him penniless. Some feel that even using relatively restrictive Creative Commons licenses should be avoided, since doing so means releasing content into the wild of the Internet, where the ease of digital copying means giving up control to others who may want to “steal” his work. (Of course, copyrighted material online is often just as findable and copyable, but the rhetoric against Creative Commons sometimes forgets this.)

But CC+ addresses the needs of those who want to share but are afraid, potentially increasing the numbers of those who support and implement various CC licenses. CC+ implicitly says to these authors, “If you want to charge people who use your work for certain uses, that’s great! We support you making money from your compositions! Let us help you communicate with users about how they should get in touch with you to pay you.” And of course, it could be argued that the act of using any CC license, especially with the CC+ protocol, makes it less likely that content will be used outside of the scope of its license, given that its allowed uses are brought into the open with human-readable text that is harder to ignore than the silence of content that is posted online and automatically copyrighted but without any copyright notice.

Implications for Scholars

More practically, scholars could use CC+ to license drafts of essays they’re working on. The CC license would encourage other scholars to share and distribute the essay without any fear of overstepping boundaries (say, by downloading the essay and hosting it on a course or department web site for others to comment on), but the + would clarify that any other uses beyond the CC license need to be cleared first with the author (say, if a publisher comes across the essay and wants to publish it commercially, or if a teacher wants to adapt an excerpt for a class handout).

Implications for Teaching Communities

On a larger scale, sites that host content with CC licenses could use CC+ to clarify what options users have when using their material, and perhaps even to profit from it. Sites like MIT’s OpenCourseWare (ocw.mit.edu) and, on a smaller scale, the University of South Florida’s CollegeWriting (collegewriting.us) collect content and pedagogical materials and share them using a CC BY-NC-SA license. If either of these sites adopted CC+, they could easily instruct users how to pay for other uses of these materials. For instance, they could make it easier for someone who wanted to adapt an essay assignment to post on another university’s site that doesn’t use a CC share-alike license, or if someone wanted to include a quiz found on one of these sites in a commercial publication.

Implications for Publishing

And at the publishing level, journals and publishing companies that allow authors to retain copyright to their work could help authors better understand their options by facilitating licensing choices, including CC+. For example, open access journals (like Molecular Systems Biology in example 3 above) could use CC+ to direct readers looking for additional licensing options to a page on the journal’s site, on the author’s personal site, or to an Ozmo page, depending on the choice of the contributor.

This mindset of clearly communicating licensing options could also be applied to the more informal publishing that constantly happens on the web, including statements and resolutions issued by scholarly organizations. For instance, Wendy Austin, a scholar in rhetoric and composition, wrote in 2006 to the Writing Program Administrators listserv about her issues licensing the official WPA statement on plagiarism (“Defining and Avoiding”), which at that time had the relatively restrictive CC BY-ND-NC license. (The statement’s license has since been updated to the less restrictive CC BY-ND license.) Austin wanted to publish the statement, which she describes as a “foundation” for her book’s argument, in whole as an appendix to her book on plagiarism, which was to be published by a commercial publisher (Austin). She asked for advice from Chris Anson, a major scholar in rhetoric and composition, and eventually paid the $100 licensing fee to the WPA treasurer for the right to publish the statement in full in a commercial textbook. If CC+ had existed in 2006, it would have simplified this exchange, cutting out the need to ask around for advice about how to proceed, since at the bottom of the statement’s web page and on the CC license page Austin would have been given clear directions for how to obtain the permissions–probably with a link to a page explaining how to pay fees.

Conclusion

In an email response to me, CC Web Engineer Nathan Kinkade wrote, “My sense is that the uptake of CC+ has been very small, at least from the tech. perspective of using ccREL (RDFa) to express CC+.” Though his gut impression is obviously different than a detailed survey of CC implementation, it still suggests a need for further action. My impression is that as CC licenses become increasingly visible on popular sites like Flickr and Wikipedia, the added protocol of CC+ could do much to alleviate the fears of those who aren’t yet ready to commit to alternatives to “all rights reserved.”

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Wendy Austin and Nathan Kinkade for allowing me to quote their email messages in this piece, and to Nathan for his patience with me as I worked through the technical side of CC+ implementation.

Works Cited

Abelson, Hal, Ben Adida, Mike Linksvayer, and Nathan Yergler. “ccREL: The Creative Commons Rights Expression Language.” Creative Commons Wiki. Creative Commons, 3 Mar. 2008. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.

Austin, Wendy. “Re: Using the WPA Outcomes Statement.” Message to The WPA-L Listserv. 19 Dec. 2006. E-mail.

“CCPlus.” Creative Commons Wiki. Creative Commons, 18 Jun. 2009. Web. 9 Feb. 2010.

“Creative Commons Launches CC0 and CC+ Programs.” Creative Commons Wiki. Creative Commons, 17 Dec. 2007. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.

“Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices.” Council of Writing Program Administrators. The Council of Writing Program Administrators, 2003. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.

Doctorow, Cory. “Giving it Away.” Content: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright, and the Future of the Future. San Francisco: Tachyon, 2008. 71-75. Cory Doctorow: Content. Web. 25 Feb. 2010.

Kinkade, Nathan. “Re: A comment from Kyle Stedman.” Message to the author. 9 Feb. 2010. E-mail.

Kolowich, Steve. “A Call for Copyright Rebellion.” Inside Higher Ed. Inside Higher Ed, 6 Nov. 2009. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.

Neilan, Catherine. “TOC: Piracy may boost sales, research suggests.” The Bookseller.com. The Nielsen Company, 13 Oct. 2009. Web. 25 Feb. 2010.

“Open Access.” Molecular Systems Biology. Nature Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2010.

*****

1 CC+ was actually announced in a December 2007 press release (“Creative Commons Launches”). Its inclusion in this collection of 2009’s top developments is thus rather behind the times. However, its importance and relatively minor use justify its inclusion here, however awkwardly it may sit.

Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

In December 2007, President Bush signed into law the NIH Open Access policy, which concretized what had been an agenda item in the open access movement for over three years. This policy requires scholars who receive NIH funding for their research to submit copies of publications based on that research to PubMed Central, an open access repository. They must do this within 12 months of the article’s publication in a professional journal or other scholarly venue. In the following report, I will describe the timeline and reasons for the policy, how the policy works, and its implications for research in disciplines other than the medical sciences, including rhetoric and composition.

Original Proposal and Rationale for Open Access to NIH-Funded Research

What is now the open access mandate was for over two years prior only voluntary. The original policy was proposed in 2004 by the House Appropriations Committee and sponsored by Ralph Regula, a Democratic congressional representative from Ohio. A report filed by the Committee in July 2004 explains the need for an open access policy (emphasis mine):

The Committee is very concerned that there is insufficient public access to reports and data resulting from NIH-funded research. This situation, which has been exacerbated by the dramatic rise in scientific journal subscription prices, is contrary to the best interests of the U.S. taxpayers who paid for this research. The Committee is aware of a proposal to make the complete text of articles and supplemental materials generated by NIH-funded research available on PubMed Central (PMC), the digital library maintained by the National Library of Medicine (NLM).

The problem of subscription rates for scholarly journals and the public interest argument come directly from open access rhetoric, including positions taken by members of the CCCC Intellectual Property Caucus. Arguing from the taxpayers’ interest in this context also sets an important precedent for government-funded research in other disciplines. It is unclear exactly why such an open access policy would originate in research in the health sciences, but one obvious speculation is the need, from a public health standpoint, to share research results quickly and inexpensively in the service of eradicating chronic conditions and infectious disease. Another is the relationship between researchers in the health sciences and pharmaceutical companies, which can be complex and necessitate a distancing move and a claim of the research by the public. The July 2004 report goes on to recommend:

The Committee supports this proposal and recommends that NIH develop a policy, to apply from FY 2005 forward, requiring that a complete electronic copy of any manuscript reporting work supported by NIH grants or contracts be provided to PMC upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication in any scientific journal listed in the NLM’s PubMed directory.

The proposed policy continued to gain ground, and in February of 2005, the NIH issued a report announcing details of the policy. They gave the following reasons as an explanation of the need for an open access initiative (“Policy on Enhancing Public Access”):

The Policy is intended to: 1) create a stable archive of peer-reviewed research publications resulting from NIH-funded research to ensure the permanent preservation of these vital published research findings; 2) secure a searchable compendium of these peer-reviewed research publications that NIH and its awardees can use to manage more efficiently and to understand better their research portfolios, monitor scientific productivity, and ultimately, help set research priorities; and 3) make published results of NIH-funded research more readily accessible to the public, health care providers, educators, and scientists.”

These reasons demonstrate the potential of an open access repository, especially an organized and searchable one, to provide an aerial view of the history and evolution of a discipline for any interested reader. In rhetoric and composition, a similar (though not open access) effort is Collin Brooke and Derek Mueller’s transformation of CCC Online into a dynamic, categorized, searchable archive.

In addition to laying out the intentions of the policy, the February 2005 report addressed several objections to it, including its perceived incompatibility with copyright law and its conflict with the market interest, particularly that of journal publishers. The NIH responded to these criticisms by citing the government purpose license, which applies generally to work by government contractors and allows government agencies some rights to copyrighted or patented work. They also pointed out one of the policy’s provisions, which states that authors may wait up to twelve months to post their articles to PubMed Central. The holding period is a concession for journal publishers to address the objection that they may lose subscriptions as a result of the policy.

Starting in 2005, per the Appropriation Committee’s recommendation, recipients of NIH funding were encouraged — but not required — to submit their publications to PubMed Central, a government repository of open-access medical research publications. According to Peter Suber, a senior researcher at the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC),  compliance rates were low under the voluntary system: in February 2006, the rate was below 4% (“NIH FAQ”). Throughout 2006 and most of 2007, the House and the Senate argued over specific matters related to language in the bill and budgetary concerns, as  PubMed Central is part of the NIH budget, and the costs rise with the number of submissions and the heft of repository use (“SPARC Open Access Newsletter, August 2007”). After passing in the House and the Senate, President Bush signed the open access policy into law on December 26, 2007, the language of which states:

The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

While open access advocates have expressed disappointment that the “embargo period” is not shorter than twelve months, most agree that the NIH’s policy is progressive and moves research in general closer to the public interest. The policy will help researchers in the health sciences share their research on a global scale and will, ideally, enable innovation. It will go into effect on April 7, 2008.

Implications for Research in Other Fields, Including Rhetoric and Composition

Rhetoric and composition studies are not fields that are historically well funded by government agencies such as NIH (a possible exception being technical communication), but the NIH Open Access Mandate, with its driving argument as the issue of fairness and the public interest – the public funded it, so the public should have access to it – has two key implications for research in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities, including rhetoric and composition:

1. Other government funding organizations (National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Dept. of Ed.) may decide to implement similar policies. Open access advocacy will be necessary for this effort, and publishers will lobby against it, but a precedent has been set nonetheless. The Alliance for Taxpayer Access, an alliance of 84 different libraries and advocacy groups for sufferers of specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis and AIDS, will continue with SPARC to push for open access to all government-funded research. I recommend that members of the CCCC IP Caucus create awareness of this organization on our individual campuses and encourage our libraries to join the ATA.
     
2. This policy may encourage similar policies at the state or university level, such as ScholarWorks at the University of Kansas. Faculty at the University of Kansas, starting in March 2005, have been encouraged to submit their research to ScholarWorks on the grounds that doing so will increase its visibility and cause it to be cited more often, and administration at KU has provided faculty with language to use when requesting publishers’ permission to post work to ScholarWorks (“Resolution on Access”). The University of California system and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also have such repositories.

Works Cited

Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-022.html

Public Access Frequently Asked Questions. http://publicaccess.nih.gov/FAQ.htm

Suber, Peter. “NIH Public-Access Policy Frequently Asked Questions.”  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm

Suber, Peter. “OA mandate at NIH now law.” http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/12/oa-mandate-at-nih-now-law.html

Suber, Peter. “Welcome to the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #112.” 2 Aug 2007. 6 Feb 2008.  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-07.htm#nih

Suber, Peter. “Welcome to the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #115.” 2 Nov 2007. 6 Feb 2008.  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-07.htm#nih

Suber, Peter. “Welcome to the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #116 .” 2 Dec 2007. 6 Feb 2008.  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/12-02-07.htm

KU: About KU ScholarWorks. http://www2.ku.edu/~scholar/ 6 Feb 2008

Resolution on Access to Scholarly Information Passed by the KU University Council. http://www2.ku.edu/~scholar/docs/ScholarlyInformationResolution.pdf

PubMed Central Homepage. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ 6 Feb 2008

House Report 108-636 – DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2005. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp108&r_n=hr636.108&sel=TOC_338641 6 Feb 2008.

Kim Dian Gainer, Radford University

Overview

The out-of-court settlement of two suits against a Google book indexing project is an example of the negotiations underway between copyright owners and new media in the absence of clearly defined legislative standards and judicial precedents.  Google claims that the indexing project did not violate provisions of fair use; copyright holders claim that the project did.  With the settlement, the question of whether such indexing was or was not fair use has been left unresolved.

Background

Google’s own account of its book indexing project traces the idea back to 1996, when, as graduate students, Google’s co-founders worked on a project funded by the Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project. The first concrete steps toward the project’s realization, however, date to 2002, when Google staff experimented with digitizing books and visited libraries where scanning projects were underway. Work on technical issues continued throughout 2003.  Then, in 2004, Google entered into an agreement with Oxford University’s Bodleian library to digitize its collection of nineteenth-century books.  These volumes were of course in the public domain.  Subsequent to this agreement, which was the foundation of the “Library Project”, Google entered into arrangements with research libraries at four additional institutions: Harvard University, the University of Michigan, Stanford University, and the New York Public Library.  Collectively, they offered access to fifteen million books (History of Google Book Search, 2009).  Significantly, not all these volumes were in the public domain.  While Harvard made available for scanning only out-of-copyright books, other libraries provided access to their entire collections (Hafner, 2005).

While negotiating with libraries, Google had also been working with publishers in order to offer a book indexing service called “Google Print”. By the end of 2004, Google had reached agreements with such publishers as Blackwell, Houghton Mifflin, Hyperion, McGraw-Hill, Pearson, Penguin, and Perseus, as well as with Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, the University of Chicago Press, and Princeton University Press (History of Google Book Search, 2009).  However, in spite of the willingness of these publishers to participate in Google Print, the separate Library Project drew protests from authors and publishers who objected to the scanning of copyrighted books without permission from the copyright holders.  In the case of books not in the public domain, searches would result in the display of “snippets”, the verbal equivalent of the thumbnails returned by Google image searches.  To generate these snippets, however, Google was scanning entire texts.  Although Google maintained that digitizing entire texts for the purpose of indexing was a fair use under copyright law, in the face of protests in 2005 it did briefly suspend the scanning of copyrighted books in order to allow for an opt-out procedure: for the space of three months, publishers could submit lists of books that were not to be scanned.  Absent notification that the opt-out was being invoked, the book would be digitized (Band, 2006, p. 2).  Some copyright holders felt that this opt-out provision was inadequate to protect their rights, and in September and October of 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed separate suits against Google in an attempt to bring the Library Project to a halt on the grounds that the digitization of entire books was inconsistent with the principle of fair use.

Settlement

Settlement of all litigation was announced in October of 2008, and the terms of the settlement were made public in a lengthy document (Google Book Settlement, 2008) that specifies the conditions under which Google may continue to scan and provide access, in full or in part, to three categories of books published before January 5, 2009: (1) in-copyright and in-print, (2) in-copyright but out-of-print, and (3) out-of-copyright.  For the first category, the settlement protects the ownership rights of copyright holders by blocking access to the texts while providing a mechanism for purchasing electronic access (“No Preview Available”).  For the second category, the settlement protects the ownership rights of copyright holders by allowing the reader to view short passages while also permitting the purchase of electronic access to the full text (“Snippet View”).  For the last category, that of books in the public domain, Google will provide free online access to entire books, as it had been doing before the lawsuits were filed (“Full View”) (The Future of Google Book Search, 2009; Google Books Library Project, 2009; New Chapter for Google Book Search, 2008).

The settlement requires Google to pay $ 125 million for copyrighted books it has already scanned.  Google is also required to bear that cost of establishing and maintaining a Book Rights Registry that will receive and distribute future payments.  These costs, however, might have been dwarfed by the penalties that Google could have faced if a court had ruled against Google and adjudged it to have infringed authors’ and publishers’ copyrights.  Moreover, the payments presumably will be offset by the fact that Google will henceforth be entitled to thirty-seven percent of the fees that consumers will be charged for digital access to copyrighted books. In addition, Google may charge publishers for listing these books.  Google may also profit from subscriptions purchased by libraries for access to the entire database of scanned books, including books under copyright.  Expenses may also be recouped by the placement of advertisements on preview pages, a revenue stream that is already part of Google’s business model (Helft & Rich, 2008; Quint, 2008; Rich, 2009; Snyder, 2008). 

Implications for Authors and Publishers

With the settlement, Google is authorized to display more substantial portions of books that are under copyright but out of print.  These books make up the majority of the books that will be searchable via Google Book search.  Of the first seven million books that Google scanned, five million were under copyright yet out of print (Rich, 2009).  Previously, Google could display three snippets of each such book.  Under the settlement, if a copyrighted book is out of print, Google may display, cumulatively, up to twenty percent of the entire text.  Additional restrictions apply depending on the nature of the text.  For example, Google will block the display of the final pages of a work of fiction (Band, 2008, pp. 4-5).

Even though Google will be displaying larger portions of books that are under copyright but out of print, the copyright holders will have little cause to complain.  Previously, such orphan books generated no revenue for the copyright holders.  Now, whenever a reader pays to access online the full text of an orphaned book, a portion of that payment will be deposited in the Book Rights Registry, and those payments will be passed on to the author or publisher who holds the copyright via a mechanism similar to that by which songwriters are recompensed when their melodies are played on the radio.  In effect, Google will advertise and market these books.  Google will take its thirty-seven percent cut, but no money would have been forthcoming at all had it not been for the inclusion of the out-of-print book in Google’s database.

The situation is somewhat different in the case of copyrighted books that are in print.  As in the case of orphan works, Google had previously provided snippets.  Now readers will no longer see portions of the pages that contain their search terms.  Instead, they will be able to view title pages and other sections, such as the index and table of contents, that may help them determine whether to seek further access—either online or bricks and mortar—to the books in which their search terms appear (Band, 2008, p. 5).  It remains to be seen whether any significant sales will accrue to publishers as a result of these displays.  If readers do elect to pay for online access, Google will, again, receive thirty-seven percent of the payment.

Implications for the Public

Even before the settlement, via Google’s Library Project readers were able to locate and access, without charge,the full texts of books in the public domain.  With the settlement, readers can also be sure of locating copyrighted books that may be relevant to their search.  In the case of books that are under copyright but out of print, readers will have access, at no charge, to a limited number of pages that contain or are adjacent to their search term.  They may also purchase full online access to these orphaned books.   The iPod generation, accustomed to accessing media online, may in this fashion give a ‘second life’ to some books whose sales were not sufficient to warrant shelf space in bricks and mortar bookstores.  In the case of copyrighted books that are in print, readers may also purchase online access, but without first sampling any of the pages of the book.

Implications for Educators and Students

A provision in the settlement mandates that Google provide upon request free “Public Access Service” to one terminal in each separate building in each and every public library system in the United States.  This Public Access Service will allow patrons to read books that are under copyright but not in print.  Patrons may not electronically copy or annotate these books, but they may print pages for a per sheet fee (Band, 2008, pgs. 7-8).  Educators may wish to make certain that the public libraries in their communities are aware of this provision, as Google is not required to notify libraries of this service.  In addition, colleges and universities—but not primary, middle, or high schools—may request Public Access Service: one access point per 4,000 students at institutions classified as Associate Colleges and one access point per 10,000 students at other institutions of higher education (Band, 2008, pgs. 7-8).  For both public libraries and institutions of higher education, additional Institutional Subscriptions are available for a fee.  Such subscriptions allow patrons to electronically annotate books, to print up to twenty pages of a book at a time, as well as to copy and paste up to four consecutive pages at a time.  Moreover, books in the Institutional Subscription Database can be made available via e-reserves or as part of course management systems, providing that the intended users would be authorized to use the Institutional Subscription itself (Band, 2008, pgs. 8-9).

Reactions to the Settlement

Reactions to the settlement ranged widely.  Barbara Quint, columnist for Information Today, lauded the settlement for, among other achievements, addressing the problem of orphan works (Quint, 2008).  Lawrence Lessig, author of Free Culture, also was pleased with the settlement’s approach to orphan works, which he felt was likely to be a better solution to that problem than the Orphan Works legislationproposed in Congress.  Overall, he felt that the settlement was better than a win would have been:

The Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers have settled for terms that will assure greater access to these materials than would have been the case had Google prevailed. Under the agreement, 20% of any work not opting out will be available freely; full access can be purchased for a fee. That secures more access for this class of out-of-print but presumptively-under-copyright works than Google was initially proposing. And as this constitutes up to 75% of the books in the libraries to be scanned, that is hugely important and good. (Lessig, 2008)

Lessig was also pleased that no court attempted to determine fair use in this case.  The former plaintiffs, he wrote,

are clear that they still don’t agree with Google’s views about “fair use.” But this agreement gives the public (and authors) more than what “fair use” would have permitted. That leaves “fair use” as it is, and gives the spread of knowledge more that it would have had. (Lessig, 2008)

Other analysts were not as sanguine as Lessig.  Even before the settlement, some libraries had refused to partner with Google because of the conditions that the giant company had placed upon the project (Hafner, 2007).  Now, in the wake of the settlement, some critics wondered whether such a powerful player as Google might come to monopolize a potentially important new system for the delivery of virtual books (Cohen, 2009).  Microsoft had tried to start its own program of book digitization but, unable to complete with Google, had abandoned its effort in May of 2008 (Helft, 2008).  Wrote Robert Darnton, head librarian at Harvard, one of the early participants in the Library Project,

… Google will enjoy what can only be called a monopoly—a monopoly of a new kind, not of railroads or steel but of access to information. Google has no serious competitors… Google alone has the wealth to digitize on a massive scale. And having settled with the authors and publishers, it can exploit its financial power from within a protective legal barrier; for the class action suit covers the entire class of authors and publishers. No new entrepreneurs will be able to digitize books within that fenced-off territory, even if they could afford it, because they would have to fight the copyright battles all over again. (Darnton, 2009)

There is a non-exclusivity proviso included in the settlement so that libraries (there are now many more than the original five) may make their collections available for scanning to other companies or entities (Band, 2008, p. 19).  Moreover, Google may have benign intentionsunder its current leadership.  Nevertheless, it has cornered the market on book digitization, and this concerns some onlookers.  On the other hand, Google has succeeded in negotiating a space within which new products can be brought to the market while respecting copyright, and it is arguable that only a gorilla the size of Google would have had the pocketbooks and the savvy to force media conglomerates to accommodate its view of “fair use.” 

Works Cited

Band, J.  (2006, Jan.).  The Google Library Project: The Copyright Debate.   Office for Information Technology Brief.  American Library Association.  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from

_____.  (2008, Nov. 13).  A Guide for the Perplexed: Libraries and Google Library Project settlement.  American Library Association.  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/google-settlement-13nov08.pdf

Cohen, N.  (2009,Feb. 1).  Some Fear Google’s Power in Digital Books.  The New York Times.  Retrieved February 14, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?scp=6&sq=google%20book%20search&st=cse

Darnton, R.  (2009, Feb. 12).  Google and the Future of Books.  The New York Review of Books.  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281

The Future of Google Book Search: Our Groundbreaking Agreement with Authors and Publishers.  (2009).  Google Book Search Settlement Agreement.  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/#1

Google Book Settlement.  (2008).  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement

Google Books Library Project: An Enhanced Card Catalog of the World’s Books.  (2009).  Google Book Search.  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from http://books.google.com/googlebooks/library.html

Hafner, K.  (2005 Nov. 21).  At Harvard, a Man, a Plan and a Scanner.  The New York Times.  Retrieved February 14, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/business/21harvard.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20book%20search&st=cse

_____.  (2007 Oct. 22).  Libraries Shun Deals to Place Books on Web.  The New York Times.  Retrieved February 14, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/technology/22library.html?scp=11&sq=google%20book%20search&st=cse

Helft, M.  (2008 May 24).  Microsoft Will Shut Down Book Search Program.  The New York Times.  Retrieved February 14, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/technology/24soft.html?scp=16&sq=google%20book%20search&st=cse  

Helft, M., and Rich, M.  (2008 Oct. 28).  Google Settles Suit over Book-Scanning.  The New York Times.  14 February 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/technology/internet/29google.html?scp=14&sq=google%20book%20search&st=cse

History of Google Book Search.  (2009).  About Google Book Search.  Retrieved February 14, 2009 from http://books.google.com/intl/en/googlebooks/history.html

Lessig, L.  (2008, Oct. 29).  On the Google Book Search Agreement.  Lessig2.0: Blog.  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/10/on_the_google_book_search_agre.html

Manuel, K.M.  (2009, Feb. 5).  “The Google Library Project: Is Digitization for Purposes of  Online Indexing Fair Use under Copyright Law.”  Congressional Research Service.   Open CRS: Congressional Research Reports for the People.  Retrieved March 23, 2009  from http://opencrs.com/document/R40194

New Chapter for Google Book Search.(2008 Oct. 28).  The Official Google Blog.  Retrieved February 14, 2009 from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-chapter-for-google-book-search.html

Quint, B.  (2008, Nov. 3).  The Google Book Search Settlement: ‘The Devil’s in the Details’.  Information Today.  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from file:///H:/Synchronize/Intellectual%20Property/Devil%20in%20Details.htm

Rich, M. (2009 Jan. 4). Google Hopes to Open a Trove of Little-Seen Books. The New York Times.  Retrieved February 14, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/technology/internet/05google.html

Snyder, C.  (2008 October 28).  Google Settles Book-Scan Lawsuit, Everybody Wins.  Epicenter.  Wired blog network.  Retrieved February 14, 2009 from http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/10/google-settles.html

For additional sources on Google Book Search and the Settlement, see

Bailey, C.W., Jr. (2008, Dec. 9).  Google Book Search Bibliography.  Intellectual Property.  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from file:///H:/Synchronize/Intellectual%20Property/gbsb.htm

Slocum, M.  (2008, Oct. 30).  Reaction to Google Book Search Settlement.  Tools of Change for Publishing.  Retrieved Feb. 14, 2009 from file:///H:/Synchronize/Intellectual%20Property/reaction-to-google-book-search.html

Wendy Warren Austin, Ph.D., Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

OVERVIEW

In 1996, John M. Barrie founded iParadigms, LLC, and began marketing Turnitin.com, a plagiarism detection service (PDS) that has since become the most widely adopted PDS at many universities and high schools. In 2003 and again in 2005, two Canadian college students refused to submit their student work to the Turnitin database through their McGill University classes that mandated using the service. In both cases, the McGill University Senate decided in favor of each student’s right to have their papers graded without running them through the Turnitin database. Until September 2006, no students in U.S. schools and universities had publicly objected to having their papers submitted to the database on a mandatory basis. However, that changed when a number of students at McLean High School in Fairfax County, Virginia, circulated a petition objecting to having their student papers uploaded to the school’s newly adopted Turnitin.com.  Seven students formed the Committee for Students’ Rights, rounding up 1,190 student signatures.  Their petition simply requested that the school remove the mandate to submit their papers and allow an opt-out option.

The students contacted a reporter at The Washington Post who wrote a front-page article called “Students Rebel Against Database Designed to Thwart Plagiarists,” (Glod, 2006) which was subsequently circulated via the Washington Post newswire to many papers, such as the Seattle Times. Immediately, bloggers also began writing about and discussing this situation on such blogs as The Wired Campus from Chronicle for Higher Education (Read, 2006), PBS.org (Carvin, 2006) and Ed-Tech Insider (Hoffman, 2006). Also, one of the students who helped organize the Committee for Students’ Rights, Ben Donovan, appeared on the Today Show.

After students presented their petition to school officials, McLean High School decided to change its policy to exclude juniors and seniors from the mandate, with plans to reinstate it after those two cohorts graduated. While the students’ list of reasons against Turnitin.com did include the school’s mandatory application of it for all student papers, this was certainly not the only one. Their primary issues with Turnitin.com, include:

1. The presumption of guilt—The idea of “guilty until proven innocent” prevails in this model of plagiarism detection, especially when the submission of papers is deemed as mandatory, not voluntary.
2. The violation of a students’ privacy—Even though the school district claims the submissions are anonymous, by virtue of the password authentication process through an off-site server, students still have to input their email addresses and names.
3. The violation of intellectual property laws—Mandatory submission of student papers helps build Turnitin.com’s database without any monetary compensation. Although licensing fees are paid for professional articles that are contained within the database, students’ papers are obtained with no compensation even though they add considerably to the products’ profitability. Furthermore, although these high school students digitally sign a “consent” form as they have their papers submitted, they are in fact “signing” these consents under duress, i.e., under penalty of getting a zero, and by virtue of their status as minors, lack capacity to enter into a binding contract.

DEVELOPMENTS

On October 16, John Barrie attended a McLean High School Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA) meeting to address the Turnitin.com concerns, although from student and parent reports, he did not do so satisfactorily, instead saying things like “[I]f Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools use it, it certainly can’t be bad,” and denying that there were any intellectual property issues involved with the use of his product. In fact, at that time, most (or all) of the Ivy League Schools had not adopted Turnitin because they felt it created a culture of mistrust. Soon after this date, however, Harvard became the first Ivy League school to announce that they were going to adopt Turnitin, albeit on a pilot basis. None of the other schools has yet adopted the service.

A local attorney, Robert Vanderhye, offered to represent the McLean Committee for Student Rights and subsequently sent a detailed letter dated November 15, 2006, to John Barrie requesting that if/when students submitted any of their papers to Turnitin.com, Barrie would agree to remove those student papers from its database within a week of the paper’s submittal. If they would not, Vanderhye’s clients would sue iParadigms. The attorney received a phone call from iParadigms in response to the letter, indicating they were not going to respond to the request. Vanderhye’s clients then filed suit in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, for copyright infringement. Barrie’s company promptly followed up the request with a countersuit against the high school student committee, but when a reporter from the Washington Post called Barrie to seek information about this countersuit, he replied, “What suit?” (Donovan, 2007). It was found that the countersuit was actually dismissed on December 20.

Back in McLean High School, the PTSA Executive Board asked the principal for an update on the Turnitin situation. In a letter dated December 21, 2006, Principal Paul Wardinski reported to them that:

Mr. Vanderhye sent several letters threatening to bring a lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief against Turnitin if the company did not acquiesce in Mr. Vanderhye’s legal interpretation, and if it did not withdraw the students’ papers from the Turnitin database.

From the correspondence we have seen, it appears that Turnitin engaged in settlement discussions with Mr. Vanderhye and the Committee and proposed a technical solution to the school’s primary concern. . .

The letter, which is posted on a site called DontTurnItIn.com that contains most of the pertinent data related to this situation, goes into more depth (Wardinski, 2006), but, according to a letter written in response to Wardinski’s, (Donovan, Bouchard, Gayer, and Kaylor, 2007) much of the information contained in it was misleading or inaccurate. At another McLean High School PTSA meeting in early 2007, another representative from the school district came to address more questions the two letters had raised, scolding the parents for harping on the issue, and dismissing their concerns by saying that they shouldn’t get upset at the principal’s letter because he didn’t even write it himself. Many of the parents were shocked at this statement because “the whole debate is about academic integrity and here he is saying the writer of the first letter didn’t even write it himself and he’s telling us we shouldn’t worry about the whole issue” (personal communication, Rose Donovan, March 17, 2007).

A major help to anyone wanting to find out more details about this situation is a very nicely done web site that one or more of the parents of the students involved with the Committee on Students’ Rights helped establish called dontturnitin.com. In addition to the “Welcome” page as a home page showing an overview of the situation, the site features pages that contain “Links and Other Information,” “What is turnitin.com?,” “Primary Issues,” and “How You Can Help.” The “Links” page is especially useful for its breakdown into documents and links marked “From the Students’ Perspective,” “From the McLean High School Administration and PTSA,” “From the Press,” “From Parents and Counsel,” From turnitin.com,” and “Additional Links about turnitin.com.”

RELATED EVENTS and DISCUSSIONS

About the same time that all this was going on, starting in mid-September, a small number of members from the CCCC-IP Caucus was finalizing its statement regarding recommendations about academic integrity and the use of plagiarism detection services, a statement that had been presented to the Caucus earlier that year in draft form at the 2006 CCCC. The statement is posted online at http://culturecat.net/files/CCCC-IPpositionstatementDraft.pdf as a link connected to the CCCC-IP blog.

At Grand Valley State University, Charlie Lowe, and two other writing professors developed a statement for their faculty, outlining concerns they had with the adoption of turnitin technology at GVSU. Brock Read’s article of  Sept. 19 in Chronicle of Higher Education and in The Wired Campus blog, “The Pros and Cons of Turnitin” mentions their statement, as well as a lengthy blog entry and comments with responses section, starting with a post by Michael Bruton, who works for iParadigms helping schools install and implement Turnitin.com. This thread was one of the most open discussion forums to date between compositionists and PDSs advocates. The School Library Journal reported (Oleck, 2006) that the University of Kansas at Lawrence was not renewing their subscription to Turnitin because of faculty’s negative reactions and IP concerns.

At George Mason University, the journal Inventio: Creative Thinking about Learning and Teaching published a feature webtext article in their Fall 2006 issue called “(Mis)Trusting Technology that Polices Integrity: A Critical Assessment of Turnitin.com” (Donnelly, et. al, 2006).  The authors explore many of the same issues about consent and intellectual property that concern the students and parents at McLean High School.

A few more dubious contributions to the McLean High School situation and issues surrounding it include an unsigned article on a site called EssayFraud.org dated October 20, 2006 called “Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Well-Known Secret about Turnitin.com.” At almost all the blog sites that mentioned these issues about this time or a little after, someone named Dan pointed out this article and its link to others. It may or may not be a coincidence that Dan is the name of one of the students on the Committee for Students’ Rights, but the lack of attribution on the EssayFraud.org page anywhere makes it difficult to include within a serious bibliography on the subject. Nevertheless, the article is pretty well researched.

This spring, in the online version of BusinessWeek, Doug MacMillan’s article (2007) mentioned a backlash against Turnitin.com from McLean High School students, citing privacy and intellectual property concerns. The CCCC-IP and our statement addressing plagiarism detection services were mentioned in the article, along with a (mis)quote from Michael Day, which prompted him to write a public apology on the CCCC-IP blog.  If journalists can eventually translate our viewpoints translated clearly and correctly in the mainstream press, we might be better able to maintain momentum and visibility. Even so, it’s possible that “the only bad publicity is no publicity.”

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPOSITIONISTS AND RESEARCHERS

Being able to articulate our positions in sound-bite or quote-tidbit formats might be useful in the future when or if we are asked by the press to comment on current events such as these. We must be ready to anticipate journalists’ needs and their impossibly speeded-up timetables, or else they will seek out someone else who may offer a different viewpoint than ours.

Other more direct and easy-to-control avenues for our opinions are in blog discussions and  statements we author at our schools. As noted in the citations below, all three of the blogs cited above in the second paragraph posted entries the same morning the Washington Post article came out, and time was of the essence in posting blog entries and comments as all these events were taking place. Charlie Lowe, Karen Lunsford, and others urged members of the CCCC-IP listserv to jump in to the discussions with both feet. “Now would be a great time to join these conversations, post on your own blogs, send in materials to discussion lists, etc. The PDS issue is particularly important for the Caucus, as we have a document regarding PDSs currently posted for your final review…” urged Karen Lunsford in an email message on Sept. 21, 2006. So, we have to be poised to respond quickly and well to speak to these issues on any and all venues, both globally and locally. Charlie Lowe suggested we could be reaching “critical mass” as we make these voices heard. Journalists read these blogs and comments as well as scour the Internet for pertinent materials we could post, so we should take advantage of these writing situations.

Rose Donovan, mother of one of the most vocal members of the Committee for Students’ Rights at McLean High School, asked beseechingly one of the most important questions that might help bolster our claims: is there any research out there on plagiarism or plagiarists or use of plagiarism detection services vs. teaching to prevent plagiarism (i.e. instead of deterring with technology)? James Purdy’s (2005) article in Pedagogy, “Calling Off the Hounds: Technology and Visibility of Plagiarism”  is one such example of research involving PDSs, but more research needs to be done. The CCCC-IP Statement urges compositionists to:

[C]onduct empirical studies to explore the effects of available
strategies—including PDSs, pedagogy, and honor codes—on students’ ethical writing from sources. Such studies need to explore whether or how PDSs, pedagogy, and honor codes produce results such as these:

• Students’ proficiency and confidence as writers;
• Students’ understanding of what they can gain from completing their writing assignments;
• Students’ sense of investment in and commitment to doing their own writing;
• Students’ understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and ethical writing in a variety of contexts;
• Students’ commitment to establishing a community of integrity and mutual trust;
• Reduced incidence of cheating and fraud.

These research imperatives need to be explored more urgently than ever. Meanwhile, we need to stay alert to what is happening around us and ready to act. This has been an exciting year; 2007 may hold even more opportunities.

RELEVANT SOURCES

Bruton, Michael (2006, Sept. 15). Turnitin’s response to recent posts concerning proper pedagogy. Kairos News. Retrieved October 16, 2006 from http://kairosnews.org.

CCCC-IP Caucus recommendations regarding academic integrity and the use of plagiarism detection services (2007, March). Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition/Communication Studies. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from http://culturecat.net/files/CCCC-IPpositionstatementDraft.pdf.

Carvin, Andy. (2006, Sept. 22). The politics of plagiarism detection services. Learning.now. PBS Teachers. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from http://www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/.

Donnelly, Michael, et al. (2006, Fall). (Mis)trusting technology that polices integrity: A critical assessment of Turnitin.com. Inventio, 8(1). Retrieved February 11, 2007 from http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/issues/Fall_2006/Donnelly_1.html.

dontturnitin.com. (2007). A forum for McLean High School parents & students. Retrieved February 25, 2007 from http://www.dontturnitin.com/

Glod, Maria. (2006, Sept. 22). Students rebel against database designed to thwart plagiarists. [Electronic version]. Washington Post, p. A01.

Hoffman, Tom. (2006, Sept. 22). Turnitin vs. student intellectual property rights. Ed-Tech Insider. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from http://www.eschoolnews.com/eti/index.php.

MacMillan, Douglas. (2007, March 13). Looking over Turnitin’s shoulder. BusinessWeek.com Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070313.htm

Oleck, Joan. (2006, Oct. 4). Students claim Turnitin violates intellectual property rights. School Library Journal. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6377874.html.

Purdy, James. (2005). Calling off the hounds: Technology and the visibility of plagiarism. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture,5 (2), 275-295.

Read, Brock. (2006, Sept. 22). Taking a hard line on Turnitin. The Wired Campus. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/.

The well-known secret about Turnitin.com. (2006, Oct. 20). EssayFraud.org. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from http://www.essayfraud.org/turnitin_john_barrie.html

Traci A. Zimmerman (Pipkins), James Madison University

In March 2007, two students at McLean High School in McLean, Virginia along with two students at Desert Vista High School in Phoenix, Arizona filed a lawsuit against Turnitin.com, a California company hired by their respective schools to aid in the fight against plagiarism.  Turnitin.com (“turn it in”) is a for-profit service used by over 6,000 academic institutions in 90 countries (1).  According to the Turnitin.com website:

iParadigms, the company behind Turnitin got its start in 1996, when a group of researchers at UC Berkeley created a series of computer programs to monitor the recycling of research papers in their large undergraduate classes. Encouraged by a high level of interest from their peers, the researchers teamed with a group of teachers, mathematicians, and computer scientists to form Plagiarism.org, the world’s first internet-based plagiarism detection service.  In the years since, Plagiarism.org has continued to grow and evolve, and is now recognized around the world as Turnitin and iThenticate, the internet’s most widely used and trusted resources for preventing the spread of internet plagiarism. (5)

In the following brief report, I will describe the context and motivation for the 2007 lawsuit, the details and central points of debate surrounding the case, and the implications that the case has for the rhetoric and composition classroom.  It will be impossible in such short space to provide the kind of depth and breadth of research that a subject like this demands; for that reason, I have provided an additional list of references which should serve as a solid starting point for further inquiry.

The Case Against Turnitin.com

Though the March 2007 filing is the first lawsuit in the United States to be brought against Turnitin, it is not the first time students have expressed concern with the plagiarism detection software.  In 2003 and 2005, two McGill University students refused to submit their work to the Turnitin database in classes that mandated their using the service (2).  In at least one of the cases, the student received failing grades for his work just because he refused to submit his assignments to Turnitin. Ultimately, the McGill University Senate decided “in favor of each student’s right to have their papers graded without running them through the Turnitin database” (2). 

The events that led up to the eventual filing of the lawsuit in March 2007 began in September of 2006, when a group of students at McLean High School circulated a petition to oppose the mandatory submission of their work to a newly adopted Turnitin.com (2).  The petition, which garnered 1,190 student signatures of the approximately 1800 students that attend the school, requested that the mandate to submit work to Turnitin be removed and that an “opt-out” option be allowed (2).  School officials responded to the petition by easing (but not removing) the mandate: instead of having all students in all grades submit their work to Turnitin, only 9th and 10th grade English and social studies classes would be required  to use the service.  Ultimately, this was no solution at all, since it meant that the current policy would be changed to exclude junior and seniors from the mandate only temporarily; after those two groups graduated, the policy would be reinstated, offering a kind of “grandfather clause” to the older students, but no consolation to those students who would come after.

In October of 2006, Dr. John Barrie, the President and CEO of iParadigms attended a McLean High School Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA) meeting to address the growing Turnitin concerns (2).  According to many reports, this meeting was wholly unsuccessful; Barrie tended to defend rather than explain his product, saying things like “if Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools use it, it certainly can’t be bad” though at the time Barrie made the claim, none of the Ivy Leagues had adopted Turnitin (2).  Harvard would become the first Ivy to adopt the service, and even then, only on a pilot basis (2).  But it would not be the last.  When Princeton announced later that same year that they “had no intention of using Turnitin.com,” the student newspaper contacted Barrie for a comment.  He had one: “Princeton is soft on cheating” (3).  Brock Read, who writes about Barrie’s zealous attack on Princeton as an “anti-cheating” crusader, admits that

Mr. Barrie’s vehemance may have made him a persona non grata at Princeton, but it has helped him persuade instructors at more than 8,000 high schools and colleges – including two of Princeton’s Ivy League rivals, Harvard and Columbia, the University of California system, and the University of Oxford, in England – to use his service.  Last year [2007], professors and teachers submitted a whopping 30 million papers from their students to Turnitin. (emphasis mine) (3)

Ironically, the very reasons that propel Turnitin’s success are the same reasons that make McLean High School parents and students wary of the service: the sheer size of the database.  As he worked out the earliest versions of what would become Turnitin.com, Barrie knew that the strength of the service would lie in its numbers; Turnitin would only succeed if it were built on “a database so massive that it creates a deterrent.” (3)  On their comprehensive and informative website “dontturnitin.com” (don’t turn it in), McLean parents and students certainly see the database as such a deterrent, noting as a “prohibitive factor” the fact that “original, intellectual work produced in a public school is being transferred to, archived by, and utilized for profit by a private company against the student’s wishes, but with the permission of the school administration” (6).  The fact that Turnitin uses these archived student papers to look for plagiarism in future submissions is what fuels the McLean lawsuit.  The four student plaintiffs allege that this practice constitutes copyright infringement and are asking for $900,000 in compensation for six papers that they claim were “added to Turnitin’s database against their will” (3).  Turnitin’s lawyers argue otherwise, claiming that the use of the papers fall under the “fair use” clause of the U.S. Copyright Act — the papers are neither “displayed [n]or distributed to anyone” and the students have to give their consent (by clicking “I agree”) before the paper is accepted by Turnitin.com  (qtd in 7).

Robert A. Vanderhye, a retired lawyer in Virginia who has taken on the student’s case pro bono, says that Turnitin “tarnishes its claim of fair use by redistributing papers in its database: Turnitin offers to send professors complete copies of works that it identifies as the sources of plagiarized material” (3).

The parents and students who created Dontturnitin.com agree that “cheating and plagiarism should never be tolerated in any academic or workplace setting” but go on to note that McLean High School has “a comprehensive honor code” in place that could possibly be “augmented” by Turnitin.com on a “voluntary” basis; however, the current system of using Turnitin (as a kind of punitive tool rather than a pedagogical one) seems more of a solution in search of a problem than anything else.  A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (February 29, 2008) echoes this concern:

When Mr. Barrie founded Turnitin, just over a decade ago, few professors had even thought about, let alone clamored for, plagiarism-detection software.  In essence, iParadigms has built a fast growing business out of almost nothing. (3)

Even Barrie himself agrees: “It’s safe to say that Turnitin is now a part of how education works” (3). 

Implications for the Rhetoric and Composition Classroom

On the surface, it might seem a salient fact that Dr. Barrie majored in (of all things) Rhetoric and Neurobiology while an undergraduate at the University of California, Berkeley (5).  In one of his later iterations as an entrepreneur and crusader in the area of plagiarism detection, he has become “a national leader and expert on the problem of plagiarism in education” (5).  But to whom?  The various blogs spawned by the McLean lawsuit, such as The Wired Campus from The Chronicle of Higher Education (September 22, 2006 and March 30, 2007) or Andy Carvin’s blog on PBS.org entitled “The Politics of Plagiarism Detection Services” (September 22, 2006), only complicate the issue further, as teacher, student, principal, and Jane Q. Citizen draw virtual lines in the sand about where the boundaries of creativity and plagiarism, teaching and totalitarianism begin and end.  Is Turnitin.com solely to blame?  Or should we look to those secondary schools, colleges, and universities that compel their students to submit to the service? 

The implications for the rhetoric and composition classroom can be separated into three main categories – two of which, “pedagogical” and “ethical” – are categories articulated brilliantly by Michael Donnelly in the introduction to “(Mis)Trusting Technology that Polices Integrity: A Critical Assessment of Turnitin.com.” (4)  I shall use his designations as well as add one additional category, “theoretical,” to sum up the main points of conflict. 

Pedagogical
In their statement on best practices entitled “Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism,” the WPA lists 18 “shared responsibilities” among students, faculty and administrators to address the problem of plagiarism.  None of them include or advocate the use of plagiarism-detection software.  When the WPA does mention “plagiarism detection services,” they do so with a word of caution, noting that “although such services may be tempting, they are not always reliable.  Furthermore, their availability should never be used to justify the avoidance of responsible teaching methods” (9). Instead they offer, as one of their “best practices,” the following advice:

Make the research process, and technology used for it, visible.  Ask your students to consider how various technologies – computers, fax machines, photocopiers, email – affect the way information is gathered and synthesized, and what effect these technologies may have on plagiarism. (9)

The CCCC-IP Caucus, in their “Recommendations Regarding Academic Integrity and the Use of Plagiarism Detection Services,” is even more forceful and focused in their recommendations against such services as Turnitin noting that

Use of Plagiarism Detection Services poses several compromises to academic integrity and effective teaching of which educators need to be aware before or if their institutions avail themselves of these technologies.  The CCCC-IP Caucus recommends that compositionists take a leadership role in educating their institutions about the limitations of these services and conduct more empirical research to understand better how these technological services affect student’s writing and the educational environment. (8)

It is this “educational environment” that seems most damaged by the inclusion of plagiarism detection services like Turnitin.  In reading through the numerous articles and blogs about the McLean lawsuit, I noticed the repetition of comments centered on the culture of mistrust and fear that is created when students are forced to use Turnitin.  The idea of “guilty until proven innocent” (2) prevails, and students are left to grapple with the uncomfortable assumptions that the use of Turnitin reveals: that students are cheaters who need to be policed.

“Plagiarism is not,” Michael Donnelly writes, “a simple matter of catching dishonorable students and prosecuting them” (4).  If anything, it should be more about understanding connections than it is about policing boundaries.  Yet I certainly recognize what Charlie Lowe calls “the culture of fear” that attends to plagiarism and its detection; even as I wrote this article, I worried, perhaps even more than usual, about proper attribution and citation.  This anxiety might be a way to connect to the concerns raised by the student lawsuit:  “Faculty might want to ask themselves,” Lowe says, “about how they would feel if their departments asked them to submit everything they wrote to a plagiarism detection service” (qtd in 3).

Theoretical
Rebecca Moore Howard keenly identifies the theoretical implications of plagiarism detection services on the composition classroom in her book Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators.  In it, she illustrates the ways in which these services stand to oversimplify and undermine our understandings of authorship, text, and reader.  She writes

The irony of [using] mechanical means for detecting plagiarism, especially as such means are enacted by computers, should not be overlooked.  Plagiarism-checking software would mechanize the monitoring of textual purity, excluding all but textual criteria.  Plagiarism-detection software excludes both authorial intention and reader interpretation  in the construction of authorship.  By automating textual purity, plagiarism-checking software naturalizes the increasingly embattled modern economy of authorship, even as the human factors that it elides would reveal that economy as a cultural arbitrary.  In the face of a revolution in authorship that rivals the introduction of the printing press, plagiarism-checking software would deploy digitized information technology to protect that which is threatened.  Instead of transforming the ways in which we think of reading and writing, this technology would freeze and reassert the notion of authorship in which writing is unitary, originary, proprietary, and linear, and in which the text is the locus and sole arbiter of meaning. (11)

Ethical
There are two main areas of ethical concern when plagiarism detection software is used in the composition classroom:  student privacy and student property.

Student Privacy
The school that compels its students to submit their work to Turnitin may also compel the violation of those students’ privacy.  In the case of the McLean High School lawsuit, students were told that their submissions were “anonymous,” but “by virtue of the password authentication process through an off-site server, students still have to input their email addresses and names” (2).  Also, as noted earlier, entire copies of student work are offered to professors should the work be deemed the source of plagiarized material.  

Student property
Dontturnitin.com calls the violation of Intellectual Property Laws “the most complicated of all the issues…perhaps the most egregious issue of all” (6).  And they are not alone in their thinking.  Michael Donnelly writes that plagiarism detection software like Turnitin “doesn’t merely infringe on [student] rights, it simply ignores them” (4).  Wendy Warren Austin further illustrates the point, arguing that

Mandatory submission of student papers helps build Turnitin.com’s database without any monetary compensation.  Although licensing fees are paid for professional articles that are contained within the database, students’ papers are obtained with no compensation though they add considerably to the product’s profitability.  Furthermore, although these high school students digitally sign a “consent” form as they have their papers submitted, they are in fact “signing” these consents under duress, i.e. under penalty of getting a zero, and by virtue of their status as minors, lack capacity to enter into a binding contract.

As Michael Donnelly soberly reminds us, this issue should be “even more pressing when faculty at colleges and universities across the country…are lobbying for better, clearer protection of their own Intellectual Property Rights” (4).  What might prove a more sobering reality is the most recent iteration of the McLean lawsuit: just last week, Judge Hilton issued an Order and Memorandum Opinion in which he grants summary judgment in favor of iParadigms (12). 

Works Cited

1. “McLean High School eases mandate that students submit essays to anti-plagiarism service.”  Legal Clips.  The National School Boards Association.  October 2006.  http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=39406&CID=164

2. Austin, Wendy Warren.  “Virginia High School Students Rebel Against Mandatory Use of Turnitin.com.”  5 July 2007.  NCTE-CCCC.  /cccc/gov/committees/ip/127372.htm

3. Read, Brock.  “Anti-Cheating Crusader Vexes Some Professors: Software kingpin says using his product would cure plagiarism blight.”  The Chronicle of Higher Education.  29 February 2008.  http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i25/25a00101.htm

4. Donnelly, Michael et al.  “(Mis)Trusting Technology that Polices Integrity: A Critical Assessment of Turnitin.com.”  Inventio.  Fall 2006.  Issue 1, Volume 8.  http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/issues/Fall_2006/Donnelly_print.html

5. Turnitin.com  http://www.turnitin.com/static/bios.html
 
6. Dontturnitin.com (Website created by McLean Parents and Students)  http://dontturnitin.com

7. Anderson, Nate.  “High Schoolers Turn In Plagiarism Screeners for Copyright Infringement.”  30 March 2007.  Ars Technica.  http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070330-high-schoolers-turn-in-plagiarism-screeners-for-copyright…

8. CCCC-IP Caucus Recommendations Regarding Academic Integrity and the Use of Plagiarism Detection Services.  /ccccip.org/aggregator

9. Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices. http://wpacouncil.org/book/export/html/9

10. Glod, Maria.  “McLean Students Sue Anti-Cheating Service.”  29 March 2007. Washington Post.com.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802038

11. Howard, Rebecca Moore.  Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators.  Volume 2 in the series Perspectives on Writing: Theory, Research, Practice. Connecticut:  Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1999.  130-131.

12. Judge Hilton’s Order and Memorandum Opinion in which he grants summary judgment for iParadigms, LLC. 11 March 2008.  http://www.iparadigms.com/iParadigms_03-11-08_Opinion.pdf

Additional References

Anderson, Nate.  “Are Teachers and Computers Responsible for Plagiarism?”  20 October 2006.  Ars Technica.  http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061020-8041.html?rel

Carvin, Andy.  “The Politics of Plagiarism Detection Services.”  Learning Now.  PBS Teachers.  22 September 2006.   http://www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/2006/09/the_ethics_of_plagiarism_detec.html

“High School Students Take on Turnitin.”  The Wired Campus.  From The Chronicle of Higher Education.  30 March 2007.  http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1968/high-school-students-take-on-turnitin
 
Mallon, Thomas.  Stolen Words: The Classic Book on Plagiarism.  New York: Harcourt, 2001.

Posner, Richard.  The Little Book of Plagiarism.  New York: Pantheon Books, 2007.

“Students File Lawsuit Against Turnitin.com”  Legal Clips.  The National School Boards Association.  May 2007.  http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=491&DID=40968

“Taking a Hard Line on Turnitin”  The Wired Campus.  From The Chronicle of Higher Education.  22 September 2006.  http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1588/taking-a-hard-line-on-turnitin

Turnitin Legal Document.  July 2002.  (Turnitin commissioned an opinion from the law firm of Foley & Lardner for Turnitin.com to answer legal questions about the service).  Need website!!

United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) Complaint for Copyright Infringement. (The McLean Lawsuit filed 19 March 2007).  http://www.essayfraud.org/AV_et_al_Versus_iParadigms_LLC_Complaint.pdf

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v56-2

Pough, Gwendolyn D. Rev. of Revisiting Racialized Voice: African American Ethos in Language and Literatures by David G. Holmes. CCC 56.2 (2004): 342-46.

Sullivan, Dale. Rev. of Where Writing Begins: A Postmodern Reconstruction by Michael Carter. CCC56.2 (2004): 346-48.

Fox, Helen. Rev. of Language Diversity in the Classroom: From Intention to Practice Geneva Smitherman and Victor Villanueva, eds. CCC 56.2 (2004): 349-351.

Horner, Bruce. Rev. of Tenured Bosses and Disposable Teachers: Writing Instruction in the Managed UniversityMarc Bousquet, Tony Scott, and Leo Parascondola, eds. CCC 56-2(2004): 351-57.

Hollowell, John, Michael P. Clark, and Steven Mailloux, Christine Ross. “Responses to ‘Education Reform and the Limits of Discourse: Rereading Collaborative Revision of a Composition Program’s Textbook’.” CCC 56.2 (2004) 328-34.

No abstract.

No works cited.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.” CCC 56.2 (2004): 297-328.

Abstract

“Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key” is the print version of the multimodal address that former CCCC Chair Kathleen Yancey gave at the 2004 CCCC convention. Discussing the myriad forms and purposes that writing can take today, she asks us to re-examine our beliefs about what writing is and how it should be taught.

Keywords:

ccc56.2 Students Composition Writing Literacy School Circulation Moment Technology Process Public Screen Curriculum Genre Medium ChairsAddress

Works Cited

ADE. “Report of the Undergraduate English Major.” Report of the 2001-2002 ADE Ad Hoc Committee on the English Major. ADE (Fall/Winter 2003): 68-91.

“America’ s Fortunes.” Atlantic Online (January/February 2004) 21 Mar 04 .

Baron, Dennis. “From Pencils to Pixels.” Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technologies. Ed. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe. Logan: Utah State UP, 1999. 15-34.

Bartholomae, David. “Freshman English, Composition, and CCCC.” College Communication and Composition 40.1 (1989): 38-50.

Bazerman, Charles, and David Russell, eds. Writing Selves, Writing Societies: Research from Activity Perspectives. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity. 1 June 2004 .

Beaufort, Anne. Writing in the Real World: Making the Transition from School to Work. New York: Teachers College P, 1999.

Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge: MIT P, 2000.

Brandt, Deborah. Literacy in American Lives. New York: Cambridge UP, 2001.

Bridwell-Bowles, Lillian. “Freedom, Form, Function: Varieties of Academic Discourse.” College Communication and Composition 46.1 (1995): 46-61.

Carroll, Lee Ann. Rehearsing New Roles: How College Students Develop as Writers. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002.

Chaplin, Miriam T. “Issues, Perspectives, and Possibilities.” College Composition and Communication 39.1 (1988): 52-62.

Chiseri-Strater, Elizabeth. Academic Literacies: The Public and Private Discourse of University Students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1991.

Connors, Robert. Afterword. Coming of Age: The Advanced Writing Curriculum. Ed. Linda K. Shamoon, Rebecca Moore Howard, Sandra Jamieson, and Robert A. Schwegler. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook, 2000. 143-49.

Crowley, Sharon. Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh, 1998.

D’Angelo, Frank. “Regaining Our Composure.” College Composition and Communication 31.4 (1980): 420-26.

Daley, Elizabeth. “Expanding the Concept of Literacy.” Educause Review 38.2 (2003): 33-40.

— . “Speaking the Languages of Literacy.” Speech, University of Michigan, April 2003. 9 Aug. 04 .

Davis, Vivian I. “Our Excellence: Where Do We Grow from Here?” College Composition and Communication 30.1 (1979): 26-31.

Deibert, Ronald. Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia: Communication in World Order Transformation. New York: Columbia UP, 1997.

Ebert, Roger. Review of 21 Grams. Chicago Sun Times (2003) 1 June 2004 .

Emig, Janet. The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1971.

Faigley, Lester. “Literacy after the Revolution.” College Composition and Communication 48.1 (1997): 30-43.

— . “Material Literacy and Visual Design.” In Rhetorical Bodies: Toward a Material Rhetoric. Ed. Jack Selzer and Sharon Crowley. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1999. 171-201.

Flower, Linda, and John Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32.4 (1981): 365-87.

Flynn, Elizabeth. “Composing as a Woman.” College Composition and Communication 39.4 (1988): 423-35.

Gerber, John C. “The Conference on College Composition and Communication.” College Composition and Communication 1.1 (1950): 12.

Gere, Anne Ruggles. “Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extracurriculum of Composition.” CCC 45 (1994): 75-92.

Good, Tina. Personal discussion, 25 April 2003.

Hairston, Maxine. “The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 33.1: 76-88.

Halbritter, Scott. “Sound Arguments: Aural Rhetoric in Multimedia Composition.” PhD diss. University of North Carolina, 2004.

Haswell, Richard. Gaining Ground in College: Tales of Development and Interpretation. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist UP, 1991.

Hawisher, Gail. Personal discussion. Feb 2004.

Heyda, John. “Industrial-Strength Composition and the Impact of Load on Teaching.” More Than 100 Years of Solitude: WPA Work before 1976. Ed. Barbara L’Eppateur and Lisa Mastrangelo. Forthcoming.

Hopkins, Edwin. “Can Good English Composition Be Done under the Current Conditions?” English Journal 1 (1912): 1-8.

Irmscher, William F. “Writing as a Way of Learning and Developing.” College Composition and Communication 30.3 (1979): 240-44.

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. “Writing about Writing.” Speech, Computers and Writing Town Hall Meeting, 2002, Illinois State University.

Jones, Richard Lloyd. “A View from the Center.” College Composition and Communication 29.1 (1978): 24-29.

Kampfe, Chris, and Kyle Endres. “Vouchers to Change the Way Higher Ed is Funded.” The Rocky Mountain Collegian. 10 May 2004.

Lanham, Richard. The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993.

Lawrence, David. E-mail to author. April 2004.

Leu, D. J., C. K. Kinzer, J. Coiro, and D. Cammack. “Toward a Theory of New Literacies Emerging from the Internet and Other ICT.” Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. 5th ed. Ed. R. Ruddel and Norman Unrau. D. E. International Reading Association, 2004. 4 Aug. 2004 (Preprint version) .

Light, Richard J. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2001.

Lindemann, Erika. “Early Bibliographic Work in Composition Studies.” Profession (2002): 151-58.

Lunsford, Andrea. “Composing Ourselves: Politics, Commitment, and the Teaching of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 41.1 (1990): 71-82.

McCrimmon, Miles. “High School Writing Practices in the Age of Standards: Implications for College Composition.” Forthcoming.

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. 1964. Cambridge: MIT P, 1994.

Matsuda, Paul. “Process and Post Process: A Discursive History.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003): 65-83.

Palmquist, Michael. “Review: Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.” 15 April 2004. Across the Disciplines at the WAC Clearinghouse. 1 June 2004 .

Popken, Randall. “Edwin Hopkins and the Costly Labor of Composition Teaching.” College Composition and Communication 55.4 (2004): 618-42.

Porter, James. “Why Technology Matters to Writing: A Cyberwriter’s Tale.” Computers and Composition 20.3 (2003): 375-94.

Prior, Paul, and Jody Shipka. “Chronotopic Laminations: Tracing the Contours of Literate Activity.” Writing Selves, Writing Societies: Research from Activity Perspectives. Ed. Charles Bazerman and David Russell. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse, and Mind, Culture, and Activity, 180-238. 1 June 2004 .

Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000.

Reynolds, Josh. “Writing Process Map.” My English Portfolio. 1 June 2004 .

Rohman, D. Gordon. “Prewriting: The Stage of Discovery in the Writing Process.” College Composition and Communication 16.2 (1965): 106-12.

Rohman, D. Gordon, and Albert O. Wlecke. “Pre-Writing: The Construction and Applications of Models for Concept Formation in Writing.” Cooperative Research Project No. 2174. USOE: Washington, DC.

Royster, Jacqueline Jones. “When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own.” College Composition and Communication 47.1 (1996): 29-40.

Russell, David, and Arturo Yañez. “Big Picture People Rarely Become Historians: Genre Systems and the Contradictions of General Education.” Writing Selves, Writing Societies: Research from Activity Perspectives. Ed. Charles Bazerman and David Russell. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse, and Mind, Culture, and Activity. 1 June 2004 .

Selfe, Cynthia L. “Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention.” College Composition and Communication 50.3 (1999): 411-36.

Shea, Rachel Hartigan. “How We Got Here.” U.S. News and World Report, 9 Aug 2004: 70-73.

Sommers, Nancy, and Laura Saltz. “The Novice as Expert: Writing the Freshman Year.” College Composition and Communication56.1 (2004): 124-49.

Sternglass, Marilyn. Time to Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.

Tade, George, Gary Tate, and Jim Corder. “For Sale, Lease, or Rent: A Curriculum for an Undergraduate Program in Rhetoric.” <i.College Composition=”” and=”” Communication=”” 26.1 (1975): 20-24.

Trachsel, Mary. Institutionalizing Literacy: The Historical Role of College Entrance Examinations in English. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1992.

Trimbur, John. “Composition and the Circulation of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 52.2 (2000): 188-219.

Vendler, Helen. “The Ocean, the Bird, and the Scholar.” NEH Jefferson Address, 6 May 2004. 9 Aug. 04 .

Watterson, Bill. Sunday Pages 1985-1995: An Exhibition Catalogue. Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2000.

John Wright, ed. New York Times 2004 Almanac. New York: Penguin, 2003.

Wysocki, Anne, and Julia Jasken. “What Should Be an Unforgettable Face.” Computers and Composition 21.1 (2004): 29-49.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “Episodes in the Spaces of the Plural Commons: Curriculum, Administration, and Design of Composition in the 21st Century.” Speech, Writing Program Administration, Delaware, 14 July 2004.

—. “Postmodernism, Palimpsest, and Portfolios: Theoretical Issues in the Representation of Student Work.” College Composition and Communication 55.4 (2004): 738-61.

—. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan: Utah State UP, 1998.

—. Teaching Literature as Reflective Practice. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2004.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake, Teddi Fishman, Morgan Gresham, Michael Neal, and Summer Smith Taylor. “Portraits of Composition: How Postsecondary Writing Gets Taught in the Early TwentyFirst Century.” Forthcoming.

Enoch, Jessica. “Becoming Symbol-Wise: Kenneth Burke’s Pedagogy of Critical Reflection.” CCC 56.2 (2004): 272-296.

Abstract

In this essay, I analyze Kenneth Burke’s Cold War pedagogy and explore the ways it connects to (and complicates) Paulo Freire’s conception of praxis. I argue that Burke’s theory and practice adds a rhetorical nuance to critical reflection and then envision how his 1955 educational concerns gain significance for teachers and scholars today who, like Burke, live in a time “when war is always threatening.”

Keywords:

ccc56.2 KBurke Students Reflection Pedagogy Language Action Education Rhetoric JDewey Practice PFreire Composition

Works Cited

Aronowitz, Stanley, and Henry Giroux. Education Still under Siege. 2nd ed. Westport CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1993.

Benne, Kenneth D. “Toward a Grammar of Educational Motives.” Educational Forum 11.2 (1947): 233-39.

Bertles, Jeannette. Letter to Kenneth Burke. 16 August 1949. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Brown, Leonard. Letter to Kenneth Burke. 21 March 1940. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Brown, Stephen G. “Composing the Eco Wars: Toward a Literacy of Resistance,” Journal of Advanced Composition 19.2 (1999): 215-39.

Brubacher, John S. “The Challenge to Philosophize about Education.” Modern Philosophies and Education: The FiftyFourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part 1. Ed. Nelson B. Henry. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1955. 4-16.

—. Introduction. Modern Philosophies and Education: The Fifty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part 1. Ed. Nelson B. Henry. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1955. 1-3.

Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes toward History. 3rd ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.

—. “Dramatism.” International Encyclopedia of Social Science. vol. 7. New York: Macmillan and Free P, 1968. 445-52.

— . A Grammar of Motives. California ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.

—. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966.

— . Letter to Charlotte Bowman. 3 June 1952. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

—. Letter to Frederick Burkhardt. 22 Jan. 1952. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

—. Letter to C. M. Coffin. 25 April 1950. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

— . Letter to Daniel Fogarty, S.J. 22 Dec. 1956. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

—. Letter to Robert Heilman. 2 June 1952. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

—. Letter to Harold Kaplan. 2 Dec. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

—. Letter to Matthew Josephson. 7 Sept. 1934. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

—. Letter to Lucia Morehead. 6 Oct. 1950. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

—. Letter to F. Champion Ward. 1949. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

—. Letter to Napier Wilt. Mar. 1950. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

—. “Linguistic Approaches to Problems of Education.” Modern Philosophies and Education: The Fifty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part 1. Ed. Nelson B. Henry. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1955. 259-303.

—. “The Philosophy of Literary Form.” Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. 3rd ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1973. 1-137.

—. “Questions and Answers about the Pentad.” College Composition and Communication 29.4 (1978): 330-35. . A Rhetoric of Motives. California ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.

— . “Rhetoric: Old and New.” Journal of General Education 45 (1951): 202-09.

Cochran, Thomas. Letter to Kenneth Burke. 28 October 1951. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Dewey, John. School and Society. Ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1976.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New rev. 20th-anniversary ed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum, 1998.

Freire, Paulo, and Donaldo Macedo. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. New York: Bergin and Garvey, 1987.

George, Ann, and Jack Selzer. Kenneth Burke in the 1930s: Negotiating the Left. Madison: U of Wisconsin, P. In press.

—. “What Happened at the First American Writers’ Conference?: Kenneth Burke’s ‘Revolutionary Symbolism in America.'” Rhetorical Society Quarterly 33.2 (2003): 47-66.

Giroux, Henry. Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. London: Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, 1993.

Greer, Jane. “‘No Smiling Madonna’: Marian Wharton and the Struggle to Construct a Critical Pedagogy for the Working Class, 1914-1917.” College Composition and Communication 51.2 (1999): 248-71.

Hesford, Wendy. Framing Identities: Autobiography and the Politics of Pedagogy. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1999.

Hurlbert, Mark, and Michael Blitz, eds. Composition and Resistance. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1991.

Hutton, J. “Dusty.” Letter to Kenneth Burke. 7 May 1951. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Irmscher, William. “Kenneth Burke.” Traditions of Inquiry. Ed. John Brereton. New York: Oxford UP, 1985. 105-35.

Jarratt, Susan C. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.

Lynch, Dennis, Diana George, and Marilyn Cooper. “Moments of Argument: Agonistic Inquiry and Confrontational Cooperation.” College Composition and Communication 48.1 (1997): 61-85.

Petruzzi, Anthony. “Kairotic Rhetoric in Freire’s Liberatory Pedagogy.” Journal of Advanced Composition 21.2 (2001): 349- 81.

Ronald, Kate, and Hephzibah Roskelly. “Untested Feasibility: Imagining the Pragmatic Possibility of Paulo Freire.” College English 63.5 (2001): 612-32.

Rueckert, William. Kenneth Burke and the Drama of Human Relations. 2nd ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1982.

Stone, Lynda. “Reconstructing Dewey’s Critical Philosophy: Toward a Literary Pragmatist Criticism.” Critical Theories in Education: Changing Terrains of Knowledge and Politics. Ed. Thomas Popkewitz and Lynn Fendler. New York: Routledge, 1999. 209-28.

Trainor, Jennifer Seibel. “Critical Pedagogy’s ‘Other’: Constructions of Whiteness in Education for Social Change.” College Composition and Communication 53.4 (2002): 631-50.

Trinkaus, Charles E., et al. Letter to Kenneth Burke. 6 Feb. 1944. Kenneth Burke Papers. Paterno Library, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Newkirk, Thomas. “The Dogma of Transformation. ” CCC . 56.2 (2004): 251-271.

Abstract

This essay examines the writing done at the University of New Hampshire in the period between 1928 and 1942. It argues that while there was extensive writing from personal experience, this writing did not perform the “turn” where the writer claims a new form of self-understanding. It goes on to suggest that work with this largely observational genre may develop important skills for the young writers.

Keywords:

ccc56.2 Writing Essay Students Experience NewHampshire Transformation Composition

Works Cited

Abrams, M. H. Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in Romantic Literature. New York: Norton, 1971.

Bartholomae, David, and Anthony Petrosky, eds. Ways of Reading, 4th ed. Boston: Bedford Books, 1996.

Beerbohm, Max. “Going Out for a Walk.” The Art of the Personal Essay: An Anthology from the Classical Era to the Present. Ed. Phillip Lopate. New York: Anchor Books, 1994. 237-39.

Berlin, James. “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.” College English 50.1 (1988): 477-94.

Brand, Dana. The Spectator and the City in Nineteenth-Century American Literature. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP, 1991.

Brown, Randall. “Effie.” The Atlantic MonthlyApril 1933: 512.

Cohen, Jessica. “Grade A: The Market for a Yale Woman’s Eggs.” The Atlantic Monthly December 2002: 74-78.

Coles, William E., Jr., and James Vopat, eds. What Makes Writing Good: A Multiperspective. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1985.

Durst, Russel K. Collision Course: Conflict, Negotiation, and Learning in College Composition. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1999.

Faigley, Lester. “Judging Writing, Judging Selves.” College Composition and Communication 40.4 (1989): 395-412.

France, Alan W. “Assigning Places: The Function of Introductory Composition as a Cultural Discourse.” College English 55.6 (1993): 593-610.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959.

Kitzhaber, Albert. Themes, Theories, and Therapy: The Teaching of Writing in College. New York: McGraw Hill, 1963.

Lopate, Phillip, ed. The Art of the Personal Essay: An Anthology from the Classical Era to the Present. New York: Anchor Books, 1994.

Macrorie, Ken. Uptaught. New York: Hayden, 1970.

Miller, Richard. “The Nervous System.” College English 58.3 (1996): 265-86.

Murray, Donald. Personal interview, 7 January 2003.

Newkirk, Thomas. The Performance of Self in Student Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann/Boynton Cook, 1997.

“Notes and Comments.” Untitled. New Yorker 30 April 1938: 14.

Ong, Walter J., S. J. “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction.” PMLA 90.1 (1975): 9-21.

Orwell, George. “Shooting an Elephant.” A Collection of Essays. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1954. 154-62.

Paine, Charles. The Resistant Writer: Rhetoric as Immunity, 1850 to the Present. Albany: SUNY P, 1999.

Percy, Walker. “The Loss of the Creature.” Ways of Reading, 4th ed. Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky. Boston: Bedford Books, 1996. 511-23.

Root, Robert, Jr. E. B. White: The Emergence of the Essayist.Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1999.

“Self-Analysis.” Atlantic Monthly February 1934: 255-56.

“Talk of the Town.” “Sex.” The New Yorker 15 April 1933: 9.

Waters, John. “Little Old Lady Passes Away.” Current Expression of Fact and Opinion: Practical Types of Expository Writing for College Composition. Ed. Harrison G. Platt, Jr., and Porter G. Perrin. Chicago, Scott Foresman, 1941. 319-21.

Wendell, Barrett. “Themes from Daily Life.” Harvard University Archives, Cambridge, MA.

Duffy, John. “Letters from the Fair City: A Rhetorical Conception of Literacy.” CCC 56.2 (2004) 223-250.

This article suggests that literacy development in immigrant, refugee, and other historically marginalized communities can be understood as a response to rhetorical struggles in contexts of civic life. To illustrate this “rhetorical conception of literacy,” the article examines a collection of anti-immigrant letters published in a Midwestern newspaper between 1985 and 1995 and the responses to these by a group of Southeast Asian Hmong refugee writers. The essay explores the relationships of content, form, language, and audience in the two sets of letters to show how the anti-immigrant rhetoric became the basis for new forms of public writing in the Hmong community.

Keywords:

ccc56.2 Hmong City Wausau Rhetoric Letters Literacy Community Refugees Asian

Works Cited

Archdeacon, Thomas. Becoming American: An Ethnic History. New York: The Free P, 1983.

Bakhtin, M. M. “Discourse in the Novel.” The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981.

Barton, David, and Mary Hamilton. “Literacy Practices.” Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. Ed. David Barton, Mary Hamilton, and Roz Ivanic. London: Routledge, 2000. 7-15.

Beck, Roy. “The Ordeal of Immigration in Wausau.” The Atlantic Monthly (1994): 84-97.

Besnier, Niko. Literacy, Emotion, and Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995.

Bitzer, Lloyd. “Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 45 (1959): 399-408.

Brandt, Deborah. Literacy in American Lives. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001.

Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: U California P, 1969.

Chan, Suecheng. Hmong Means Free: Life in Laos and America. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1994.

Charland, Maurice. “Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the Peuple Quebecois.” Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Thomas Benson. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1993. 213-34.

Cintron, Ralph. Angels’ Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life, and Rhetorics of the Everyday. Boston: Beacon, 1997.

Colby, William. “The Hmong and the CIA: A Friendship, Not a Scandal.” Hmong Forum 2 (1991): 25-34.

Corbett, Edward, P.J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990.

Duffy, John. “Never Hold a Pencil: Rhetoric and Relations in the Concept of ‘Preliteracy.'” Written Communication 17.2 (2000): 224-57.

Feagin, Joe R. “Old Poison in New Bottles: The Deep Roots of Modern Nativism.” Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States. Ed. Juan F. Perea. New York: New York UP, 1997. 13-43.

Fisher, Walter R. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. Columbia: U of South Carolina P, 1989.

Gee, James P. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse. London: Falmer P, 1996.

Grognet, Allene Guss. “Integrating Employment Skills in Adult ESL Instruction.” ERIC Q&A. Washington, DC: National Center for ESL Literacy Education, 1997.

Jensen, Robert. Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.

Koltyk, Jo Ann. New Pioneers in the Heartland: Hmong Life in Wisconsin. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1998.

McGee, Michael. “‘The Ideograph’: A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology.” <i.Readings in=” Rhetorical=” Criticism.=” Ed. Carl C. Burgchardt. State College, PA: Strata, 1995. 442-57.

Meier, Matt S., and Ribera, Feliciano. Mexican Americans/American Mexicans: From Conquistadors to Chicanos. Rev. ed. New York: Hill and Wang. 1993.

Nixon, Thomas, and Fran Keenan. “Citizenship Preparation for Adult ESL Learners.” ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: National Center for ESL Literacy Education, 1997.

Reimers, David M. Unwelcome Strangers: American Identity and the Turn against Immigration. New York: Columbia UP, 1998.

Royster, Jacqueline J. Traces of a Stream: Literacy and Social Change among African American Women.Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 2000.

Rouse, P. Joy. “We Can Never Remain Silent: The Public Discourse of the NineteenthCentury African-American Press.” Popular Literacy: Studies in Cultural Practices and Poetics. Ed. John Trimbur. Pittsburgh: U Pittsburgh P, 2001. 128-42.

Safer, Morley, 60 Minutes. CBS TV-News Magazine, 16 October 1994.

Scribner, Susan, and Cole, Michael. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1981.

Seufert, Peggy. “Refugees as English Language Learners: Issues and Concerns.” ERIC Q&A. Washington, DC: National Center for ESL Literacy Education, 1999.

Stotsky, Sandra. “Connecting Writing and Reading to Civic Education.” Educational Leadership 47 (1990): 72-73.

Strand, Paul, and Woodrow Jones, Jr. Indochinese Refugees in America: Problems of Adaptation and Assimilation. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1985.

Wells, Susan. “Rogue Cops and Health Care: What Do We Want from Public Writing.” CCC 47.3 (1996): 325-41.

Yang, Dao. Hmong at the Turning Point. Minneapolis, MN: Worldbridge Associates, 1993.

Miller, Keith D. “Plymouth Rock Landed on Us: Malcolm X’s Whiteness Theory as a Basis for Alternative Literacy.” CCC 56.2 (2004): 199-222.

Abstract

Using Burkean theory, I claim that Malcolm X brilliantly exposed the rhetoric and epistemology of whiteness as he rejected the African American jeremiad: a dominant form of African American oratory for more than 150 years. Whiteness theory served as the basis for Malcolm X’s alternative literacy, which raises important questions that literacy theorists have yet to consider.

Keywords:

ccc56.2 MalcolmX Whiteness FDouglass MLKing Slavery Promise Equality Literacy Argument AfricanAmerican Identity Rhetoric Racism KBurke

Works Cited

Blassingame, John, ed. Frederick Douglass Papers: Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews. Vol. 1. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979.

Bowers, Detine. “A Place to Stand: African Americans and the First of August Platform.” Southern Communication Journal 60 (Summer 1995): 348-61.

Branch, Taylor. Pillar of Fire. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

Branham, Robert. “‘Of Thee I Sing’: Contesting ‘America.'” American Quarterly 48 (1996): 623-52.

Breitman, George, ed. Malcolm X: By Any Means Necessary. New York: Pathfinder, 1970.

—, ed. Malcolm X Speaks. New York: Grove, 1965. 4-17.

Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes toward History. 1937. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.

—. Permanence and Change. Los Altos, CA: Hermes, 1954.

—. Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.

Carson, Clayborne. In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1981.

Carson, Clayborne, Susan Carson, Virginia Shadron, Kieran Taylor, Adrienne Clay, ed. <i.The Papers=” of=” Martin=” Luther=” King=”, Jr.=” Symbol=” of=” the=” Movement:=” January=” 1957-=” December=” 1958.=” Vol.=” 4.=” Berkeley: U of California P, 2000.

Chesebro, James. “Multiculturalism and the Burkean System.” Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century. Ed. Bernard Brock. Albany: State U of New York P, 1999. 167-88.

Clegg, Claude Andrew, III. An Original Man: The Life and Times of Elijah Muhammad. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1997.

Collins, Rodnell (with Peter Bailey). Seventh Child: A Family Memoir of Malcolm X. Secaucus, NJ: Birch Lane P, 1998.

Condit, Celeste. “Post-Burke: Transcending the Sub-stance of Dramatism.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 349-55.

Cone, James. Martin and Malcolm and America. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991.

—. Speech. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, March 1999.

Crawford, Marc. “The Ominous Malcolm X Exits from the Muslims.” Reporting Civil Rights: Volume Two. 1964. New York Library of America, 2003. 96-98.

Crogman, William. “The Negro’s Claims.” 1896. Talks for the Times. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries P, 1971. 172-98.

—. “Thirty-second Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.” 1896. Talks for the Times. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries P, 1971. 313-30.

Douglass, Frederick. “British Influence on the Abolition Movement in America.” Blassingame 215-31.

—. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. 1845. Norton Critical Edition. Ed. William Andrews and William McFeely. New York: Norton, 1997.

—. “Slavery and the Limits of NonIntervention.” Frederick Douglass Papers: Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews. Ed. John Blassingame and John McKivigan. Vol. 3. New Haven: Yale UP, 1985. 276-88.

— . “Slavery As It Now Exists in the United States.” Blassingame 341-52.

—. “Slavery, the Free Church, and British Agitation against Bondage.” Blassingame 316-39.

— . “Strong to Suffer and Yet Strong to Strive.” Frederick Douglass Papers: Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews. Ed. John Blassingame and John McKivigan. Vol. 5. New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. 212-38.

—. “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” Heath Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Paul Lauter et al. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. New York: Houghton, 1998. 1818- 37.

Du Bois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folk. 1903. New York: Dover, 1994.

Elliott, Robert. “The Civil Rights Bill.” Foner and Branham 520-35.

Epps, Archie, ed. Malcolm X: Speeches at Harvard. New York: Paragon, 1991.

Evanzz, Karl. The Messenger: The Rise and Fall of Elijah Muhammad. New York: Pantheon, 1999.

Foner, Philip, and Robert Branham, eds. Lift Every Voice: African American Oratory, 1787-1900. Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P, 1998.

Forman, James. The Making of Black Revolutionaries. Washington, DC: Open Hand, 1985.

Frankenberg, Ruth. “Local Whitenesses, Localizing Whiteness.” Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism. Ed. Ruth Frankenberg. Durham: Duke UP, 1997. 1-34.

Garnet, Henry Highland. “Let the Monster Perish.” Foner and Branham 432-43.

Garrow, David. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. New York: Morrow, 1986.

Gilyard, Keith. “Literacy, Identity, Imagination, Flight.” College Composition and Communication 52.2 (2000): 260-72.

Glaude, Eddie. Exodus!: Religion, Race, and Nation in Early-Nineteenth-Century Black America. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000.

Goldman, Peter. The Death and Life of Malcolm X. New York: Harper, 1973.

Graff, Harvey. “The Nineteenth-Century Origins of Our Times.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Ellen Cushman, Eugene Kintgen, Barry Kroll, Mike Rose. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 211-33.

Grimke, Francis. “Centennial of the Birth of William Lloyd Garrison.” Woodson 81-101.

—. “The Negro and His Citizenship.” Woodson 391-406.

—. “The Race Problem as It Respects the Colored People and the Christian Church, in the Light of the Developments of the Last Year.” Woodson 600-27.

—. “The Remedy for the Present Strained Relations between the Races in the South.” Woodson 317-33.

Hall, Prince. “A Charge Delivered to the Brethren of the African Lodge.” Foner and Branham 38-44.

Hariman, Robert. “Time and Reconstitution of Gradualism in King’s Address: A Response to Cox.” Texts in Context: Critical Dialogues on Significant Episodes in American Political Rhetoric. Ed. Michael Leff and Fred Kauffeld. Davis, CA: Hermagoras P, 1989. 205-17.

Harper, France Ellen Watkins. “We Are All Bound Up Together.” Foner and Branham 456-60.

Horner, Bruce. “‘Students’ Right, English Only, and Re-Imagining the Politics of Language.” College English 63.6 (2001): 741-58.

Howard-Pitney, David. The Afro-American Jeremiad. Philadelphia: Temple, 1990.

Karim, Benjamin (with Peter Skutches and David Gallen). Remembering Malcolm. New York: Ballantine, 1996.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Facing the Challenge of a New Age.” Carson et al. 73-89.

—. “Give Us the Ballot!” Carson et al. 208-15.

—. “I Have a Dream.” Heath Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Paul Lauter et al. 3rd ed. Vol. 2. New York: Houghton, 1998. 2530-33.

— . “A Realistic Look at the Question of Progress in the Area of Race Relations.” Carson et al. 167-79.

—. Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? New York: Harper, 1967.

Klumpp, James. “Burkean Social Hierarchy and the Ironic Investment of Martin Luther King.” Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century. Ed. Bernard Brock. Albany: State U of New York P, 1999. 207-41.

Langston, John Mercer. “There Is No Full Enjoyment of Freedom.” Foner and Branham 273-79.

Lewis, John (with Michael D’Orso). Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998.

Lischer, Richard. The Preacher King. New York: Oxford UP, 1995.

Lucaites, John, and Celeste Condit. “Reconstructing ‘Equality’: Culturetypal and Counter-Cultural Rhetorics in the Martyred Black Vision.” Communication Monographs 57 (1990): 5-24.

Marrant, John. “You Stand on the Level with the Greatest Kings on Earth.” Foner and Branham 27-37.

Meier, August. “The Conservative Militant.” Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Profile. 1965. Ed. C. Eric Lincoln. New York: Hill and Wang, 1984. 144-56.

Miller, Keith D. “Beacon Light and Penumbra: African American Gospel Lyrics and Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream.'” The Role of Ideas in the Civil Rights South. Ed. Ted Ownby. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2002. 55-67.

—. Voice of Deliverance: The Language of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Its Sources. 2nd ed. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1998.

Miller, Keith D., and Ruth Ellen Kocher. “Shattering Kidnapper’s Heavenly Union: Interargumentation in Douglass’s Oratory and Narrative.” Approaches to Teaching Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. Ed. James Hall. New York: MLA, 1999. 81- 87.

Miller, Keith D., and Emily Lewis. “Touchstones, Authorities, and Marian Anderson: The Making of ‘I Have a Dream.'” The Making of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. Ed. Brian Ward and Tony Badger. Hound-mills, UK: Macmillan, 1996. 147-61.

Nadle, Marlene. “Interview with Malcolm X: February 1965.” Reporting Civil Rights: Volume Two. 1965. New York: Library of America, 2003. 299-308.

Nakayama, Thomas, and Robert Krizek. “Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (1995): 291-309.

Osborne, Peter. “It Is Up to Us to Be Up and Doing.” Foner and Branham123-24.

Perry, Bruce. Malcolm: The Life of a Man Who Changed America. Barrytown, NY: Station Hill, 1991.

Roediger, David. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. London: Verso, 1991.

Rosteck, Thomas, and Michael Leff. “Piety, Propriety, and Perspective: An Interpretation of Key Terms in Kenneth Burke’s Permanence and Change.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 33 (1989): 327- 41.

Sandage, Scott. “A Marble House Divided: The Lincoln Memorial, 1963.” Journal of American History 80 (1993): 135-67.

Solomon, Martha. “Covenanted Rights: The Metaphoric Matrix of ‘I Have a Dream.'” Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Sermonic Power of Public Discourse. Ed. Carolyn Calloway-Thomas and John Lucaites. Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P, 1993. 66-84.

Stewart, Maria. “Why Sit Ye Here and Die?” Foner and Branham 125-30.

Street, Brian. “The New Literacy Studies.” Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Ellen Cushman, Eugene Kintgen, Barry Kroll, Mike Rose. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 430-42.

Terrill, Robert. “Colonizing the Borderlands: Shifting Circumference in the Rhetoric of Malcolm X.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 16 (2000): 67-85.

Truth, Sojourner. “Ain’t I a Woman?” Foner and Branham 226-29.

—. “Snakes and Geese.” Foner and Branham 269-71.

Vander Lei, Elizabeth, and Keith D. Miller. “Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ in Context: Ceremonial Protest and African American Jeremiad.” College English 62.1 (1999): 83-99.

Watkins, Frances Ellen. “Liberty for Slaves.” Foner and Branham 305-07.

Wells, Ida B. “Lynch Law in All Its Phases.” Ida B. Wells-Barnett. Ed. Mildred Thompson. New York: Carlson, 1990. 171- 87.

West, Cornel. “Malcolm X and Black Rage.” Malcolm X: In Our Own Image. Ed. Joe Wood. New York: St. Martin’s, 1992. 48-58.

Wiggins, William. O Freedom! Afro-American Emancipation Celebrations. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 1987.

Williams, Peter. “Abolition of the Slave Trade.” Foner and Branham 66-72.

—. “Slavery and Colonization.” Foner and Branham 114-20.

Wood, Joe, ed. Malcolm X: In Our Own Image. Ed. Joe Wood. New York: St. Martin’s, 1992.

Woodson, Carter, ed. The Works of Francis J. Grimke: Vol. 1: Addresses Mainly Personal and Racial. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers, 1942.

X, Malcolm. “At a Meeting in Paris.” Malcolm X: By Any Means Necessary. Ed. George Breitman. New York: Pathfinder, 1970. 113-26.

— . “The Ballot or the Bullet.” Malcolm X Speaks. Ed. George Breitman. New York: Grove, 1965. 23-44.

—. “The Harvard Law School Forum of December 16, 1964.” Malcolm X: Speeches at Harvard. Ed. Archie Epps. New York: Paragon, 1991. 115-30.

—. “The Leverett House Forum.” Malcolm X: Speeches at Harvard. Ed. Archie Epps. New York: Paragon, 1991. 131-60.

—. “Message to the Grassroots.” Malcolm X Speaks. Ed. George Breitman. New York: Grove, 1965. 4-17.

— . “The Second Rally of the OAAU.” Malcolm X: By Any Means Necessary. Ed. George Breitman. New York: Pathfinder, 1970. 75-107.

— . “Speech on ‘The Black Revolution.'” Two Speeches by Malcolm X. 1965. New York: Pathfinder, 1988. 7-21.

— . “Twenty Million Black People in a Political, Economic, and Mental Prison.” Malcolm X: The Last Speeches. Ed. Bruce Perry. New York: Pathfinder, 1989. 25-58.

X, Malcolm, and Alex Haley. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. 1965. New York: Ballantine, 1990.

Zarefsky, David. Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1990.

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v54-1

Braun, Lundy. Rev. of Out of the Dead House: Nineteenth-Century Women Physicians and theWriting of Medicine by Susan Wells. CCC. 54.1 (2002): 143-146.

Islam, Suhail. Rev. of Life-Affirming Acts: Education As Transformation in the Writing Classroom by Hector Julio Vila. CCC. 54.1 (2002): 146-150.

Salvatori, Mariolina Rizzi. Rev. of Activist Rhetorics and American Higher Education: 1885-1937 by Susan Kates. CCC. 54.1 (2002): 150-153.

Martins, David. Rev. of Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire by  Theresa M. Lillis. CCC. 54.1 (2002): 153-156.

Pinard, Mary. Rev. of The Politics of Writing Centers. Jane Nelson and Kathy Evertz, eds. CCC. 54.1 (2002): 156-158.

Flynn, Elizabeth A. Rev. of Alternative Rhetorics: Challenges to the Rhetorical Tradition. Laura Gray-Rosendale and Sibylle Gruber, eds. CCC. 54.1 (2002): 158-161.

Rhodes, Jacqueline. “‘Substantive and Feminist Girlie Action’: Women Online.” CCC. 54.1 (2002): 116-142.

Abstract:

Radical feminist textuality of the 1960s and today provides a suggestive example of networked and collectively literate action, action dependent on the constant and visible contextualization of self and writing within the discourses that shape us. In this essay, I argue that an articulation of radical feminist textuality can benefit both scholarship and classroom, in that it situates writers as rhetorical agents who can write, resist, and, finally act within a network of discourses and identifications.

Keywords:

ccc54.1 Women Feminism Online Web Websites Internet Action Network Technology Space Textuality Agency

Works Cited

Brail, Stephanie. “The Price of Admission: Harassment and Free Speech in the Wild, Wild West.” Cherny and Weise 141-57.

Burbules, Nicholas C. “Rhetorics of the Web: Hyperreading and Critical Literacy.” Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era . Ed. Ilana Snyder. New York: Routledge, 1998. 102-22.

Camp, L. Jean. “We Are Geeks, and We Are Not Guys: The Systers Mailing List.” Cherny and Weise 114-25.

Canadian Women Internet Association (CWIA). 29 Sept. 1999. Home page. 13 Mar. 2002 <http://www.herplace.org/>.

Caughie, Pamela L. “Passing As Pedagogy: Feminism in(to) Cultural Studies.” English Studies/Culture Studies: Institutionalizing Dissent . Ed. Isaiah Smithson and Nancy Ruff. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1994. 76-93.

Cherny, Lynn, and Elizabeth Reba Weise, eds. Wired Women: Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace . Seattle: Seal, 1996.

Coyle, Karen. “How Hard Can It Be?” Cherny and Weise 42-55.

Cybergrrl. Home page. 10 Mar. 2002 <http://www.cybergrrl.com>.

Cybergrrl, Inc. 2001 “Client Services.” 13 Mar. 2002 <http://www.cgim.com/service.html>.

—. 2000 “Online Entertainment.” 13 Mar. 2002 <http://www.cgim.com/entertain.html>.

Dertouzos, Michael . What Will Be: How the New World of Information Will Change Our Lives . New York: HarperEdge- HarperCollins, 1997.

Eastman, Sheila. Online posting. 10 May 1999. CWIA Guestbook . 14 May 1999 <http://www.women.ca/cgi-bin/signguest.pl?guestfile=women.main&guesttitle=CWIA+Guestbook&mailto=femail@women.ca&mailsubj=CWIA+Guestbook>.

Femina. 2001. “About Femina.” 04 Mar. 2002 <http://femina.cybergrrl.com/about.html>.

Flores, Mary J. “Computer Conferencing: Composing a Feminist Community of Writers.” Handa 106-17.

Freeman, Jo. The Politics of Women’s Liberation: A Case Study of an Emerging Social Movement and Its Relation to the Policy Process . New York: David McKay, 1975.

Gallardo, Susana L. “Chicanas Chingonas.” 25 May 2001. Making Face, Making Soul: A Chicana Feminist Homepage . 28 Feb. 2002 <http://chicanas.com/chingonas.html>.

—. “huh.” Making Face, Making Soul: A Chicana Feminist Homepage . 04 Mar. 2002 <http://chicanas.com/huh.html>.

Giroux, Henry A., and Patrick Shannon. “Cultural Studies and Pedagogy as Performative Practice: Toward an Introduction .” Education and Cultural Studies: Toward a Performative Practice . Ed. Giroux and Shannon. New York: Routledge, 1997. 1-9.

Handa, Carolyn, ed. Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century . Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann, 1990.

Harris, Joseph. A Teaching Subject: Composition Since 1966 . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1997.

Hawisher, Gail E., and Cynthia L. Selfe. “Inventing Postmodern Identities: Hybrid and Transgressive Literacy Practices on the Web.” Global Literacies and the World-Wide Web. Ed. Hawisher and Selfe. New York: Routledge, 2000. 277-89.

Hawisher, Gail E., and Patricia Sullivan. “Women on the Networks: Searching for E-Spaces of Their Own.” Jarratt and Worsham 172-97.

Hole, Judith, and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism. New York: Quadrangle, 1971.

hooks, bell. Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Jarratt, Susan C., and Lynn Worsham, eds. Feminism and Composition Studies: In Other Words . New York: MLA, 1998.

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. Nostalgic Angels: Rearticulating Hypertext Writing . Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1997.

—. “Reading and Writing in Hypertext: Vertigo and Euphoria.” Literacy and Computers: The Complications of Teaching and Learning with Technology . Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe and Susan Hilligoss. New York: MLA. 195-219.

LeCourt, Donna, and Luann Barnes. “Writing Multiplicity: Hypertext and Feminist Textual Politics.” Computers and Composition 16.1 (1999): 55-71.

Lorde, Audre. “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing P, 1984. 110-13.

Lunsford, Andrea A., Helene Moglen, and James Slevin, eds. The Right to Literacy. New York: MLA, 1990.

Miller, Susan. Rescuing the Subject: A Critical Introduction to Rhetoric and the Writer . Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1989.

Morgan, Robin, ed. Sisterhood Is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women’s Liberation Movement . New York: Random, 1970.

Nguyen, Mimi. Exoticize My Fist! 11 Mar. 2002 <http://members.aol.com/Critchicks>.

—. “Original Statement.” Sept. 1997. Exoticize My Fist! 09 Mar. 2002 <http://members.aol.com/Critchicks/original.html>.

Reynolds, Nedra. “Interrupting Our Way to Agency: Feminist Cultural Studies and Composition.” Jarratt and Worsham 58-73.

Selfe, Cynthia L. “Technology in the English Classroom: Computers through the Lens of Feminist Theory.” Handa 118-39.

“Statement of Purpose.” 2002. Feminista! 4 Jun. 2002 <http://www.feminista.com/>.

Wahlstrom, Billie J. “Communication and Technology: Defining a Feminist Presence in Research and Practice.” Literacy and Computers: The Complications of Teaching and Learning with Technology . Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe and Susan Hilligoss. New York: MLA, 1994. 171-85.

Wench. “About Wench.” 4 Jun. 2002 <http://www.wench.com/about/>.

—. 1996. “Forward.” 12 Sept. 1998 <http://www.wench.com/>.

Price, Margaret. “Beyond ‘Gotcha!’: Situating Plagiarism in Policy and Pedagogy.” CCC. 54.1 (2002): 88-115.

Abstract:

Plagiarism is difficult, if not impossible, to define. In this paper, I argue for a contextsensitive understanding of plagiarism by analyzing a set of written institutional policies and suggesting ways that they might be revised. In closing, I offer examples of classroom practices to help teach a concept of plagiarism as situated in context.

Keywords:

ccc54.1 Plagiarism Students Policy Document RHoward Writing Author Ideas Citation Pedagogy Collaboration

Works Cited

“About Plagiarism.” Document, Writing Program, University of Massachusetts- Amherst, 2002.

“About Plagiarism.” Writing Program, University of Massachusetts-Amherst. 19 January 2002 <http://writingprogram.hfa.umass.edu/firstyear/plagiarism.html/>.

Atkins, Thomas, and Gene Nelson. “Plagiarism and the Internet: Turning the Tables.” English Journal 90 (2001): 101-04.

Bakhtin, M. M. “Discourse in the Novel.” The Dialogic Imagination. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981. 259-422.

Begoray, Deborah L. “The Borrowers: Issues in Using Previously Composed Text.” English Quarterly 28 (1996): 60-69.

Bloom, Lynn Z. “Freshman Composition As a Middle-Class Enterprise.” College English 58 (1996): 654-75.

Bowden, Darsie. “Stolen Voices: Plagiarism and Authentic Voice.” Composition Studies 24 (1996): 5-18.

Bruffee, Kenneth A. “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.'” College English 46 (1984): 635-52.

Buranen, Lise. “But I Wasn’t Cheating: Plagiarism and Cross-Cultural Mythology.” Buranen and Roy 63-74.

Buranen, Lise, and Alice M. Roy, eds. Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World. Albany: State U of New York P, 1999.

Cooper, Marilyn M. Letter to the author. 6 December 2001.

Curtis, Marcia, Benjamin Balthaser, Michael Edwards, Zan Goncalves, Robert Hazard, Noria Jablonski, Brian Jordan, and Shauna Seliy. The Original Text-Wrestling Book . Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 2001.

Delpit, Lisa D. “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children.” Harvard Educational Review 58 (1988): 280-98.

Dowling, Carolyn. “Word Processing and the Ongoing Difficulty of Writing.” Computers and Composition 11 (1994): 227-35.

Ede, Lisa, and Andrea A. Lunsford. “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship.” PMLA 116 (2001): 354-69.

Fitzsimmons, Anne. “Annotation As an Ethical Practice.” Reflections in Writing 18 (1998). 31 January 2002 <http://wrt.syr.edu/pub/reflections/18/fitzsimmons.html>.

Fox, Helen. Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing. Urbana: NCTE, 1994.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum, 1970.

Harris, Joseph. “The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 40 (1989): 11-22.

Herrington, Anne. Classroom lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, 5 November 1999.

Howard, Rebecca Moore. “Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty.” College English 57 (1995): 788-806.

—. “Sexuality, Textuality: The Cultural Work of Plagiarism.” College English 62 (2000): 473-91.

—. Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators. Stamford, CT: Ablex, 1999.

Kaufman, Rona. “The Politics of Citation: Owning and Owning-Up-To in the Composition Classroom.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 1999.

Kucich, John. “Plagiarism.” Online memo to students in English Dept., University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. 19 January 2002 <http://www.lsa.umich.edu/english/undergraduate/plag.htm>.

Lunsford, Andrea A., and Lisa Ede. “Collaborative Authorship and the Teaching of Writing.” Woodmansee and Jaszi. 417-38.

Lunsford, Andrea A., and Susan West. ” Intellectual Property and Composition Studies .” College Composition and Communication 47 (1996): 383-411.

Mattison, Mike. Classroom lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, 23 November 1999.

Moraga, Cherríe. Loving in the War Years/Lo que nunca pasó por sus labios . Boston: South End, 1983.

Myers, Greg. “Reality, Consensus, and Reform in the Rhetoric of Composition Teaching.” College English 48 (1986): 154-74.

“Plagiarism.” Document, Department of English, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 2002.

“Plagiarism.” Document, University of Michigan Libraries, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 2002. Shen, Fan. “The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity As a Key to Learning English Composition (Staffroom Interchange).” College Composition and Communication 40 (1989): 459-66.

Spigelman, Candace. ” Habits of Mind: Historical Configurations of Textual Ownership in Peer Writing Groups .” College Composition and Communication 49 (1998): 234-55.

Stygall, Gail. “Women and Language in the Collaborative Writing Classroom.” Feminism and Composition Studies: In Other Words. Ed. Susan C. Jarratt and Lynn Worsham. New York: MLA, 1998. 252-75.

Trimbur, John. “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning.” College English 51 (1989): 602-16.

Vielstimmig, Myka. “Petals on a Wet, Black Bough: Textuality, Collaboration, and the New Essay.” Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technologies. Ed. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Logan: Utah State UP and Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1999. 89-114.

Welch, Barbara. “A Comment on ‘Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty.'” College English 58 (1996): 855-58.

Wilgoren, Jodi. “School Cheating Scandal Tests a Town’s Values.” New York Times 14 Feb. 2002, natl. ed.: A1+.

Wilson, Henry L. “When Collaboration Becomes Plagiarism: The Administrative Perspective.” Buranen and Roy 211-18.

Woodmansee, Martha. “On the Author Effect: Recovering Collectivity.” Woodmansee and Jaszi 15-28.

Woodmansee, Martha, and Peter Jaszi, eds. The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature. Durham: Duke UP, 1994.

Young, Jeffrey R. “The Cat-and-Mouse Game of Plagiarism Detection.” Chronicle of Higher Education 6 July 2001. 28 Feb. 2002 <http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i43/43a02601.htm>.

Kumamoto, Chikako D. “Bakhtin’s Others and Writing As Bearing Witness to the Eloquent ‘I.'” CCC. 54.1 (2002): 66-87.

Abstract:

Mikhail Bakhtin’s dialogism and his irenic view of the cultural other inform this article that builds the multiple voice of the eloquent “I” as a dialectic self-construction where codes of meaning are inscribed. The eloquent “I” cultivates a deepened self-dialogue and offers students an epistemological and rhetorical discipline, bearing witness to their imaginative, meaningful interiority and their written, public articulation of it.

Keywords:

ccc54.1 Self Writing Students Others MBakhtin Discourse Understanding Epistemology Community Knowledge Culture Experience

Works Cited

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M. M. Bakhtin . Ed. Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov. Trans. and notes by Liapunov. Supplement trans. Kenneth Brostrom. Austin: U of Texas P, 1990.

—. “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity.” Art and Answerability 4-256.

—. “Discourse in the Novel.” The Dialogic Imagination. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981. 259-422.

—. “From Notes Made in 1970-71.” Speech Genres & Other Late Essays . Tran. Vern W. McGee. Ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1986. 132-58.

—. “The Problem of Speech Genres.” Speech Genres 60-102.
 —. “The Problem of the Text in Linguistics, Philology, and the Human Sciences: An Experiment in Philosophical Analysis.” Speech Genres 103-31.

—. “Response to a Question from the Novy Mir Editorial Staff.” Speech Genres 1-7.
 —. “Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences.” Speech Genres 159-72.

—. Toward a Philosophy of the Act. Trans. and notes by Vadim Liapunov. Ed. by Vadim Liapunov and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1993.

Berlin, James. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring English Studies . Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1996.

Bizzell, Patricia. “What Happens When Basic Writers Come to College?” College Composition and Communication 37 (1986): 294-301.

Brummett, Barry. “Some Implications of ‘Process’ or ‘Intersubjectivity’: Postmodern Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 9 (1976): 21-51.

Clifford, James. “On Ethnographic Allegory.” Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography . Ed. J. Clifford and G. Marcus. Berkeley: U of California P, 1986. 98-121.

Coles, William F. The Plural I: The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1978.

Dentith, Simon. Bakhtinian Thought: An Introductory Reader . New York: Routledge, 1995.

Dodds, Jack. Roles for Writers and Readers: A Rhetorical Anthology. New York: Macmillan, 1986.

Emerson, Caryl. The First Hundred Years of Mikhail Bakhtin . Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1997.

Emerson, Caryli, and Michael Holquist. Introduction. Speech Genres & Other Late Essays . Tran. Vern W. McGee. Ed. Emerson and Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1986. ix-xxiii.

Faigley, Lester. “Judging Writing, Judging Selves.” College Composition and Communication 40.4 (Dec. 1989): 394-412.

Fox, Helen. Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing . Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1994.

Geertz, Clifford. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” The Interpretation of Culture. Ed. Geertz. London: Hutchenson, 1975. 3-30.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self- Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare . Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.

Halasek, Kay. A Pedagogy of Possibility: Bakhtinian Perspectives on Composition Studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1999.

Harris, Joseph. “The Plural Text/The Plural Self: Roland Barthes and William Coles.” College English 49.2 (Feb. 1987): 158-70.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter: A Romance. Introduction by Nina Baym. Notes by Thomas E. Connolly. New York: Penguin, 1983.

Holquist, Michael, and Vadim Liapunov. Introduction. Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M. M. Bakhtin . By M. M. Bakhtin. Ed. Holquist and Liapunov. Trans. and notes by Liapunov. Supplement trans. Kenneth Brostrom. Austin: U of Texas P, 1990. ix-xlix.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature Book 1. Ed. D. G. C. McNabb. Glasgow: Fontana Collins, 1962.

Keller, Evelyn Fox. “The Gender/Science System: Or, Is Sex to Gender As Nature Is to Science?” Hypatia 2.3: 37-49.

Kent, Thomas. “On the Very Idea of a Discourse Community.” College Composition and Communication 42.4 (Dec. 1991): 425-45.

Kinneavy, James. A Theory of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971. Knoeller, Christian. Voicing Ourselves: Whose Words We Use When We Talk about Books . Albany: State U of New York P, 1998.

Morris, Pam, ed. The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, and Voloshinov . Glossary by Graham Roberts. Auckland: Arnold, 1994.

Murray, Donald. “All Writing Is Autobiography.” College Composition and Communication 42.1 (Feb. 1991): 66-74.

Newkirk, Thomas. The Performance of Self in Student Writing . Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook (Heinemann), 1997.

Newman, John Henry. The Idea of the University. Ed. Frank M. Turner. New Haven: Yale UP, 1996.

Qualley, Donna J. “Being Two Places at Once: Feminism and the Development of ‘Both/And’ Perspectives.” Pedagogy in the Age of Politics: Writing and Reading (in) the Academy . Ed. Patricia A. Sullivan and Donna J. Qualley. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1994. 25-42.

—. Turns of Thoughts: Teaching Composition As Reflexive Inquiry . Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook (Heinemann), 1997.

Rodriguez, Richard. Hunger of Memory. Boston: David Godine, 1981.

Said, Edward W. “Identity, Authority, and Freedom: The Potentate and the Traveler.” Boundary 2 21.3 (Fall 1994): 1-18.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “The Purpose of Writing.” Between Existentialism and Marxism . Trans. John Mathews. New York: Pantheon Books, 1974.

Spariosu, Mihai I. The Wreath of Wild Olive: Play, Liminality, and the Study of Literature . New York: SUNY P, 1997.

Todorov, Tzvetan. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle . Trans. Wlad Godzich. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984.

—. Nous et les autres: La reflexion francaise sur la diversite humanine . Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1989.

Urban, Greg. “The ‘I’ of Discourse.” Semiotics, Self, and Society . Ed. Benjamin Lee and Greg Urban. Berlin: Monton du Gruyter, 1991. 27-51.

Webber, Joan. The Eloquent “I”: Style and Self in Seventeenth-Century Prose . Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1968.

Weiss, Timothy. On the Margins: The Art of Exile in V.S. Naipaul . Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1992.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. Reflection in the Writing Classroom . Logan: Utah State UP, 1998.

Cushman, Ellen. “Sustainable Service Learning Programs.” CCC. 54.1 (2002): 40-65.

Abstract:

The role of the professor in community service writing courses factors into the teaching, research, and overall institutional viability of these initiatives, yet too little has been written about the role of the professor in service learning. Through an analysis of recent publications on service learning and data gathered during an outreach initiative at University of California, Berkeley, this article reveals a few of the obstacles that hinder the sustainability of community literacy programs. I find that professors in service learning courses can better sustain these initiatives when they view the community site as a place where their research, teaching, and service contribute to a community’s self-defined needs and students’ learning.

Keywords:

ccc54.1 ServiceLearning Students Community Research Writing Faculty Program Courses Literacy

Works Cited

Addison, Joanne. “Data Analysis and Subject Representation in Empowering Composition Research.” Written Communication 14 (1997): 106-28.

Adler-Kassner, Linda, Robert Crooks, and Ann Watters, eds. Writing the Community: Concepts and Models for Service Learning in Composition . Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1997.

Anson, Chris. “On Reflection: The Role of Logs and Journals in Service-Learning Courses.” Adler-Kassner et al. 167-80.

Bacon, Nora. “Community Service Writing: Problems, Challenges, Questions.” Adler- Kassner et al. 39-56.

Brack, Gay, and Leanna Hall. “Combining the Classroom and the Community: Service Learning in Composition at Arizona State University.” Adler-Kassner et al. 143-53.

Carrick, Tracy Hamler, Margaret Himley, and Tobi Jacobi. “Ruptura: Acknowledging the Lost Subjects of the Service Learning Story.” Language and Learning across the Disciplines 4.3 (Oct. 2000): 56-75.

Charney, Davida. “Empiricism Is Not a Four-Letter Word.” College Composition and Communication 47 (1996): 567-93.

Cushman, Ellen. “Beyond Specialization: The Public Intellectual, Outreach, and Rhetoric Education.” Rhetoric Education in the Twenty-First Century University . Ed. Joseph Petraglia. Albany: SUNY. In press.

—. “The Public Intellectual, Activist Research, and Service-Learning.” College English 61.1 (1999): 68-76.

—. The Struggle and The Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community. Albany: SUNY Press, 1998.

Cushman, Ellen, and Chalon Emmons. “Contact Zones Made Real.” School’s Out: Literacy in the Community and Workplace. Ed. Glynda Hull and Katherine Shultz. New York: Teachers College, 2002. 203-31.

Cushman, Ellen, and Terese Guinsatao Monberg. “Building Bridges: Reflexivity and Composition Research.” Under Construction: Composition Research, Theory, and Practice . Ed. Chris Anson and Christine Farris. Logan: Utah State UP, 1998. 166-80.

—. “Service Learning As the New English Studies.” English Inc.: English Studies in the 21st Century . Ed. David B. Downing, C. Mark Hurlbert, and Paula Mathieu. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2002. 204-18.

Deans, Tom. Writing Partnerships: Service Learning in Rhetoric and Composition. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2000.

Delpit, Lisa. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom . New York: The New Press, 1995.

Dorman, Wade, and Susann Fox Dorman. “Service Learning: Bridging the Gap between the Real World and the Composition Classroom.” Adler-Kassner et al. 119-32.

Flower, Linda. “Partners in Inquiry: A Logic for Community Outreach” Adler-Kassner et al. 95-118.

Flower, Linda, and Shirley Brice Heath. “Drawing on the Local: Collaboration and Community Expertise.” Language and Learning across the Disciplines 4.3 (Oct 2000): 43-55.

Flower, Linda, Eleanor Long, and Lorraine Higgins. Learning to Rival: A Literate Practice for Intercultural Inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000.

Geisler, Cheryl. Academic Literacy and the Nature of Expertise: Reading, Writing, and Knowing in Academic Philosophy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1994.

Grabill, Jeffrey. CW2001 Presentation. 22 Jan. 2002. “Community Computing and Citizen Productivity.” 24 Jan. 2002 <http://www.gsu.edu/~engjtg/msu/start.htm>.

—. Community Literacy Programs and the Politics of Change . Albany, NY: SUNY UP, 2001.

Goldblatt, Eli. “Who Serves Whom? Institutional Commitments in Community- Based Learning?” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Chicago, IL, 22 Mar. 2002.

Haas, Christine. Writing Technology: Studies on the Materiality of Literacy . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996.

Harris, Joseph. “Review: Writing Partnerships: Service Learning in Composition.” Reflections on Community-Based Writing 2.1 (Fall 2001): 15-18.

Harste, Jerome, Virginia Woodward, and Carolyn Burke. “Rethinking Development and Organization.” Perspectives on Literacy. Ed. Eugene Kintgen, Barry Kroll, and Mike Rose. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1988. 321-47.

Heilker, Paul. “Rhetoric Made Real: Civic Discourse beyond the Curriculum.” Adler-Kassner et al. 71-78.

Herzberg, Bruce. “Community Service and Critical Teaching.” College Composition and Communication 45.3 (1994): 307-19.

Hessler, Brooke. “Composing an Institutional Identity.” Language and Learning across the Disciplines 4.3 (Oct. 2000): 27-42.

Higgins, Lorraine. “A Rhetoric of Inclusion: Problem Narratives That Make a Difference.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Chicago, IL, 22 Mar. 2002.

Hull, Glynda, and Jessica Zacher. “Literate Identities, Life Paths, and the Knowledge Economy.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Chicago, IL, 22 Mar. 2002.

Julier, Laura. “Community-Service Pedagogy.” A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. Ed. Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 132-48.

Kintgen, Eugene, Barry Kroll, and Mike Rose, eds. Perspectives on Literacy . Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1988.

Mortensen, Peter, and Gesa Kirsch, eds. Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Research. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1996.

Parks, Steve, and Eli Goldblatt. “Writing beyond the Curriculum: Fostering New Collaborations in Literacy.” College English 62.5 (May 2000): 584-606.

Peck, Wayne Campbell, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins. ” Community Literacy .” College Composition and Communication 46.2 (1995): 199-222.

Prior, Paul. Writing/Disciplinarity. Mahweh, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998.

Redd, Teresa. “Assessing Impact As Students, Teachers, and Clients See It.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Chicago, IL, 22 Mar. 2002.

Schutz, Aaron, and Anne Ruggles Gere. “Service Learning and English Studies: Rethinking Public Service.” College English 60.2 (Feb. 1998): 129-49.

Sullivan, Patricia, and James Porter. Opening Spaces: Writing Technologies and Critical Research Practices. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1997.

Underwood, Charles, Mara Welsh, Mary Gauvain, and Sharon Duffy. “Learning at the Edges: Challenges to the Sustainability of Service Learning in Higher Education.” Language and Learning across the Disciplines 4.3 (Oct. 2000): 7-27.

George, Diana. “From Analysis to Design: Visual Communication in the Teaching of Writing.” CCC. 54.1 (2002): 11-39.

Abstract:

In an attempt to bring composition studies into a more thoroughgoing discussion of the place of visual literacy in the writing classroom, I argue that throughout the history of writing instruction in this country the terms of debate typical in discussions of visual literacy and the teaching of writing have limited the kinds of assignments we might imagine for composition.

Keywords:

ccc54.1 Writing Students Composition Argument Communication Design Literacy Media Images Television VisualRhetoric Analysis

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David, and Anthony Petrosky. Ways of Reading . Boston: St. Martin’s, 1987. Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: BBC and Penguin, 1977.

Bernhardt, Stephen. “Seeing the Text.” College Composition and Communication 37 (1986): 66-78.

Blair, J. Anthony. “The Possibility and Actuality of Visual Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy 33 (1996): 23-39.

Boutwell, William D., ed. Using Mass Media in the Schools . New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1962.

Buchanan, Richard. “Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, Argument, and Demonstration in Design Practice.” Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism . Ed. Victor Margolin. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1989. 91-109.

Burnett, Esther, and Sandra Thomason. “The Cassette-Slide Show in Required Composition.” College Composition and Communication 25 (1974): 426-30.

Connors, Robert J. Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy . Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh UP, 1997.

Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures . London: Routledge, 2000.

—. “Designs for Social Futures.” Cope and Kalantzis 203-34.

Costanzo, William. “Film As Composition.” College Composition and Communication 37 (1986): 79-86.

Faigley, Lester. “Material Literacy and Visual Design.” Rhetorical Bodies: Toward a Material Rhetoric . Ed. Jack Selzer and Sharon Crowley. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1999. 171-201.

Flesch, Rudolf. The Art of Readable Writing. New York: Harper, 1949.

Frank, Joseph. You. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1972.

Gardiner, John Hays, George Lyman Kittredge, and Sarah Louise Arnold. The Mother Tongue: Elements of English Composition, Book III. Boston: Ginn & Company, 1902.

George, Diana, and Diane Shoos. “Dropping Breadcrumbs in the Intertextual Forest: or, We Should Have Brought a Compass.” Ed. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe, Passions, Pedagogies, and Twentieth-First Century Technologies . Logan: Utah State UP, 1999. 115-26.

George, Diana, and John Trimbur. ” The Communication Battle, or, Whatever Happened to the Fourth C? ” College Composition and Communication 50 (1999): 682-98.

—. Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing , 4th ed. New York: Longman, 2001.

Gibson, Walker. Seeing and Writing. 2nd ed. New York: D. McKay Co., 1974.

Hagstrum, Jean H. The Sister Arts: The Tradition of Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry from Dryden to Gray . Chicago: Chicago UP, 1958.

Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.

Kehl, D. G. “The Electric Carrot: The Rhetoric of Advertisement” College Composition and Communication 26 (1975): 134-40.

Kellogg, Brainerd. A Text-Book on Rhetoric Supplementing the Development of the Science with Exhaustive Practice in Composition . New York: Effingham Maynard, 1891.

Kismaric, Carole, and Marvin Heiferman. Growing Up with Dick and Jane . San Francisco: Collins, 1996.

Kligerman, Jack. “Photography, Perception, and Composition,” College Composition and Communication 28 (1977): 174-78.

Kress, Gunther. “Design and Transformation: New Theories of Meaning.” Cope and Kalantzis 153-61.

—. “Multimodality.” Cope and Kalantzis 182-202.

Leonard, Harris K. “The Classics: Alive and Well with Superman,” College English 37 (1975): 405-07.

McCrimmon, James. Writing with a Purpose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950.

McCrimmon, James, Joseph F. Trimmer, and Nancy Sommers. Writing with a Purpose . 8th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984.

McQuade, Donald, and Christine McQuade. Seeing & Writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000.

Meyers, Lewis. Seeing Writing. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.

Mitchell, W. J. T. Picture Theory. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994.

New London Group. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66 (1996): 60-92.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin, 1985.

—. Television and the Teaching of English. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1961.

Schultz, Lucille M. ” Elaborating Our History: A Look at Mid-19th Century First Books of Composition .” College Composition and Communication 45 (1994): 10-30.

Trimbur, John. The Call to Write. New York: Longman, 1999.

—. “Composition and the Circulation of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 52 (2000): 188-219.

—. “Delivering the Message: Typography and the Materiality of Writing.” Composition As Intellectual Work. Ed. Gary Olson. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. 188-202.

—.  “Review of Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures .” College Composition and Communication 52 (2001): 659-62.

Willens, Anita. “TV: Lick It or Join It?” Boutwell, 254-56.

Wysocki, Anne Frances. “Monitoring Order: Visual Desire, the Organization of Web Pages, and Teaching the Rules of Design.” Kairos 3.2 (Fall 1998). 12 Jun. 2002 <http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~awysocki>.

Wysocki, Anne Frances, and Johndan Johnson-Eilola. “Blinded by the Letter: Why Are We Using Literacy As a Metaphor for Everything Else?” Passions, Pedagogies, and Twenty-First Century Technologies . Ed. Gail Haiwisher and Cynthia Selfe. Utah State UP, 1999. 349-68.

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v54-3

Barron, Nancy G. Rev. of The Best for Our Children: Critical Perspectives on Literacy for Latino Students . María de la Luz Reyes and John J. Halcón, eds. CCC. 54.3 (2003): 494-498.

Olson, Gary A. Rev. of The Writing Program Administrator As Theorist: Making Knowledge Work . Shirley Rose and Irwin Weiser, eds. CCC. 54.3 (2003): 499-502.

Latterell, Catherine G. Rev. of A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick, eds. CCC. 54.3 (2003): 502-505.

McKee, Heidi. “Interchanges: Changing the Process of Institutional Review Board Compliance.” CCC. 54.3 (2003): 488-493.

Young, Art. “Writing Across and Against the Curriculum.” CCC. 54.3 (2003): 472-485.

Abstract:

After reviewing my career as a teacher of composition and literature and as a writing program administrator of writing across the curriculum, I discuss the potential of poetry across the curriculum as an important tool for writing “against” the curriculum of academic discourse. When they write poetry, students often express meaningful thoughts and emotions not readily available to them in disciplinary languages and contexts.

Keywords:

ccc54.3 Writing Students WAC Poetry Language Curriculum Literature CCCC Experience Composition AcademicWriting

Works Cited

Britton, James. Language and Learning , 2nd. ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook, 1993.

Britton, James, Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex McLeod, and Harold Rosen . The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18) . London: Macmillan Education, 1975.

Fulwiler, Toby, and Art Young. Language Connections: Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1982. Young, Art. Shelley and Nonviolence. The Hague: Mouton, 1975.

—. “Technical Communications and Freshman Composition.” The Technical Writing Teacher 1.1 (1973): 10-14.

Rice, Jeff. “The 1963 Hip-Hop Machine: Hip-Hop Pedagogy As Composition.” CCC. 54.3 (2003): 453-471.

Abstract:

This essay proposes an alternative invention strategy for research-based argumentative writing. By investigating the coincidental usage of the term “whatever” in hip-hop, theory, and composition studies, the essay proposes a whatever-pedagogy identified as “hip-hop pedagogy,” a writing practice that models itself after digital sampling’s rhetorical strategy of juxtaposition.

Keywords:

ccc54.3 Composition Writing HipHop Pedagogy Music Power Students Critique RBarthes Image Culture Discourse Students Invention Whatever

Works Cited

Baker, Houston. “Hybridity, the Rap Race, and Pedagogy for the 1990s.” Black Music Research Journal 11 (2) Fall 1991.

Baldwin, James. The Fire Next Time . New York: The Modern Library, 1963.

Baraka, Amiri. Black Music. New York: W. Morrow, 1967.

—. Blues People: Negro Music in White America . New York: William Morrow and Co., 1963.

Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida . New York: Hill and Wang, 1981.

Beastie Boys. Paul’s Boutique . Capitol Records, 1989.

Bennett, Leronne, Jr. The Black Mood and Other Essays . New York: Barnes & Noble, 1964 (1963).

Booker, Simeon. Black Man’s America . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Brooks, Gwendolyn. “Negro Hero.” Selected Poems. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.

Burroughs, William S. The Nova Express . New York: Grove, 1992 (1964).

Conwill, Kinshasha Holman. “Introduction.” Memory and Metaphor: The Art of Romare Bearden 1940-1987. New York: Oxford UP, 1981.

Digable Planets. “Agent 7 Creamy Spy Theme: Dial 7 (Axioms of Creamy Spies)” EMD/Pendulum, 1994.

—. “Cool Like Dat.” Reachin’ (A New Refutation of Time and Space) . EMD/ Pendulum, 1993.

Eshun, Kodowo. More Brilliant Than the Sun: Adventures in Sonic Fiction . London: Quartet, 1999.

Harkin, Patricia. “Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures As an Articulation Project.” JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory 17.3 (1997): 494-97.

Hendricks, Jon. Fluxus Codex . New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1998.

Grandmaster Flash. “The Adventures of Grandmaster Flash on Wheels of Steel.” Grandmaster Flash Greatest Mixes . Bangon, 1998.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” The Little, Brown Reader. Ed. Marcia Stubbs and Sylvan Barnet. New York: Harper Collins, 1996. 763-78.

McElfresh, Suzanne. “DJs Vs. Samplers.” The Vibe History of Hip-Hop. Ed. Alan Light. New York: Three Rivers P, 1999.

Marsh, Graham, Felix Cromey, and Glyn Callingham. Blue Note: The Album Cover Art. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 1991.

Mingus, Charles. “Freedom.” Mingus, Mingus, Mingus . Impulse! 1963. Neal, Mark Anthony. What the Music Said: Black Popular Music and Black Public Culture . New York: Routledge, 1999.

Public Enemy. “Can I Get a Witness!” It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back. UNI/DEFJAM, 1988.

—. “Party for Your Right to Fight.” It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back. UNI/DEFJAM, 1988.

Redman. “Whateva Man.” Muddy Waters . UNI/Def Jam, 1996.

Rose, Tricia. Black Noise: Black Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America . Hanover: Wesleyan UP, 1994.

Sirc, Geoffrey. ” Never Mind the Tagmemics, Where’s the Sex Pistols? ” CCC 48.1 (Feb.) 1997.

—. “Virtual Urbanism.” Computers and Composition 18(1) 2001: 11-19.

Toulmin, Stephen. Uses of Argument . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1958.

Ulmer, Gregory. “The Object of Post- Criticism.” The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture. Ed. Hal Foster. Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1983.

Vitanza, Victor J. “From Heuristic to Aleatory Procedures; Or, Toward ‘Writing the Accident.'” Inventing a Discipline: Rhetoric Scholarship in Honor of Richard E. Young . Ed. Maureen Daly Goggin. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2000.

—. “Seeing in Third Sophistic Ways.” Rhetoric and Composition As Intellectual Work. Ed. Gary Olson. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002.

—. “‘The Wasteland Grows’: Or, What is ‘Cultural Studies for Composition’ and Why Must We Always Speak Good of It? ParaResponse to Julie Drew.” JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory 19 (1999): 699-703.

Williams, Cecil B., and Allan Stevenson. A Research Manual. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.

Williams, Raymond. Communications . London: Chatto and Windus, 1966 (1962).

Sohn, Katherine Kelleher. “Whistlin’ and Crowin’ Women of Appalachia: Literacy Practices since College.” CCC. 54.3 (2003): 423-452.

Abstract:

This article represents stories of eight former composition students, Appalachian working class women, who move from silence in the academy to voice in their communities to a more self-confident identity without destroying the community from which they came. The author argues that compositionists need to consider the two-edged nature of literacy; how literacy serves first generation, nontraditional learners; the intergenerational effects of literacy; the importance of expressivist writing as a transition into academic literacy; and the importance of region and class in multicultural conversations.

Keywords:

ccc54.3 Women College Literacy Education Appalachia Study School Children Family Home Writing WorkingClass Expressivism FirstGeneration Community

Works Cited

Aronson, Anne. “Reversals of Fortune: Downward Mobility and the Writing of Nontraditional Students.” Teaching Working-Class . Ed. Sherry Lee Linkon. Amherst: U Massachusetts P, 1999. 39-55.

Ashley, Hannah. “Playing the Game: Proficient Working-Class Students Writers’ Second Voices.” Research in the Teaching of English 35.4 (2001): 493-524.

Bailey, Bennie R. “Appalachia: Our Home.” Speech presented at opening convocation to Pikeville College, Pikeville, Kentucky, Fall 1998.

Barton, David, and Mary Hamilton. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. London: Routledge, 1998. Batteau, Allen W. The Invention of Appalachia. Tuscon: The U of Arizona P, 1990.

Belenky, Mary Field, et al. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic, 1988.

Bencich, Carole. Personal Interview. July 1999.

Billings, Dwight B., and Kathleen M. Blee. The Road to Poverty: The Making of Wealth and Hardship in Appalachia. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000.

Billings, Dwight, Guerney Norman, and Katherine Ledford, eds. Confronting Appalachian Stereotypes. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1999.

Bizzell, Patricia. Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1993.

Brandau, Deborah. Literacy and Literature in School and Non-School Settings. (Report Series 7.6). Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. ERIC, 1996. ED 401 550.

Brandt, Deborah. “Accumulating Literacy: Writing and Learning to Write in the Twentieth Century.” College English 57.6 (1995): 649-68.

Cintron, Ralph. Angels’ Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life, and Rhetorics of The Everyday . Boston: Beacon, 1997.

Cooper, Marilyn, and Michael Holzman. Writing As Social Action. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1989.

Cushman, Ellen. The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community . Albany: State U of New York P, 1998.

Daniell, Beth. ” Narratives of Literacy: Connecting Composition to Culture .” College Composition and Communication 50.3 (1999). 393-410.

DeRosier, Linda Scott. Creeker: A Woman’s Journey. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1999.

Dews, Carolyn Leste, and C. L. Barney Law. This Fine Place So Far from Home: Voices of Academics from the Working Class. Philadelphia, PA: Temple UP, 1995.

Donehower, Kimberley K. Beliefs about Literacy in a Southern Appalachian Community. Diss. University of Minnesota, 1997. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1997. 9738422.

Dyer, Joyce, ed. Bloodroot: Reflections on Place by Appalachian Women Writers . Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1998.

Egan, Marcia. “Appalachian Women: The Path from the ‘Hollows’ to Higher Education.” Affilia 8.3 (1993): 265-76.

Ferretti, Eileen. “Between Dirty Dishes and Polished Discourse: How Working-Class Moms Construct School Identities.” Teaching Working Class. Ed. Sherry Lee Linkon. Amherst: U Massachusetts P, 1999. 69-84.

Fiene, Judith. “The Social Reality of a Group of Rural, Low-Status, Appalachian Women: A Grounded Theory Study.” Diss. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1988.

Flynn, Elizabeth A. “Composing As a Woman.” Crosstalk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1997. 549-64.

Giesen, Carol A. B. Coal Miners’ Wives: Portraits of Endurance. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1995.

Guerra, Juan. Close to Home: Oral and Literate Practices in a Transnational Mexicano Community . New York: Teachers College/Columbia U, 1998.

Hamilton, Sharon J. My Name’s Not Susie: A Life Transformed by Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1995.

Hammons-Bryner, S. “Interpersonal Relationships and African American Women’s Educational Achievement: An Ethnographic Study.” SAGE 9.1 (1995): 10-17.

Hanna, Stephen. “Representation and the Reproduction of Appalachian Space: A History of Contested Signs and Meanings.” Historical Geography 28 (2000): 179-207.

Harrienger, M. “Writing a Life: The Composing of Grace.” Feminine Principles and Women’s Experiences in American Composition and Rhetoric. Ed. Louise W. Phelps and Janet W. Emig. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1995. 137-52.

Heath, Shirley B. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983.

Horsman, Jennifer. Something in My Mind Besides the Everyday: Women and Literacy. Toronto: Women’s Press, 1990.

Isserman, Lawrence. Overview. Socio- Economic Review of Appalachia: Appalachia Then and Now: An Update of “The Realities of Deprivation” Reported to the President in 1964. Ed. Andrew M. Isserman. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission, 1996. 1-30.

Jones, Loyal. Appalachian Values. Ashland, KY: Jesse Stuart Foundation, 1994.

—. Faith and Meaning in the Southern Uplands. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1999. Kahn, Kathy. Hillbilly Women. New York: Avon, 1972.

Kirsch, Gesa, and Peter Mortensen. Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1996. Knudson, Candy. Personal communication. 3 July 1999.

Lauer, Janice. Foreword. My Name’s Not Susie: A Life Transformed by Literacy. By Sharon Jean Hamilton. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1995.

Law, C. L. Barney. Introduction. Dews and Law 1-10.

Linkon, Sherry Lee, ed. Teaching Working Class . Amherst: U Massachusetts P, 1999. Lunneborg, Patricia W. OU Women: Undoing Educational Obstacles. London: Cassell, 1994.

Luttrell, Wendy. Schoolsmart and Motherwise: Working-Class Women’s Identity and Schooling. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Lyon, Georgia Ella. “Voiceplace.” Bloodroot: Reflections on Place by Appalachian Women Writers. Ed. Joyce Dyer. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1998. 167-74.

McNeil, W. K., ed. Appalachian Images in Folk and Popular Culture. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1989.

Merrifield, Juliet, et al. Life at the Margins: Literacy, Language, and Technology in Everyday Life. New York: Teachers College, 1997.

Miller, Danny. Wingless Flight: Appalachian Women in Fiction. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State UP, 1996.

Montgomery, Michael. “Myths: How a Hunger for Roots Shapes Our Notions about Appalachian English.” Now and Then: The Appalachian Magazine 17.2 (2000): 7-13.

Neilsen, Lorri. Literacy and Living: The Literate Lives of Three Adults. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1989.

Pari, Caroline. “‘Just American’: Reversing Ethnic and Class Assimilation in the Academy.” Teaching Working Class . Ed. Sherry Linkon. Amherst: U Massachusetts P, 1999. 123-41.

Pascall, Gillian, and Roger Cox. Women Returning to Higher Education. London: Open UP, 1993.

Pascarella, Ernest T., and P. T. Terenzini. How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Pascarella, Ernest T., Gregory C. Wolniak, Christopher T. Pierson, and Patrick T. Terenzini. “Appalachian Region Alumni Outcomes Survey (Preliminary Findings).” Available: acaweb.org.

Peckham, Irvin. “Complicity in Class Codes: The Exclusionary Function of Education.” Dews and Law 263-76.

Piper, Deborah. “Psychology’s Class Blindness: Investment in the Status Quo.” Dews and Law 286-96.

Preston County Chamber of Commerce. Telephone interview. 1 Sept. 1999.

Puckett, Anita. “‘Let the Girls Do the Spelling and Dan Will Do the Shooting’: Literacy, the Division of Labor, and Identity in a Rural Appalachian Community.” Anthropological Quarterly 65.3 (1992): 137-47.

—. “Recent Trends in Poverty in the Appalachian Region: The Implications of the U.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates on the ARC Distressed Counties Designation.” Report prepared by The Applied Population Laboratory. Madison, WI: 2000.

—. Seldom Ask, Never Tell: Labor and Discourse in Appalachia. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.

Rodriguez, Richard. A Hunger for Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez: An Autobiography. Boston: D. R. Godine, 1982.

Rodriguez, Sandra. “Detour from Nowhere: The Remarkable Journey of a Re-Entry College Woman.” Initiatives 58.1 (1996): 1-10.

Rose, Mike. Lives on the Boundary: A Moving Account of the Struggles and Achievements of America’s Educational Underclass. New York: Penguin, 1989.

Seitz, Virginia. Women, Development, and Communities for Empowerment in Appalachia. Albany: State U of New York P, 1995.

Shapiro, Henry D. Appalachia on Our Mind: The Southern Mountaineers in the American Consciousness, 1870-1920. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1978.

Shelby, Anne. “The ‘R’ Word: What’s So Funny (and Not So Funny) about Redneck Jokes.” Confronting Appalachian Stereotypes. Ed. Dwight Billings, Guerney Norman, and Katherine Ledford. Lexingtons: UP of Kentucky, 1999. 153-60.

Shiber, John. “Nontraditional Students: The Importance of Getting There.” Innovation Abstract 32.11 (1999): 1-2.

Shor, Ira. When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in Critical Pedagogy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996. Soliday, Mary. “Class Dismissed.” College English 61.6 (1999): 731-41.

Trimbur, John. “Literacy and the Discourse of Crisis.” The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary. Ed. R. Bullock, J. Trimbur, and C. Schuster. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1991. 277-96.

Villanueva, Victor. Bootstraps: An Academic of Color. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1993.

Wax, Murray L. “Knowledge, Power, and Ethics in Qualitative Social Research.” The American Sociologist 26.2 (1995): 22-35.

Whisnant, David E. All That Is Native and Fine: The Politics of Culture in an American Region. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1983.

Wood, Lawrence, and Gregory A. Bischak. Progress and Challenges in Reducing Economic Distress in Appalachia: An Analysis of National and Regional Trends since 1960. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission, 2000.

Powell, Katrina M. and Pamela Takayoshi. “Accepting Roles Created for Us: The Ethics of Reciprocity.” CCC. 54.3 (2003): 394-422.

Abstract:

Grounded in theories of feminist research practices and in two empirical studies we conducted separately, our argument is that seeing reciprocity as a context-based process of definition and re-definition of the relationship between participants and researcher helps us understand how research projects can benefit participants in ways that they desire.

Keywords:

ccc54.3 Research Participants Researchers Reciprocity Ethics Roles Study Feminism Empirical Methodology ResearchQuestions Data

Works Cited

Addison, Joanne. “Data Analysis and Subject Representation in Empowering Composition Research.” Written Communication 14 (1997): 106-28.

Anderson, Paul. ” Simple Gifts: Ethical Issue in the Conduct of Person-Based Composition Research .” College Composition and Communication 49.1 (1998): 63-89.

Barton, Ellen. ” More Methodological Matters: Against Negative Argumentation .” College Composition and Communication 51 (2000): 399-416.

Brereton, John C., ed. The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, 1875-1920; A Documentary History. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1995.

Brueggemann, Brenda Jo. “Still-Life: Representations and Silences in the Participant-Observer Role.” Mortensen and Kirsch 17-39.

Carter, Michael. ” Stasis and Kairos: Principles of Social Construction in Classical Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 7 (1988): 97-112.

Cushman, Ellen. ” The Rhetorician As an Agent of Social Change .” College Composition and Communication 47 (1996): 7-28.

—. The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community. Albany, NY: SUNY P, 1998.

Fine, Michelle. Disruptive Voices: The Possibilities of Feminist Research . Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1992.

Fonow, Mary Margaret, and Judith Cook. “Back to the Future: A Look at the Second Wave of Feminist Epistemology and Methodology.” Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship As Lived Research. Ed. Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith Cook. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991. 1-15.

Harding, Sandra, ed. Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues . Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1987.

Herndl, Carl G. “Writing Ethnography: Representation, Rhetoric, and Institutional Practices.” College English 53 (1991): 320-32.

Jarratt, Susan. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.

Johanek, Cindy. Composing Research: A Contextualist Paradigm for Rhetoric and Composition . Logan: Utah State UP, 2000.

Kinneavy, James. “Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric.” Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Practical Reasoning. Ed. Jean Dietz Moss. Washington, DC: Catholic UP, 1986. 79-105.

Kirsch, Gesa. Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation, and Publication . Albany: State U of New York P, 1999.

Kirsch, Gesa, and Joy Ritchie. ” Beyond the Personal: Theorizing a Politics of Location on Composition Research .” College Composition and Communication 46 (1995): 7-29.

Kirsch, Gesa, and Patricia Sullivan, eds. Methods and Methodology in Composition Research. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1992.

Lather, Patti. Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern. NY: Routledge, 1991.

Mortensen, Peter, and Gesa Kirsch. “Introduction: Reflections on Methodology in Literacy Studies.” Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy. Ed. Mortensen and Kirsch. Urbana, IL: NCTE Press, 1996. xix-xxxiv.

Newkirk, Thomas. “Seduction and Betrayal in Qualitative Research.” Mortensen and Kirsch 3-16.

Perl, Sondra. “Early Work on Composing: Lessons and Illuminations.” History, Reflection, and Narrative: The Professionalization of Composition, 1963- 1983. Ed. Mary Rosner, Beth Boehm, and Debra Journet. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press, 1999. 83-98.

Powell, Katrina M. “Discourse Negotiation: Self-Representation across Multiple Genres.” Diss. U of Louisville, 2000.

Ritchie, Joy, and Kathleen Boardman. “Feminism in Composition: Inclusion, Metonymy, and Disruption.” College Composition and Communication 50 (1999): 585-606.

Rose, Shirley, and Janice Lauer. “Feminist Methodology: Dilemmas for Graduate Researchers.” Under Construction: Working at the Intersections of Composition Theory, Research, and Practice . Ed. Christine Farris and Chris M. Anson. Logan: Utah State UP, 1998. 136-49.

Snyder, Ilana. “‘It’s Not As Simple As You Think!’ Collaboration between a Researcher and a Teacher.” English Education 24 (1992): 195-211.

Sullivan, Patricia A. “Ethnography and the Problem of the ‘Other.'” Mortensen and Kirsch 97-114.

—. “Feminism and Methodology.” Methods and Methodology in Composition Research. Ed. Gesa Kirsch and Patricia Sullivan. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1992. 37-61.

Van Maanen, John. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988.

Wolf, Diane L., ed. Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork . Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.

Mann, Nancy. “Point Counterpoint: Teaching Punctuation As Information Management.” CCC. 54.3 (2003): 359-393.

Abstract:

Punctuation is often learned without teaching and more often not learned despite much teaching. Jointly, these facts suggest that real punctuation decision rules are very different from and probably much simpler than the rules we teach. This article argues that the punctuation system does have features that generally make systems learnable, such as binary contrasts, limitation of parallel categories to seven or fewer options, and repeated application of the same criterion to different kinds of entities. The simplicity that allows some readers to learn this system unconsciously also makes it possible to figure out consciously the system’s underlying information-management rationales, which in turn motivate both conscious learning and use.

Keywords:

ccc54.3 Punctuation Statements Pedagogy System Rules Order Students Algorithm Comma Information Language Sentence

Works Cited

Berry, Dianne. “How Implicit Is Implicit Learning?” Implicit Cognition. Ed. Geoffrey Underwood. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP, 1996. 203-25.

Connors, Robert J. ” The Erasure of the Sentence .” CCC 52 (2000): 96-128.

Connors, Robert J., and Andrea A. Lunsford. “Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research.” CCC 39 (1988): 395-409.

Dawkins, John. ” Teaching Punctuation As a Rhetorical Tool .” CCC 46 (1995): 533-48.

Edlund, John R. “The Rainbow and the Stream.” The Place of Grammar in Writing Instruction. Ed. Susan Hunter and Ray Wallace. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1995. 89-102.

Gombert, Jean Émile. Metalinguistic Development. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1992.

Haiman, John, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988.

Hassett, Michael. “Toward a Broader Understanding of the Rhetoric of Punctuation.” CCC 47 (1996): 419-21.

Hillocks, George, Jr. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English, 1986.

Jackendoff, Ray S. The Architecture of the Language Faculty . Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1997.

—. “Possible Stages in the Evolution of the Language Capacity.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3 (1998): 272-79. 1 July 1999. ScienceDirect. University of Colorado Lib., Boulder, CO. 12 June 2002 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/>.

Kirkhart, Matthew. “The Nature of Declarative and Nondeclarative Knowledge for Implicit and Explicit Learning.” Journal of General Psychology 128 (Oct. 2001): 447-61. OCLC FirstSearch. University of Colorado Lib., Boulder, CO. 12 June 2002 <http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org>.

Laiacona, M., and A. Lunghi. “A Case of Concomitant Impairment of Operational Signs and Punctuation Marks.” Neuropsychologia 35, no. 3 (1997): 325- 32.

Meyer, Charles F. A Linguistic Study of American Punctuation. New York: Peter Lang, 1987.

Michael, Ian. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1970.

Mithun, Marianne. “The Grammaticization of Coordination.” Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Ed. John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988. 331-60.

Nunberg, Geoffrey. The Linguistics of Punctuation. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Linguistic Information, 1990.

Parkes, M. B. Pause and Effect: A History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley: U of California P, 1993.

Quirk, Randolph. “Speaking into the Air.” Style and Communication in the English Language. London: Edward Arnold, 1982.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.

Tufte, Virginia. Grammar As Style. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1971.

Underwood, Geoffrey, and James E. H. Bright, “Cognition with and without Awareness.” Implicit Cognition. Ed. Geoffrey Underwood. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP, 1996. 1-40.

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v52-2

Gilyard, Keith. “Literacy, Identity, Imagination, Flight.” CCC 52.2 (2000): 260-272.

Abstract:

This article examines issues of literacy and identity relative to the development of a critical pedagogy and a critical democracy. An earlier version was delivered as the Chair’s Address at the Fifty-first Annual CCCC Convention on April 13, 2000.

Keywords:

ccc52.2 ChairsAddress MLKing Literacy Identity Imagination CriticalPedagogy Democracy Discourse Color Race

Works Cited

Barthes, Roland. Elements of Semiology. 1964. Tr. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith. New York: Hill and Wang, 1973.

Bizzell, Patricia. Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1992.

Braxton, Joanne M., ed. The Collected Poetry of Paul Laurence Dunbar. Charlottesville, VA: UP of Virginia, 1993.

Brodkey, Linda. Academic Writing as Social Practice. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1987.

Brown, James. “There Was a Time.” Foundations of Funk, A Brand New Bag: 1964-1969. A&M Records, Inc. 31453 1165-2. Compilation released in 1996. Song was originally recorded in 1967.

Clark, Romy, and Roz Ivanic. The Politics of Writing. London: Routledge, 1997.

Cole, Natalie. “Gotta Serve Somebody.” Snowfall on the Sahara. WEA/Electra Entertainment, 1999.

Cuddon, John Anthony. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory . 4th ed. New York: Penguin, 1990.

Delgado, Richard. The Rodrigo Chronicles: Conversations about America and Race. New York: New York UP, 1995.

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology . 1967. Tr. Gayatri Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.

Dr. Dre. Keep Their Heads Ringin’. Priority, 1995.

Du Bois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folk . 1903. New York: Penguin, 1989.

Howard, Fred. Wilbur and Orville: A Biography of the Wright Brothers. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1998.

Jay-Z. “Hard Knock Life.” Vol. 2: Hard Knock Life. Def Jam, 1998.

King, Jr., Martin Luther. “I Have a Dream.” The Negro History Bulletin 21 (1968): 16-17. Rpt. in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. Ed. James Melvin Washington. San Francisco: Harper, 1986. 217-20.

MacKay, Donald. “On the Goals, Principles and Procedures for Prescriptive Grammar: Singular They.” Language in Society 9 (1980): 349-67.

Troupe, Quincy. “Ode to John Coltrane.” Skulls along the River. New York: I. Reed, 1984. 37-42.

Marshall, Ian and Wendy Ryden. “Interrogating the Monologue: Making Whiteness Visible.” CCC 52.2 (2000): 240-259.

Abstract:

The authors attempt to confront the construction of “whiteness” as a silent but potent epistemology that pervades writing instruction and contributes to racism within academic institutions. Pedagogical practices as well as university policies are discussed, focusing particularly on the subject positions of “black” and “white” for both students and instructors.

Keywords:

ccc52.2 Whiteness Race Students Teachers Racism Pedagogy LDelpit

Works Cited

Baldwin, James. “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” Contemporary Essays. Ed. Donald Hall. 3rd ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1995. 39-43.

Delpit, Lisa D. “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children.” Harvard Educational Review 58.3 (1988): 280-98. Rpt. in Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: New P, 1995. 21-47.

Giroux, Henry. “Rewriting the Discourse of Racial Identity: Toward a Pedagogy and Politics of Whiteness.” Harvard Educational Review 67.2 (1997): 285-320.

Keating, AnnLouise. “Interrogating ‘Whiteness,’ (De)Constructing ‘Race.’ ” College English 57.8 (1995). 901-17.

Parks, Gordon. The Learning Tree. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Pratt, Mary Louise. “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Profession 91 (1991): 33-40.

Shome, Raka. “Race and Popular Cinema: The Rhetorical Strategies of Whiteness in City of Joy.” Communication Quarterly 44.4 (1996): 502-18.

Skorczewski, Dawn. “‘Everybody Has Their Own Ideas’: Responding to Clich� in Student Writing.” CCC 52.2 (2000): 220-239.

Abstract:

Writing instructors often identify clich�s as the weakest spots in student writing, but looking at students’ uses of clich� in context can teach us about their struggles to fashion new knowledge from what they already believe to be true. Most importantly, writing instructors who examine their responses to clich� (or any other “undesirable” aspect of student writing) can learn about the ways in which their pedagogical practices can deafen them to what students are trying to say.

Keywords:

ccc52.2 Students Cliche Writing Culture Essays Identity Pedagogy Response ContactZone Ideas Teachers

Works Cited

Anzaldúa, Gloria. ” La Conciencia de la Mestiza /Towards a New Consciousness.” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing, 3rd ed. Ed. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. Boston: Bedford, 1995. 434-43.

Bartholomae, David. “A Reply To Stephen North.” PRE/TEXT 11.1-2 (1990): 122-30.

—. “Inventing the University.” When a Writer Can’t Write: Studies in Writer’s Block and Other Composing Process Problems. Ed. Mike Rose. New York: Guildford, 1985. 134-65.

Coles, Nicholas, and Susan V. Wall. “Conflict and Power in the Reader-Responses of Adult Basic Writers.” College English 49 (1987): 298-314.

Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle, eds. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Boston: Bedford,1995.

Faigley, Lester. ” Judging Writing, Judging Selves .” CCC40 (1989): 395-412.

Harris, Joseph. “After Dartmouth: Growth and Conflict in English.” College English 53 (1991): 631-46.

Henderson, Mae Gwendolyn. “Speaking in Tongues: Dialogics, Dialectics, and the Black Woman Writer’s Literary Tradition.” Changing Our Own Words: Essays on Criticism, Theory, and Writing by Black Women. Ed. Cheryl Wall. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1989. 16-37.

James, William. “On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings: What Makes a Life Significant.” On Some of Life’s Ideals. New York: Holt, 1973. 5-10.

Kincaid, Jamaica. “Girl.” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing, 3rd ed. Ed. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. Boston: Bedford, 1995. 241-43.

Lu, Min-Zhan. “Conflict and Struggle: The Enemies or Preconditions of Basic Writing?” College English 54 (1992): 887-913.

Miller, Richard E. “Fault Lines in the Contact Zone.” College English 56 (1994): 389-408.

Newkirk, Thomas. The Performance of Self in Student Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook, 1997.

Ong, Walter J. “Literacy and Orality in Our Times.” ADE Bulletin 58 (1978): 1-7.

Peterson, Linda. ” Gender and the Autobiographical Essay: Research Perspectives, Pedagogical Practices .” CCC 42 (1981): 171-83.

Pratt, Mary Louise. “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers. 5th ed. Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky. Boston: St. Martin’s, 1999. 581-600.

Rich, Adrienne. “Notes Towards a Politics of Location.” Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose, 1979-1985. New York: Norton, 1986. 210-31.

Rodriguez, Richard. “The Achievement of Desire.” Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers. 5th ed. Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky. Boston: St. Martin’s, 1999. 621-42.

Rosendale, Laura Gray. “Cracks in the Contact Zone.” Questioning Authority: Stories Told in School. Ed. Linda Adler Kassner and Susanmarie Harrington. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, Forthcoming.

Sommer, Doris. ” ‘Not Just a Personal Story’: Women’s Testimonios and the Plural Self.” Writing Women’s Lives: An Anthology of Autobiographical Narratives by Twentieth Century Women Writers. Ed. Susan Cahill. NewYork: Harper, 1994. 107-30.

Spellmeyer, Kurt. Common Ground: Dialogue, Understanding, and the Teaching of Composition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.

Street, Brian. Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography, and Education. London: Longman, 1995.

Walker, Alice. “Beauty: When the Other Dancer Is the Self.” Fields of Writing: Readings Across the Disciplines, 4th ed. Ed. Nancy Comley et al. New York: St Martin’s, 1994. 46-53.

Wikan, Unni. Managing Turbulent Hearts: A Balinese Formula for Living. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1990.

Williams, Joseph M. “The Phenomenology of Error.” CCC32 (1981): 152-68.

Trimbur, John. “Composition and the Circulation of Writing.” CCC 52.2 (2000): 188-219.

Abstract:

Composition has neglected the circulation of writing by figuring classroom life as a middle-class family drama. Cultural studies approaches to teaching writing have sought, with mixed success, to transcend this domestic space. I draw on Marx’s Grundrisse for a conceptual model of how circulation materializes contradictory social relations and how the contradictions between exchange value and use value might be taken up in writing classrooms to expand public forums and popular participation in civic life.

Keywords:

ccc52.2 Writing Production Circulation KMarx Consumption UseValue ExchangeValue Distribution Students Family SHall Delivery Media Public

Works Cited

Angier, Natalie. “Fierce Competition Marked Fervid Race for Cancer Gene.” New York Times. 20 Sept. 1994: C1, C3.

—. “Scientists Identify a Mutant Gene Tied to Hereditary Breast Cancer.” New York Times. 15 Sept. 1994: A1, A16.

Balshem, Martha. Cancer in the Community : Class and Medical Authority. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1993.

Bartholomae, David. “Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow.” College Composition and Communication 46 (1995): 62-71.

Berlin, James A. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Urbana: NCTE, 1996.

Brandt, Allan M. No Magic Bullet: A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States since 1880. New York: Oxford UP, 1987.

Brody, Jane E. “Breast Cancer Awareness May Carry Its Own Risks.” New York Times. 7 Oct. 1997: F1, F10.

Brown, Brenda Gabioud. “Elocution.” Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition. Ed. Theresa Enos. New York: Garland, 1996. 211-14.

Butlin, Henry T. “Cancer of the Scrotum in Chimney Sweeps and Others: Why Foreign Sweeps Do Not Suffer from Scrotal Cancer.” British Medical Journal 2 (1892): 1-6.

Cohen, Stanley. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: Paladin, 1973.

Coontz, Stephanie. The Social Origins of Private Life: A History of American Families, 1600-1900. London: Verso, 1988.

Covino, William A. “Magic, Literacy, and the National Enquirer.” Contending with Words: Composition and Rhetoric in a Postmodern Age. Ed. Patricia Harkin and John Schilb. New York: MLA, 1991. 23-37.

Crowley, Sharon. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. New York: Macmillan, 1994.

Elbow, Peter. ” Being a Writer vs. Being an Academic: A Conflict in Goals .” College Composition and Communication 46 (1995): 72-83.

Epstein, Steven. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: U of California P, 1996.

Faigley, Lester. Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1992.

Fine, Michelle. “Sexuality, Schooling, and Adolescent Females: The Missing Discourse of Desire.” Harvard Educational Review 58 (1988): 29-53.

Fiske, John. Understanding Popular Culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989.

George, Diana, and John Trimbur. Reading Culture. 3rd ed. New York: Longman, 1999. Green, Jesse. “Flirting with Suicide.” New York Times Magazine. 15 Sept. 1996: 39-45, 54-55, 84-85.

Haas-Dyson, Anne. “Confronting the Split between ‘The Child’ and Children: Toward New Curricular Visions of The Child Writer.” English Education 26.1 (1994): 12-28.

Hall, Stuart. “Encoding/Decoding.” Culture, Media, Language. Ed. Stuart Hall et al. London: Hutchinson, 1980. 128-38.

—. “On Postmodernism and Articulation: An Interview with Stuart Hall.” Ed. Lawrence Grossberg. Journal of Communication Inquiry 10.2 (1986): 45-60.

Harris, Joseph, and Jay Rosen. Media Journal: Reading and Writing about Popular Culture. Allyn & Bacon, 1994.

Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen, 1979.

Herzberg, Bruce. ” Community Service and Critical Teaching .” College Composition and Communication 45 (1994): 307-19.

Hobson, Dorothy. Crossroads: The Drama of a Soap Opera. London: Methuen, 1982.

Johnson, Richard. “‘Really Useful Knowledge’: Radical Education and Working-Class Culture, 1790-1848.” Working Class Culture: Studies in History and Theory. Ed. John Clarke, Chas Critcher, and Richard Johnson. New York: St. Martin’s, 1979. 75-102.

—. “What Is Cultural Studies, Anyway?” Social Text 16 (1986-87): 38-80.

Lash, Scott, and John Urry. The End of Organized Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity, 1987.

Lerman, Caryn, et al. “BRCA1 Testing in Families with Hereditary Breast-Ovarian Cancer.” JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 275.24 (1996): 1885-92.

Lusted, David. “Feeding the Panic and Breaking the Cycle: ‘Popular TV and Schoolchildren.’ ” Screen 24.6 (1983): 81-93.

McGuigan, Jim. Cultural Populism. London: Routledge, 1992.

McRobbie, Angela. “Jackie: An Ideology of Adolescent Feminity.” Mass Communication Review Yearbook. Vol. 4. Ed. Ellen Wartella and D. Charles Whitney. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1983. 251-71.

Malle, Louis, dir. My Dinner with Andr�. 1981. Fox Lorber Home Video, 1988.

Marx, Karl. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. Trans. and Foreword Martin Nicolau. New York: Penguin, 1973.

Miki, Yoshio, et al. “A Strong Candidate for the Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Gene BRCA1.” Science 266 (1994): 66-71.

Miller, Susan. Textual Carnivals: The Politics of Composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.

Morley, Dave. The “Nationwide” Audience. London: British Film Institute, 1980.

Mortensen, Peter. ” Going Public .” College Composition and Communication 50 (1998): 182-205.

Odets, Walt. In the Shadow of the Epidemic: Being HIV-Negative in the Age of AIDS. Durham: Duke UP, 1995.

Radway, Janice A. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1984.

Schlesinger, Philip. Media, State and Nation: Political Violence and Collective Identities. London: Sage, 1991.

Steedman, Carolyn. Landscape for a Good Woman: A Story of Two Lives. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1986.

Wells, Susan. “Rogue Cops and Health Care: What Do We Want from Public Writing?” College Composition and Communication 47 (1996): 325-41.

Williams, Raymond. Communications. London: Penguin, 1962.

—. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1983.

Willis, Paul. Learning to Labor: How Working- Class Kids Get Working-Class Jobs. New York: Columbia UP, 1977.

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v51-4

Porter, James E., et. al. “Institutional Critique: A Rhetorical Methodology for Change.” CCC 51.4 (2000): 610-642.

Abstract:

We offer institutional critique as an activist methodology for changing institutions. Since institutions are rhetorical entities, rhetoric can be deployed to change them. In its effort to counter oppressive institutional structures, the field of rhetoric and composition has focused its attention chiefly on the composition classroom, on the department of English, and on disciplinary forms of critique. Our focus shifts the scene of action and argument to professional writing and to public discourse, using spatial methods adapted from postmodern geography and critical theory.

Keywords:

ccc51.4 BraddockAward InstitutionalCritique Change Activism Spatial Action University Mapping PostmodernGeography Material Institution

Works Cited

Benhabib, Seyla. Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Berlin, James A., and Michael J. Vivion, eds. Cultural Studies in the English Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann- Boynton/Cook, 1992.

B�rub�, Michael. The Employment of English: Theory, Jobs, and the Future of Literary Studies. New York: New York UP, 1998.

Blyler, Nancy Roundy, and Charlotte Thralls, eds. Professional Communication: The Social Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993.

Blythe, Stuart. “Institutional Critique, Postmodern Mapping, and the Department of English.” Conference on College Composition and Communication, March 1998, Chicago, IL.

—. Technologies and Writing Center Practices: A Critical Approach. Diss. Purdue U, 1997.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Homo Academicus. Trans. Peter Collier. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990.

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Trans. Richard Nice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.

Clark, Gregory, and Stephen Doheny-Farina. “Public Discourse and Personal Expression.” Written Communication 7 (1990): 456-81.

Clifford, John, and John Schilb, eds. Writing Theory and Critical Theory. New York: MLA, 1994.

Council of Writing Program Administrators. “Evaluating the Intellectual Work of Writing Administration.” Writing Program Administration 22 (1998): 85-104.

Cushman, Ellen. “Critical Literacy and Institutional Language.” Research in the Teaching of English 33 (1999): 245-74.

—. “The Rhetorician as an Agent of Social Change.” College Composition and Communication 47 (1996): 7-28.

—. The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community. Albany: SUNY P, 1998.

de Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.

Downing, David B., ed. Changing Classroom Practices: Resources for Literary and Cultural Studies. Urbana: NCTE, 1994.

Downing, David B., and James J. Sosnoski, eds. “Cultural Studies and Composition: Conversations in Honor of James Berlin (Special Issue).” Works and Days 14 (1996).

DuBois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Vintage Books, 1990.

Duin, Ann Hill, and Craig J. Hansen, eds. Nonacademic Writing: Social Theory and Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.

Flower, Linda S., and John R. Hayes. “Problem- Solving Strategies and the Writing Process.” College English 39 (1977): 449-61.

Foucault, Michel. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics 16 (1986): 22-27.

—. “Space, Knowledge, Power.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon, 1984. 239-56.

—. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1979.

Gere, Anne Ruggles, ed. Into the Field: Sites of Composition Studies. New York: MLA, 1993.

Giddens, Anthony. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.

Giroux, Henry A. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1983.

Goffman, Erving. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1961.

Grabill, Jeffrey T. Situating Literacies and Community Literacy Programs: A Critical Rhetoric for Institutional Change. Diss. Purdue U, 1997.

Hansen, Kristine. “Face to Face with Part- Timers: Ethics and the Professionalization of Writing Faculties.” Janangelo and Hansen 23-45.

Haraway, Donna. “AManifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s.” Reprinted in Feminism/ Postmodernism. Ed. Linda J. Nicholson. New York: Routledge, 1990. 190-233.

Harvey, David. Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1996.

Horkheimer, Max. Critical Theory: Selected Essays. Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell et al. New York: Herder and Herder, 1972.

Hurlbert, C. Mark, and Michael Blitz, eds. Composition & Resistance. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook, 1991.

Janangelo, Joseph. “Theorizing Difference and Negotiating Differends: (Un)naming Writing Programs: Many Complexities and Strengths.” Janangelo and Hansen 3-22.

Janangelo, Joseph, and Kristine Hansen, eds. Resituating Writing: Constructing and Administering Writing Programs. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook, 1995.

Kinneavy, James L. A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse. New York: Norton, 1971.

Lather, Patti. Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern. New York: Routledge, 1991.

Lauer, Janice M. “The Feminization of Rhetoric and Composition Studies?” Rhetoric Review 13 (1995): 276-86.

Leitch, Vincent B. Cultural Criticism, Literary Theory, Poststructuralism. New York: Columbia UP, 1992.

Lewis, Magda. “Interrupting Patriarchy: Politics, Resistance and Transformation in the Feminist Classroom.” Luke and Gore 167-91.

Luke, Carmen, and Jennifer Gore, eds. Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Maher, Frances A., and Mary Kay Thompson Tetreault. The Feminist Classroom. New York: Basic Books, 1994.

Massey, Doreen B. Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1994.

—. Spatial Divisions of Labor: Social Structures and the Geography of Production. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1995.

McLeod, Susan. “The Foreigner: WAC Directors as Agents of Change.” Janangelo and Hansen 108-16.

Miles, Elizabeth. Building Rhetorics of Production: An Institutional Critique of Composition Textbook Publishing. Diss. Purdue U, 1999.

MLA Commission on Professional Service. “Making Faculty Work Visible: Reinterpreting Professional Service, Teaching, and Research in the Fields of Language and Literature.” Profession ’96 (1996): 161-216.

Nelson, Cary. “How to Reform the MLA: An Opening Proposal.” Profession ’96 (1996): 44-49.

Odell, Lee, and Dixie Goswami, eds. Writing in Nonacademic Settings. New York: Guilford P, 1985.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Becoming a Warrior: Lessons of the Feminist Workplace.” Feminine Principles and Women’s Experience in American Composition and Rhetoric. Eds. Louise Wetherbee Phelps and Janet Emig. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1995. 289-339.

—. Composition as a Human Science: Contributions to the Self-Understanding of a Discipline. New York: Oxford UP, 1988.

Porter, James E. Rhetorical Ethics and Internetworked Writing. Greenwich: Ablex, 1998.

Reynolds, Nedra. ” Composition’s Imagined Geographies: The Politics of Space in the Frontier, City, and Cyberspace .” College Composition and Communication 50 (1998): 12-35.

Roen, Duane. “Writing Administration as Scholarship and Teaching.” Academic Advancement in Composition Studies: Scholarship, Publication, Promotion, Tenure. Ed. Richard C. Gebhardt and Barbara Genelle Smith Gebhardt. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997. 43-56.

Rose, Gillian. Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993.

Schuster, Charles I. “Foreword.” Janangelo and Hansen ix-xiv.

Sibley, David. Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in the West. London: Routledge, 1995.

Soja, Edward W. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1996.

Sosnoski, James J. Token Professionals and Master Critics: A Critique of Orthodoxy in Literary Studies. Albany: SUNY P, 1994.

Sosnoski, James J., and David B. Downing. “A Multivalent Pedagogy for a Multicultural Time: A Diary of a Course.” Pretext 14 (1993): 307-40.

Spilka, Rachel, ed. Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1993.

Stanley, Liz. “Feminist Praxis and the Academic Mode of Production: An Editorial Introduction.” Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory, and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. Ed. Liz Stanley. London: Routledge, 1990. 3-19.

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

Sullivan, Patricia, and Jennie Dautermann, eds. Electronic Literacies in the Workplace: Technologies of Writing. Urbana: NCTE/Computers and Composition, 1996.

Sullivan, Patricia, and James E. Porter. “Remapping Curricular Geography: Professional Writing in/and English.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 7 (1993): 389-422.

—. Opening Spaces: Writing Technologies and Critical Research Practices. Greenwich: Ablex, 1997.

Swales, John. Other Floors, Other Voices: A Textography of a Small University Building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998.

The WPA Executive Committee. “Evaluating the Intellectual Work of Writing Program Administrators: A Draft.” Writing Program Administrator 20 (1996): 92-103.

Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990.

Bacon, Nora. “Building a Swan’s Nest for Instruction in Rhetoric.” CCC 51.4 (2000): 589-609.

Abstract:

When a composition teacher incorporated community-based writing assignments into her course, she found that the curriculum did not support students’ transitions to nonacademic settings. Her success in transforming the curriculum suggests that the writing classroom can function not only as a site for “general writing skills instruction” but also for analysis of rhetorical variation.

Keywords:

ccc51.4 Students Writing Texts Community Curriculum NonAcademic Audience Course

Works Cited

Adler-Kassner, Linda, Robert Crooks, and Ann Watters, eds. Writing the Community: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Composition . Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education, 1997.

Anderson, Worth, Cynthia Best, Alycia Black, John Hurst, Brandt Miller, and Susan Miller. ” Cross-Curricular Underlife: A Collaborative Report on Ways with Academic Words .” College Composition and Communication 41 (1990): 11-36.

Anson, Chris M., and L. Lee Forsberg. “Moving Beyond the Academic Community: Transitional Stages in Professional Writing.” Written Communication 7 (1990): 200-31.

Bacon, Nora. “Student Writers in the Real World.” Experiential Education (Oct. 1990): 8+.

Bizzell, Patricia. “College Composition: Initiation into the Academic Discourse Community.” Curriculum Inquiry 12 (1982): 191-207.

Broadhead, Glenn J., and Richard C. Freed . The Variables of Composition: Process and Product in a Business Setting. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1986.

Connors, Robert. “The New Abolitionism: Toward a Historical Background.” Petraglia 3-26.

Deans, Thomas. Writing Partnerships: Service-Learning in Rhetoric and Composition . Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, in press.

Doheny-Farina, Stephen. “Writing in an Emerging Organization: An Ethnographic Study.” Written Communication 3 (1986): 158-85.

Ede, Lisa. Work in Progress: A Guide to Writing and Revising. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1996.

Faigley, Lester. “Nonacademic Writing: The Social Perspective.” Odell and Goswami 231-48.

Faigley, Lester, and Kristine Hansen. “Learning to Write in the Social Sciences.” College Composition and Communication 36 (1985): 140-49.

Fulkerson, Richard. ” Composition Theory in the Eighties: Axiological Consensus and Paradigmatic Diversity .” College Composition and Communication 41 (1990): 409-29.

Heilker, Paul. “Rhetoric Made Real: Civil Discourse and Writing Beyond the Curriculum.” Adler-Kassner, Crooks, and Watters 71-76.

Herrington, Anne J. “Writing in Academic Settings: A Study of the Contexts for Writing in Two College Chemical Engineering Courses.” Research in the Teaching of English 19 (1985): 331-59.

Hill, Charles A., and Lauren Resnick. “Creating Opportunities for Apprenticeship in Writing.” Petraglia 145-58.

Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.

Matalene, Carolyn B., ed. Worlds of Writing: Teaching and Learning in Discourse Communities of Work. New York: Random House, 1989.

Odell, Lee, and Dixie Goswami, eds. Writing in Nonacademic Settings. New York: Guilford P, 1985.

Petraglia, Joseph, ed. Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995.

Rivers, William E. “From the Garret to the Fishbowl: Thoughts on the Transition from Literary to Technical Writing.” Matalene 64-79.

Rogoff, Barbara. “Introduction: Thinking and Learning in Social Context.” Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context. Ed. Barbara Rogoff and Jean Lave. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1984. 1-8.

Watters, Ann, and Marjorie Ford. Writing for Change: A Community Reader. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

Zimmerman, Muriel, and Hugh Marsh. “Storyboarding an Industrial Proposal: A Case Study of Teaching and Producing Writing.” Matalene 203-21.

Gleason, Barbara. “Evaluating Writing Programs in Real Time: The Politics of Remediation.” CCC 51.4 (2000): 560-588.

Abstract:

A case study of the evaluation of a three-year pilot project in mainstreaming basic writers at City College of New York suggests that the social and political contexts of a project need to be taken into account in the earliest stages of evaluation. This project’s complex evaluation report was virtually ignored by college administrators.

Keywords:

ccc51.4 Students Writing Evaluation Courses Remedial BasicWriting Mainstreaming Research Politics

Works Cited

Adams, Peter Dow. “Basic Writing Reconsidered.” Journal of Basic Writing 12 (1993): 22-36.

Adelman, Clifford. New College Course Map and Transcript Files: Changes in Course- Taking and Achievement, 1972-1993. U.S. Department of Education Report, 1995. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Arenson, Karen. “With New Admissions Policy, CUNY Steps Into the Unknown.” The New York Times 28 May 1998: A1.

Astin, Alexander W. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.

Baker, Tracey, and Peggy Jolly. “The ‘Hard Evidence’: Documenting the Effectiveness of a Basic Writing Program.” Journal of Basic Writing 18 (1999): 27-39.

Barry, Dan. “For Assemblyman, Hearing Turns Into Night in a Jail Cell.” The New York Times 28 May 1998: B6.

Bartholomae, David. “The Tidy House: Basic Writing in the American Curriculum.” Journal of Basic Writing 12 (1993): 4-21.

Bartholomae, David, and Anthony Petrosky, eds. Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts: Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course. Upper Montclair, NJ: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook, 1986.

Buettner, Russ. “Few at Hostos Pass HS Level English Exam.” Daily News 17 September 1997: 8.

—. “CCNY’s Fall from Grace.” Daily News 23 November 1997: 28-29.

CCCC Committee on Assessment. “Writing Assessment: A Position Statement.” College Composition and Communication 46 (1995): 430-37.

City Facts 1998-1999. City College of New York Office of Institutional Research, 3.

Crain, William, and Barbara Gleason. “Skills Tests Block Opportunity at CUNY.” The Knowledge Factory. Official Newsletter of the CCNY chapter of the PSC-CUNY Dec.-Jan. 1997: 57. Rpt. in The New York Amsterdam News 11 Dec.-17 Dec. 1997: 13, 30.

Crowley, Sharon. “A Personal Essay on Freshman English.” PreText 12 (1991): 156-76.

Davis, Barbara Gross, Michael Scriven, and Susan Thomas. The Evaluation of Composition Instruction. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College P, 1987.

Dougherty, Kevin. The Contradictory College: The Conflicting Origins, Impacts, and Futures of the Community College. Albany: SUNY P, 1994.

Elbow, Peter, and Pat Belanoff. “State University of New York at Stony Brook Portfolio-based Evaluation Program.” Portfolios: Process and Product. Eds. Pat Belanoff and Marcia Dickson. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann- Boynton/Cook, 1991. 3-16.

Englehard, George, Jr., Belita Gordon, and Stephen Gabrielson. “The Influences of Mode of Discourse, Experiential Demand, and Gender on the Quality of Student Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 26 (1992): 315-36.

Gilyard, Keith. Report on the FIPSE Enrichment Approach Pilot Project at The City College of The City University of New York. February 1997.

—. Voices of the Self: A Study of Language Competence. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1991.

Gleason, Barbara. “Something of Great Constancy: Storytelling, Story Writing, and Academic Literacy.” Attending to the Margins: Writing, Researching, and Teaching on the Front Lines. Eds. Michelle Hall Kells and Valerie Balester. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/ Cook, 1999. 97-113.

—. “When the Writing Test Fails: Assessing Assessment at an Urban College.” Writing in Multicultural Settings. Eds. Carol Severino, Juan C. Guerra, and Johnella E. Butler. New York: MLA, 1997. 307-24.

Gleason, Barbara, and Mary Soliday. The City College Writing Program: An Enrichment Approach to Language and Literacy. FIPSE Application Proposal No. P116A30689. 3 March 1993.

—. The City College Writing Program: An Enrichment Approach to Language and Literacy: Three Year Pilot Project, 1993-1996, Final Report. FIPSE Grant No. P116A30689. May 1997.

Gonzalez, David. “History Moves a Professor to Protest.” The New York Times 30 May 1998: B1.

Grego, Rhonda, and Nancy Thompson. “Repositioning Remediation.” College Composition and Communication 47 (1996): 62-84.

Groden, Suzy Q. Evaluation Report of “An Enrichment Approach to Language and Learning” at The City College of The City University of New York: Year One of a Three-Year FIPSE Pilot Project. November 1994.

Groden, Suzy, Eleanor Kutz, and Vivan Zamel. “Students as Ethnographers: Investigating Language Use as a Way to Learn to Use Language.” The Writing Instructor 6 (1987): 132-140.

Guba, Egon G., and Yvonne S. Lincoln. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989.

Hairston, Maxine. “What Freshman Directors Need to Know about Evaluating Writing Programs.” WPA: Writing Program Administration 3 (1979): 11-16.

Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. New York: Cambridge UP, 1983.

Herbert, Bob. “Cleansing CUNY.” The New York Times 28 May 1998: A29.

“Hostos Victory a CUNY Failure.” Daily News 16 July 1997: 32.

Janger, Matthew. A Statistical Analysis of Student Progress and Achievement in the Pilot Writing Project at City College of New York. May 1997.

Kutz, Eleanor, Suzy Q. Groden, and Vivian Zamel. The Discovery of Competence: Teaching and Learning with Diverse Student Writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook, 1993.

Lavin,David E., Richard D. Alba, and Richard A. Silberstein. Right Versus Privilege: The Open Admissions Experiment at the City University of New York. New York: Free P, 1981.

Lavin, David E., and David Hyllegard. Changing the Odds: Open Admissions and the Life Chances of the Disadvantaged. New Haven: Yale UP, 1996.

Lavin, David E., and Elliot Weininger. New Admissions Policy & Changing Access to CUNY’s Senior and Community Colleges: What are the Stakes? Prepared for Higher Education Committee, The New York City Council. CUNY Graduate School and University Center. May 1999.

Leo, John. “A University’s Sad Decline.” U.S. News and World Report. 15 August 1994: 20.

Lindemann, Erika. “Evaluating Writing Programs: What an Outside Evaluator Looks For.” WPA:Writing Program Administration 3 (1979): 17-24.

MacDonald, Heather. “Downward Mobility: The Failure of Open Admissions at City University.” City Journal Summer 1994: 10-20.

McCormick, Frank, and Chris McCormick. “The Basic Writing Course at Eastern Illinois University: An Evaluation of Its Effectiveness.” WPA: Writing Program Administration 10 (1986): 61-65.

McCourt, Frank. “Hope and Education.” The New York Times 21 May 1998: A33.

Otheguy, Ricardo. The Condition of Latinos in the City University of New York; A Report to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and to the Puerto Rican Council on Higher Education. June 1990.

Pattison, Robert. On Literacy: The Politics of the Word from Homer to the Age of Rock. New York: Oxford UP, 1982.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “The Institutional Logic of Writing Programs: Catalyst, Laboratory, and Pattern for Change.” The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary. Eds. Richard H. Bullock and John Trimbur. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/ Cook, 1991. 155-70.

Presley, John. “Evaluating Developmental English Programs in Georgia.” WPA: Writing Program Administration 8 (1984): 47-56.

Purves, Alan C. “Apologia Not Accepted.” College Composition and Communication 46 (1995): 549-51.

Purvis, Teresa M. “The Two-Year Community College: Into the 21st Century.” College Composition and Communication 46 (1995): 557-65.

Rodby, Judith. “Revising a First-Year Writing Program: Cultural Studies Workshops Replace Basic Writing.” Conference in College Composition and Communication, Washington D.C., March 1995.

Rose, Mike. “Remedial Writing Courses: A Critique and a Proposal.” College English 45 (1983): 109-28.

—. “The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University.” College English 47 (1985): 341-59.

Royer, Daniel J., and Roger Gilles. “Directed Self-Placement: An Attitude of Orientation.” College Composition and Communication 50(1998): 54-70.

Shaughnessy, Mina. “Open Admissions and the Disadvantaged Teacher.” College Composition and Communication 24 (1973): 401-04.

Soliday, Mary. “Translating Self and Difference through Literacy Narratives.” College English 56 (1994): 511-26.

Soliday, Mary, and Barbara Gleason. “From Remediation to Enrichment: Evaluating a Mainstreaming Project.” Journal of Basic Writing 16 (1997): 64-78.

Staples, Brent. “Blocking Promising Students from City University.” The New York Times 26 May 1998: A20.

Sternglass, Marilyn S. Time to Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.

Traub, James. “Annals of Education: Class Struggle.” The New Yorker 20 September 1994: 76-90.

—. City on a Hill: Testing the American Dream at City College. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994.

Ward, Marc. “Myths about College English as a Second Language.” Chronicle of Higher Education 26 September 1997.

Watson, Judith. CUNY Remediation/ESL Backgrounder. CUNY Board of Trustees Office. Undated manuscript.

White, Edward. “Apologia for the Timed Impromptu Essay Test.” College Composition and Communication 46 (1995): 30-45.

—. Developing Successful College Writing Programs. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1989.

Wiener, Jon. “School Daze.” Review of City on a Hill by James Traub. The Nation 7 November 1994: 522.

“Will Hostos Ever Learn?” Daily News 22 September 1997: 24.

Witte, Stephen, and Lester Faigley. Evaluating College Writing Programs. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP. 1983.

Comfort, Juanita Rodgers. “Becoming a Writerly Self: College Writers Engaging Black Feminist Essays.” CCC 51.4 (2000): 540-559.

Abstract:

This article asserts that personal essays by black feminist writers such as June Jordan might be used to teach first-year and advanced student writers how to connect their personal and social identities in ways that will enhance the rhetorical impact of their writing while transcending mere “confession” or self-indulgence.

Keywords:

ccc51.4 JJordan AfricanAmerican Feminism Personal Writers Students Essay Women Essay Identity

Works Cited

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge, 1990.

Crowley, Sharon. A Teacher’s Introduction to Deconstruction. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1989.

Drew, Julie. “Cultural Composition: Stuart Hall on Ethnicity and the Discursive Turn.” JAC 18 (1998): 171-96.

Forman, Janis, ed. What Do I Know: Reading, Writing, and Teaching the Essay. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook, 1996.

Halloran, S. Michael. “On the End of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern.” Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook. Eds. Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Blair/Prentice, 1994. 331-43.

Harris, Wendell. “Reflections on the Peculiar Status of the Personal Essay.” College English 58 (1996): 934-53.

Harvey, Gordon. “Presence in the Essay.” College English 56 (1994): 642-54.

hooks, bell. Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End, 1992.

Jordan, June. “Requiem for the Champ.” Technical Difficulties: African-American Notes on the State of the Union. Ed. June Jordan. New York: Vintage/Random, 1994. 221-26.

Kirsch, Gesa E., and Joy S. Ritchie. ” Beyond the Personal: Theorizing a Politics of Location in Composition Research .” College Composition and Communication 46 (1995): 7-29.

Kitzinger, Celia. “Liberal Humanism as an Ideology of Social Control: The Regulation of Lesbian Identities.” Shotter and Gergen 83-98.

Mittlefehldt, Pamela Klass. “AWeaponry of Choice: Black American Women Writers and the Essay.” Politics of the Essay: Feminist Perspectives. Eds. Ruth- Ellen Boetcher Joeres and Elizabeth Mittman. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1993. 196-208.

Morrison, Toni. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1992.

Murray, Kevin. “Construction of Identity in the Narratives of Romance and Comedy.” Shotter and Gergen 177-205.

Shotter, John, and Kenneth J. Gergen. Texts of Identity. London: Sage, 1989.

Spellmeyer, Kurt. “A Common Ground: The Essay in the Academy.” College English 51 (1989): 262-76.

West, Cornell. “The New Cultural Politics of Difference.” October 53 (Summer 1990): 93-109.