Author: ksuchor

Conference on College Composition and Communication
June 2021

Executive Summary

White language supremacy (WLS) is an implement to white supremacy, particularly within educational institutions. Contextualized within present exigencies, antiracist educators must work alongside students, communities, and institutions to push for the dismantling of WLS because of its deleterious effects on Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), domination and dehumanization of all people, and its detrimental effects to our environment and its resources. This statement provides a working definition of WLS as an apparatus of white supremacy and a general description of its ideological characteristics and manifestations with regard to language and literacy instruction. The statement provides a brief background on the field’s work for social change and recommended critical theoretical frames for praxis.

Part One: General Statement

Purpose

This statement on white language supremacy (WLS) reflects our field’s commitment to linguistic justice for our BIPOC students and their communities, and our dedication to work as coconspirators against white supremacist practices. Our goal as critical anti-WLS educators is to dismantle WLS in our field and in ourselves. The work involves advocating for the defunding of deficit-based racist research, and of racist ideologies of learning, teaching, testing, and evaluation of teachers and students. Historically, the WLS industrial complex has contributed to the lucrative enrichment of individual scholars and fields of language and literacy studies (e.g., sociolinguistics; see Rickford, 1999) while the so-called racial achievement exploitation gap has remained (Ladson-Billings, 2006).

Definition

WLS is a tool of white supremacy. Because white supremacy is obscured and often misunderstood as applying only to white radical groups, we provide an extended definition to illuminate and address this vast system and the role of WLS. White supremacy is

a sociopolitical economic system of domination based on racial categories that benefits those defined and perceived as white. This system of structural power privileges, centralizes, and elevates white people as a group (DiAngelo, 2018, 30).

Further,

…[The] United States is a global power, and through movies and mass media, corporate culture, advertising, US-owned manufacturing, military presence, historical colonial relations, missionary work, and other means [including education], white supremacy is circulated globally. This powerful ideology promotes the idea of whiteness as the ideal for humanity well beyond the West (DiAngelo, 2018, 29).

WLS assists white supremacy by using language to control reality and resources by defining and evaluating people, places, things, reading, writing, rhetoric, pedagogies, and processes in multiple ways that damage our students and our democracy. It imposes a worldview that is simultaneously pro-white, cisgender, male, heteronormative, patriarchal, ableist, racist, and capitalist (Inoue, 2019b; Pritchard, 2017). This worldview structures WLS as the default condition in schools, academic disciplines, professions, media, and society at large. WLS is, thus, structural and usually a part of the standard operating procedures of classrooms, disciplines, and professions. This means that WLS is a condition that assumes its worldview as the normative one that allegedly everyone has access to regardless of their cultural, social, or language histories (Inoue, 2021). WLS perpetuates many forms of systemic and structural violence.

Characteristics

A major characteristic of WLS is its seemingly colorblind nature, however tacit, that shapes aesthetics, epistemologies, attitudes, ideologies, and discourses that structure social arrangements, relations, practices, and policies that reinforce white power structures to the detriment of BIPOC and minoritized people.

Characteristics of the ideology of white supremacist capitalistic-based [language and] literacy include consumption, consent, obedience, fragmentation, singularity (as opposed to multiplicity), [binary logic], and positivism. The educational practices associated with this [white formation] of [language and] literacy are naturalized in the system and taught to students as a set of isolated skills divorced from social context, politics, culture, and power (Street, 1993). Teaching standardized English, a narrowly conceived academic discourse, and their cousin, the “academic essay,” are examples of the “neutral skills” needed to succeed in the corporate educational system and the market driven capitalistic society (J. Berlin, 1996). The viewpoint of official educational sites and institutions is that students/good citizens need these skills to function in society. (Richardson, 2003, p. 9)

Colorblindness is akin to another major characteristic of WLS, the ideology of individualism as it works with meritocracy to disguise the role of language in racial capitalism and legitimize the failure of whole groups of BIPOC by pointing to exceptional individuals who, for example, learned to be “articulate while Black” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012), or who transcended their “cultural handicaps” to acquire white middle-class social goods. Those who espouse liberal, individualistic, and white supremacist politics are not involved in a project of critical social justice movement or critical socially just language and literacy education. “Living passively with the status quo, maintaining what those with political and economic power deem acceptable is a survival tactic for many. Others use the status quo actively, to seek to gain from oppression of others” (Carruthers, 2018, p. 8). It is important that educators develop ideological clarity and understand the urgent need for social change and their role in it.

There are at least six habits of white language that often create the conditions of WLS. The first habit is always present in WLS and is required. It works with one or more of the other five habits to create conditions that are WLS. These habits of white language (HOWL) are:

• Unseen, naturalized orientation to the world
• Hyperindividualism
• Stance of neutrality, objectivity, and apoliticality
• Individualized, rational, controlled self
• Rule-governed, contractual relationships
• Clarity, order, and control (Inoue, 2019a; 2019c; 2021)

Brief Selected Background on CCCC’s Work for Language and Social Equality and Ways Forward

Largely, BIPOC have battled WLS in their struggle for self-definition, self-determination, and social transformation (e.g., Kynard, 2007; Mao & Young, 2008; King et al., 2015; Baca et al., 2019; Inoue 2015). Antiracist and anti-WLS coconspirator educators have sought to facilitate students’ right to their own language and critical literacy awareness approaches (e.g., CCCC Students’ Right to Their Own Language [SRTOL], 1974; CCCC National Language Policy, 1988, 1992, 2015; Smitherman, 1999; Richardson, 2003; Smitherman & Villanueva, 2003; Kynard, 2008; Winn & Behizadeh, 2011; Hoang, 2015). SRTOL was forged in the political backdrop of the Civil Rights, Black Power, and other liberation movements worldwide to provide “open access” for racially and linguistically oppressed groups. SRTOL has served as a cornerstone of some of the most critical language policy moments, from the 1977 Ann Arbor “Black English” case, the creation of the National Language Policy (1988), the 1996 Oakland Ebonics Resolution, and various movements against “English First” or the “English Only” movements that limit access to bilingual education. To be sure, even though Latinx populations were the target in Arizona in outlawing Chicano Studies as well as bilingual education, English-Only has massively harmed American Indians there. The CCCC’s Language Policy Committee (LPC) also initiated the 1986 “Resolution on English and ‘English Only,’” with the LPC joining the English-Plus Movement and its Information Clearinghouse in 1987 (Villanueva, 2014). In today’s climate of neo-lynching in the form of “stand your ground” and police brutality, continued desecration of Native Americans’ sacred lands, and hatred of African Americans, Latinx, Asians, Native Americans, and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, antiracist language and literacy educators must be vigilant and aware.

Educators, at the middle school level, should be wary of colorblind approaches to youth (language) development at the expense of evading issues of power. As Caldera & Babino (2019) admonish, teaching about WLS is moving toward culturally sustaining instruction. At the college level, Institutional Freshman English (Kynard, 2008), basic writing (Gilyard & Richardson, 2001), Spoken English (for those deemed nonnative speakers), and other social arrangements are part of institutional practices that reproduce “advantages and benefits for some, and discrimination, oppression, and disadvantages for others” (Lyiscott, 2019). Labeling BIPOC students’ languages, lives, and identities as lifelong English learners, heritage language learners, and Standard English learners points to the raciolinguistic othering of US Latinx, Native Americans [labeled semilingual], World English speakers [labeled second-language learners], and Ebonics speakers [labeled as nonstandard] whose dynamic language practices do not fit monolingual white ideologies (Flores & Rosa, 2015). We must be attuned to the workings of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) and how labels indicate power differentials and hierarchies and oppressive [educational] practices that must be interrogated and challenged: remedial readers, developmental writers, nonnative English speakers, ESL learners, limited English proficient (LEP) [aka LEPERS], low-income, first generation, undocumented, international students, immigrant students, historically underserved. As the authors of “This Ain’t Another Statement: This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice!” express, our field has produced many important statements expressing legitimacy of diverse students’ languages and lives. Most forcefully in the wake of the George Floyd murder by Minneapolis police, our field cannot ignore the decades of research legitimizing Black language, and must continue to produce statements of solidarity stating that Black lives and Black languages matter; we must DEMAND and work to implement Black Linguistic Justice (Baker-Bell, 2020). Similarly, we must DEMAND the same for Indigenous, Brown, and all people of color.

Approaches for Social Change

Critical language awareness (CLA) approaches assist the profession and students in interrogating and challenging the sociopolitical arrangement of WLS and “[foregrounds] … the examination of interconnectedness of identities, ideologies, histories/herstories, and the hierarchical nature of power relations between groups” (Alim, 2005, p. 28). As anti-WLS educators, we strive to collaborate with communities through our teaching “for sweeping social change” (Sledd, 1969, p. 1315). Linguistic change is the effect and not the cause of social change.

Tenets of Black Lives Matter, critical race theory–informed, decolonial, culturally responsive, antiracist, and race-radical literacies urge us to name and label the structural violence of the institutions that are working against BIPOC students (Kynard, 2018; Ruiz & Sanchez, 2019; Saeedi & Richardson, 2020; Baker-Bell, 2020). As Pritchard’s (2017, pp. 245–246) work in Black queer literacies teaches us, we are all complicit in the harms of normativity by our institutions and the human condition. Yet, Pritchard points us toward hope in language and literate acts “of self- and communal love that contributes to broader quests for social and political change to disrupt normativity.”

Largely, our profession’s pedagogies and assessment practices of linguistic diversity and inclusion have tried to fit students and faculty of all backgrounds into existing oppressive structures. Instead, we must push to dismantle all systems rooted in WLS and advocate for investment in BIPOC communities as we work toward liberatory languages and systems that honor the full humanity and equality of all people.

Resolution

We reaffirm our commitments to linguistic diversity and to the multiple languages and linguistic histories of our students and communities and, further, affirm a commitment to the dismantling of all systems of oppression, with the understanding of the central role of WLS in the formation of unconscious and conscious biases. We recognize the role of WLS as a tool of oppression and resolve that as coconspirators in one another’s multiple struggles, including those of our students, we are responsible for challenging and uprooting WLS and pursuing and practicing a present and future that places liberatory languages and systems as central to our collective work.

References

Alim, H. S. (2005). Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting the issues and revising pedagogies in a resegregated society. Educational Researcher, 34(7), 24–31.

Alim, H. S., & Smitherman, G. (2012). Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, language, and race in the U. S. Oxford University Press.

Baca, I., Hinojosa, Y., & Murphy, S. (Eds.). (2019). Bordered writers: Latinx identities and literacy practices at Hispanic-serving institutions. SUNY Press.

Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge and NCTE.

Caldera, A., & Babino, A. (2019). Moving toward culturally sustaining instruction that resists white language supremacy. National Journal of Middle Grades Reform, 5, 9–15.

Carruthers, C. A. (2018). Unapologetic: A Black, queer, and feminist mandate for radical movements. Beacon Press.

CCCC Special Committee on Composing a CCCC Statement on Anti-Black Racism and Black Linguistic Justice, Or, Why We Cain’t Breathe! (2020). This Ain’t Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice! Conference on College Composition and Communication. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/demand-for-black-linguistic-justice

Committee on CCCC Language Statement. (1974). Students’ right to their own language [Special issue]. CCC 25(3).

Conference on College Composition and Communication. (1988; updated 1992; revised 2015). CCCC Guideline on the National Language Policy. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/nationallangpolicy

DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. Beacon Press.

Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.

Gilyard, K., & Richardson, E. (2001). Students’ right to possibility: Basic writing and African American rhetoric. In A. Greenbaum (Ed.), Insurrections: Approaches to resistance in composition studies (pp. 37–51). SUNY Press.

Hoang, H. (2015). Writing against racial injury: The politics of Asian American student rhetoric. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Inoue, A. (2015). Antiracist writing assessment ecologies: Teaching and assessing writing for a socially just future. WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.

Inoue, A. (2019a). Classroom writing assessment as an antiracist practice: Confronting white supremacy in the judgments of language. Pedagogy, 9(3), 373–404.

Inoue, A. (2019b). How do we language so people stop killing each other, or What do we do about white language supremacy? CCC, 71(2), 352–369.

Inoue, A. (2019c). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado.

Inoue, A. (2021). Above the well: An antiracist argument from a boy of color. WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado.

King, L., Gubele, R., & Rain Anderson, J. (Eds.). (2015). Survivance, sovereignty and story: Teaching American Indian rhetorics. Utah State University Press.

Kynard, C. (2007). “I want to be African”: In search of a Black radical tradition/African-American-vernacularized paradigm for “Students’ Right to Their Own Language,” critical literacy, and “Class Politics.” College English, 69(4), 360–390.

Kynard, C. (2008). Writing while Black: The colour line, Black discourses and assessment in the institutionalization of writing instruction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 7(2), 4–34.

Kynard, C. (2018). Stayin’ woke: Race radical literacies in the makings of a higher education. CCC, 69(3), 519–529.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.

Lyiscott, J. (2019). Black appetite. White food. Issues of race, voice, and justice within and beyond the classroom. Routledge.

Mao, L., & Young, M. (Eds.). (2008). Representations: Doing Asian American rhetoric. University of Colorado Press.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Pritchard, E. (2017). Fashioning lives: Black queers and the politics of literacy. Southern Illinois University Press.

Richardson, E. (2003). African American literacies. Routledge.

Rickford, J. R. (1999). African American vernacular English: Features, evolution, educational implications. Blackwell Publishers.

Ruiz, I., & Sanchez, R. (2019). Decolonial rhetoric and composition studies: New Latinx keywords for theory and pedagogy. Palgrave MacMillan.

Saeedi, S., & Richardson, E. (2020). A Black Lives Matter and critical race theory–informed critique of code-switching pedagogy. In V. Kinloch, C. Penn, & T. Burghart (Eds.), Race, justice, and activism in literacy instruction. Teachers College Press.

Sledd, J. (1969). Bi-dialectalism: The linguistics of white supremacy. English Journal, 58(9), 1307–1315+1329.

Smitherman, G. (1999). CCCC’s role in the struggle for language rights. CCC, 50(3), 349–376.

Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V. (Eds.). (2003). Language diversity in the classroom: From intention to practice. Southern Illinois University Press.

Villanueva, V. (2014). The effect of Arizona’s ethnic studies ban [Conference session]. Conference on College Composition and Communication Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN, United States.

Winn, M. T., & Behizadeh, N. (2011). The right to be literate: Literacy, education, and the school-to-prison pipeline. Review of Research in Education, 35, 147–173.

This statement was generously created by the following contributors:

Elaine Richardson
Asao Inoue
Denise Troutman
Qwo-Li Driskill
Bonnie Williams
Austin Jackson
Isabel Baca
Ana Celia Zentella
Victor Villanueva
Rashidah Muhammad
Kim B. Lovejoy
David F. Green
Geneva Smitherman

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

The 4CWebinar Group is accepting panel and individual proposals for our AY 2021–2022 webinar series, which will present 3–4 webinars (with 5 per year in the years to follow). In keeping with our mission, we are calling for proposals that engage the theory, pedagogy, and praxis of the 2021 CCCC Annual Convention theme, “We Are All Writing Teachers: Returning to a Common Place,” (see the CCCC 2021 Program) in particular the focus on the teacher-scholar-activist.

Guidelines for Submitted Proposals

Who Can Submit a Proposal: While not all participants in the proposed webinar need to be CCCC members, the primary point of contact must be a member.

Panel Proposal: Groups of 3–5 presenters may collaborate on a panel proposal.

• Content: Proposals should include all the required components:
  • A title of the webinar session
  • The name and affiliation of each speaker
  • A description of the aims and goals of the webinar as it relates to the 4CWebinar Group’s mission and the theme, including clear learning goals
    • The session should be completed within the time allotted (60 minutes plus 15 minutes for discussion, allotting an additional 15 minutes for moderators and respondents, for a total of 90 minutes)
  • A short description of each speaker’s contributions, position within CCCC (member or nonmember), professional status (NTT, graduate, assistant professor, WPA, etc.), and institutional type (HBCU, Tribal college or university, community college, etc.)
  • 50–100-word biography of each seminar participant and an accompanying image for promotional materials
  • Proposals may also include suggestions for possible webinar facilitators.
  • Proposals should not exceed 4,000 characters.

Individual Proposals: The 4CWebinar Group accepts individual proposals that will be grouped together around a similar theme or focus area.

• Content:
  • Title of your session
  • Your name and affiliation
  • A description of the aims and objectives of the presentation as it relates to the 4CWebinar Standing Group’s mission and the theme, including clear learning goals
  • 50–100-word biography of each seminar participant and an accompanying image for promotional materials
  • Proposals may also include suggestions for webinar facilitators.
  • Proposals should not exceed 2,500 characters.

Application Submission: Please submit all applications to Trixie Smith at smit1254@msu.edu with the subject heading “4CWebinar Proposal.” SUBMISSION DEADLINE: August 18, 2021, 11:59 p.m. ET. Decisions made by mid-September.

Criteria for Inclusion/Selection Process

The 4CWebinar Group will use the following criteria when determining which proposals to accept.

• Proposals are inclusive.
  • Explanation: We take a capacious understanding of inclusion and expect proposals to do the same.
• Proposals are praxis focused.
  • Explanation: We encourage a consideration of theory-informed practice to initiate conversation among participants to get the thing done.
• Proposals are complete.
  • Explanation: Required items listed in Guidelines for Submitted Proposals are attended to.
• Proposals consider the annual theme set forth by 4C Convention Chair.
  • Explanation: The Annual Convention theme and explanation can be found in the CCCC 2021 Program.

Downloadable PDF of the full report.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction to the 2019–2020 Annual
Clancy Ratliff

10 T-Shirt Bots and the Independent Artist: The Fight Against Automated Intellectual Property Theft
Devon Fitzgerald Ralston

16 The Case Act Redivivus
Kim D. Gainer

29 Irresponsible Authorship: A Growing Typology
Steven Engel and April Johnson

41 China’s Road Ahead for Intellectual Property: How Ongoing Talks and Legislation Seek to Shift from Shanzhai to Bona Fide
Wendy Warren Austin

44 Elsevier Seeks New Forms of Revenue as Universities Resist Prohibitive Contracts
Mike Edwards

51 Learning from the Past?: A Review of the Creative Commons’ 2021-2025 Strategic Plan in Light of the Past Ten Years
Alex C. Nielsen

57 Contributors

Join us for an evening celebration to recognize the 2021 CCCC and TYCA award recipients for outstanding service, programs, publications, scholarship, and research. This event is open to anyone to attend!

Sign up to attend

Learn more about the CCCC awards programs and TYCA awards programs. Many programs are already accepting nominations and applications for the 2022 awards.

Program by section

• 2021 Full Program PDF
• general information
• workshops
• live & prerecorded sessions
• posters & on-demand sessions
• exhibits & ads
• index

FAQs for #4C21 Attendees

Conference on College Composition and Communication
March 2021

Rationale and Purpose

This position statement affirms the need to develop accessible and effective reading pedagogies in college writing classrooms so that students can engage more deeply in all of their courses and develop the reading abilities that will be essential to their success in college, in their careers, and for their participation in a democratic society. This statement assumes that, like instruction in writing, instruction in reading is most ethical and effective when it engages students’ diverse experiences, needs, and capacities and when it works from an asset-based (rather than a deficit-based) theory of learning. The statement outlines principles and best practices for developing reading-centered pedagogies and curricula and identifies resources and sites at postsecondary institutions that can support this work.

Horning et al. define college-level reading as “a complex, recursive process in which readers actively and critically understand and create meaning through connections to texts” (7). Research that assesses the alignment between new college students’ prior reading experience and the expectations of college reading tasks suggests that many students are likely to encounter different and challenging reading tasks upon entering college (Jolliffe and Harl; Rodrigue; Jamieson; Stanford History Education Group; Ihara and Del Principe; Wineburg and McGrew). Students are also reading in increasingly diverse modes and for distinct purposes as reading moves increasingly to screens rather than paper.

This statement acknowledges that students are regularly reading (Jolliffe and Harl), that they have reading skills, and that they are using a range of technologies to support their reading. Technology has allowed students to engage with readings by listening to texts, seeing texts in various font sizes, and copying and making notes on texts. Use of synchronous technology, such as digital annotation programs, allows students to practice deep reading strategies while gaining almost immediate access to their peers’ approaches to reading. Moreover, the web provides digital examples of cultural knowledge formation (such as rhetorical reading) that communities of color, LGBTQ communities, and disability communities have cultivated offline for years. Instructors can mobilize these technologies to support students’ development of deeper reading habits.

For decades, community college curricula have directly addressed students’ reading habits, and community college instructors have researched and published on best practices for integrating instruction in reading and writing (Goen-Salter; Raufman and Barrow; Bickerstaff and Raufman; Boylan and Bonham). Only recently, however, have those who teach at four-year institutions begun to argue for the importance of reconnecting the act of reading to writing. Not since the 1980s and early 1990s have those outside of community colleges paid sustained attention to reading as the counterpart of writing in the construction and negotiation of meaning.

Definition(s) of Reading

College-level reading varies depending on the reader’s primary purpose, and different reading approaches each have their own emphasis: “rhetorical reading” and “reading like a writer” suggest reading texts for the purposes of understanding the impact of writerly choices, “close reading” is focused primarily on textual interpretation, and “active reading” and “mindful reading” suggest a type of mindset or orientation toward a text.

Reading, then, goes well beyond mere comprehension of words and texts, and instructors need to realize that students may be more or less familiar with different types of reading. Indeed, individual students may be proficient with multiple reading approaches or may struggle with basic comprehension. This position statement marks CCCC members’ commitment to recognizing all college-level reading as a “complex, recursive process in which readers actively and critically understand and create meaning through connections to texts” (Horning  et al., 7).

The strategies that follow are proven effective. They are suggestions for those who wish to integrate reading more deliberately into their teaching practices.

Principles to Support the Teaching and Learning of Reading

Principle 1: Teach Reading Comprehension

Strategies:

1. Create text-specific or general reading guides for students that include comprehension questions, important vocabulary terms, and other relevant resources that students can use as they engage texts.
2. Preview texts for students by providing context (whether historical or related to the immediate classroom), thus helping students tap into what they already know about the subject and helping to provide the purpose for each reading assignment.
3. Teach students how to develop and use graphic organizers (e.g., maps, webs) to help them visualize relationships between concepts and ideas within texts.
4. Teach students to read strategically by paying attention to key parts of a text, such as its title, introduction (or abstract), conclusion, and paragraph topic sentences.
5. Encourage students to take the 25-word summary challenge, in which they summarize the text in 25 words or fewer.

Principle 2: Teach Reading Approaches That Move Beyond Basic Comprehension

Strategies:

1. Don’t lecture the readings; make students responsible for getting main ideas and details through creating their own reading guides that outline the main ideas, define key terms, and note connections to other texts read in the course.
2. Ask students to synthesize two viewpoints and/or address opposing viewpoints on the same topic.
3. Provide exercises and/or use peer review to help students support one another and anticipate readers’ expectations.
4. Promote rhetorical reading, wherein students examine a text for its communicative nature and elements. Help students identify how context influences readers.
5. Teach students how to “read like a writer” (RLW) by identifying moments of writerly choice in the text and considering whether similar choices might arise in their own writing.

Principle 3: Foster Mindful Reading to Encourage Students to Think Metacognitively about Their Reading in Preparation for a Variety of Reading in Different Contexts

Strategies:

1. Teach the SQ5R approach: survey (the text or reading), question (engage in inquiry), read (engage in active reading), respond (think about the text and the initial questions), record (annotate in the margins), recite (paraphrase key ideas), and review (reflect on the reading and revise notes).
2. Teach annotation explicitly and/or use software such as Hypothesis to support the development of digital annotation practices.
3. Encourage reflection through reader response journals, discussion board postings, or similar approaches.
4. In addition to asking students to reflect encourage them to anticipate the uses of various reading approaches in future courses and contexts.
5. Teach students how to create a difficulty inventory in which they list the difficulties (e.g., vocabulary, allusions, historical context) they encounter while reading and for each difficulty indicate one resource that can help mitigate or surmount that difficulty.

Principle 4: Teach Students How to Read Texts Closely and Focus on Significant Details and Patterns

Strategies:

1. Support students’ focus on a text’s language and vocabulary by asking them to look up key vocabulary, terms, and concepts and to consider how meanings change over time.
2. Help students explore organizational patterns in texts from different disciplines, such as linguistic features, stylistic characteristics, and the presence or absence of jargon.
3. Ask students to write passage-based papers that focus their attention on a single passage, including the textual elements within the passage (e.g., word choice, tone, punctuation, repetition), as well as the passage’s relationship to the text as a whole.
4. Provide students the opportunity to practice reading a text multiple times in order to pay attention to different elements, such as how a writer incorporates sources, defines key terms, or addresses opposing arguments.
5. Focus on the generic elements of a text to foster discussion of genre conventions and how those conventions can influence reading.

Preparing Teachers for Reading Instruction in Writing Courses

Given the tremendous variety in new instructor training programs, it is important for facilitators to prioritize what they want students to know and do with regard to reading. Some programs may be limited to a single session devoted to reading, whereas a more ideal approach would be to integrate the discussion of reading throughout an entire training program. Additionally, as the representations and needs of students constantly shift, it is also important to consider how to integrate accessible and culturally relevant approaches to reading instruction into the overall fabric of writing programs. Doing so encourages writing teachers—from senior faculty to first-time teachers—to develop reading pedagogies that serve ever-changing student populations and are responsive to the contemporary moment.

Strategies for training instructors to teach reading include the following:

• Introduce the idea that reading and writing are connected activities as a foundational threshold concept that instructors should keep in mind as they teach, plan lessons, and design their syllabi.
• Plan talks or activities aimed at familiarizing writing instructors with several kinds of reading approaches and the purpose(s) behind each.
• Encourage instructors to think through what they want students to learn from reading and consider what kinds of texts and types of reading would best serve their goal(s).
• Guide writing instructors to consider the range of reading approaches and techniques that students will need to engage productively with a variety of modalities. Recognizing how technological mediums interplay with genre conventions (e.g., online versus print newspaper article) introduces useful conversations about reading as a rhetorical process informed by rhetorical decisions.
• Brainstorm and/or practice different ways that instructors might model various kinds of reading for students—for instance, showing students how they read a text and stopping to demonstrate the kinds of questions they ask as they read.
• Review and answer questions about specific programmatic policies regarding the types and relevance or appropriateness of texts to be assigned for specific student populations at your institution (e.g., literature, videos?), as well as reasonable page length expectations. This discussion might address texts composed using varieties of Englishes and/or texts that acknowledge the rhetoric of citation practices in order to better engage audience needs via font styles and organizational schemas.
• Encourage instructors to use published texts and student writing in similar ways and to avoid assigning only published texts as examples of good writing while urging students to search for errors only in student-produced texts.

Supporting Readers across Campus Units

This section notes important stakeholders on campuses that can contribute to building a culture of support surrounding reading development. This statement encourages communication and collaboration among writing program administrators, writing instructors, and the various members of these units—libraries, writing centers, and centers for teaching and learning—so that all stakeholders are working together to support students’ reading development throughout their academic careers.

Libraries

Librarians have long been at the forefront of information literacy education. Although campus librarians are often used for one-shot presentations about how to access and search their institution’s databases, they can work consistently with faculty across the disciplines to help faculty identify information literacy concepts relevant to specific disciplines (Anderson et al. 16). They can also support students as they develop the capabilities that inform strong reading practices, including paying attention to a source’s relevance, biases, and credibility.

Writing Centers

As Muriel Harris, G. Travis Adams, and Gary Griswold have pointed out, writing centers are always already reading centers because most college-level writing assignments also involve reading. Therefore, it is important that writing center directors are educated on reading pedagogy so they can deliberately incorporate attention to reading in the training given to writing center tutors. Doing so will allow tutors to support students’ literacy development in more comprehensive ways by preparing them to address reading-related writing issues.

Centers for Teaching and Learning

Often given a name such as Center for Teaching Excellence, centers for teaching and learning are seen as hubs of pedagogical innovation and faculty development, and, according to Mary Wright, are supposed “to be responsive to institutional goals and priorities, and to work in collaboration with faculty and academic units, guided by their learning goals” (qtd. in Lieberman). These centers need to be prepared to support faculty as they integrate reading instruction into their courses.

Works Cited

Adams, G. Travis. “The Line That Shouldn’t Be Drawn: Writing Centers as Reading Centered.” Pedagogy, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016, pp. 73–90.

Anderson, Jennifer, et al. “Collaboration as Conversations: When Writing Studies and the Library Use the Same Conceptual Lenses.” Teaching Information Literacy and Writing Studies: Volume 1, First-Year Composition Courses, edited by Grace Veach, Purdue UP, 2018, pp. 3–18.

Bickerstaff, Susan, and Julia Raufman. From “Additive” to “Integrative”: Experiences of Faculty Teaching Developmental Integrated Reading and Writing Courses (CCRC Working Paper No. 96). Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2017, https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/faculty-experiences-teaching-developmental-reading-writing.pdf.

Boylan, Hunter R., and Barbara S. Bonham, editors. Developmental Education: Readings on Its Past, Present, and Future. Bedford/St. Martins, 2014.

Goen-Salter, Sugie. “Critiquing the Need to Eliminate Remediation: Lessons from San Francisco State.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 27, no. 2, 2008, pp. 81–105.

Griswold, Gary. “Postsecondary Reading: What Writing Center Tutors Need to Know.” Journal of College Reading and Learning, vol. 37, no. 1, 2006, pp. 59–70.

Harris, Muriel. “Writing Centers Are Also Reading Centers: How Could They Not Be?” Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom, edited by Patrick Sullivan et al., National Council of Teachers of English, 2017, pp. 227–43.

Horning, Alice S., Deborah-Lee Gollnitz, and Cynthia R. Haller, editors.  What Is College Reading?  WAC Clearinghouse/UP of Colorado, 2017.

Ihara, Rachel, and Annie Del Principe. “What We Mean When We Talk about Reading: Rethinking the Purposes and Contexts of College Reading.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 15, no. 2, 2018, pp. 1–14, https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/articles/ihara-delprincipe2018.pdf.

Jamieson, Sandra. “Reading and Engaging Sources: What Students’ Use of Sources Reveals about Advanced Reading Skills.” Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum, special issue of Across the Disciplines, vol.10, no. 4, 2013, http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/reading/jamieson.cfm.

Jolliffe, David, and Allison Harl.  “Texts of Our Institutional Lives:  Studying the “Reading Transition” from High School to College:  What Are Our Students Reading and Why?”  College English, vol. 70, no. 6, 2008, pp. 599-617.

Lieberman, Mark. “Centers of the Pedagogical Universe.” Inside Higher Ed, 28 Feb. 2018, https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/02/28/centers-teaching-and-learning-serve-hub-improving-teaching.

Raufman, Julia, and Hilda Barrow. “Learning to Teach Integrated Reading and Writing: Evidence from Research and Practice.” NADE, 26 Feb. 2015, https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/nade-2015-integrated-reading-writing.pdf.

Rodrigue, Tanya K.  “The Digital Reader, the Alphabetic Writer, and the Space Between: A Study in Digital Reading and Source-based Writing.” Computers and Composition, vol. 46, 2017, pp. 4–20.

Stanford History Education Group. Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning. 2016, https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive%20Summary%2011.21.16.pdf.

Wineburg, Sam, and Sarah McGrew. “Lateral Reading and the Nature of Expertise: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information.” Teachers College Record, vol. 121, no. 11, 2019, pp. 1–40.

Suggested Reading List

“The Act of Reading: Instructional Foundations and Policy Guidelines.” Position Statements, National Council of Teachers of English, 5 Dec. 2019, https://ncte.org/statement/the-act-of-reading/.

Baron, Naomi S. Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World. Oxford UP, 2015.

Bunn, Michael. “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and Writing) in the Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 64, no. 3, 2013, pp. 496–516.

Carillo, Ellen C. Securing a Place for Reading in Composition: The Importance of Teaching for Transfer. Utah State UP, 2014.

Dehaene, Stanislas. Reading in the Brain. Penguin Random House, 2009.

Del Principe, Annie, and Rachel Ihara. “A Long Look at Reading in the Community College: A Longitudinal Analysis of Student Reading Experiences.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 45, no. 2, 2017, pp.183–206.

—. “‘I Bought the Book and I Didn’t Need It’: What Reading Looks Like at an Urban Community College.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 43, no.3, 2016, pp. 229–44.

Flippo, Rona F., and Thomas W. Bean, editors. Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research. Routledge, 2018.

Grayson, Mara Lee. “Race Talk in the Composition Classroom: Narrative Song Lyrics as Texts for Racial Literacy.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 45, no. 2, 2017, pp. 47–68.

Inoue, Asao B. “Teaching Antiracist Reading.” Journal of College Reading and Learning, vol. 50, no. 3, 2020, pp. 134–56.

Kamil, Michael L., et al., editors. Handbook of Reading Research: Volume IV. Routledge, 2011.

Kareem, Jamila. “A Critical Race Analysis of Transition-Level Writing Curriculum to Support the Racially Diverse Two-Year College.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 46, no. 4, 2019, pp. 271–96.

Keller, Daniel. Chasing Literacy: Reading and Writing in an Age of Acceleration. Utah State UP, 2014.

Morrow, Nancy. “The Role of Reading in the Composition Classroom.” JAC, vol. 17, no. 3, 1997, pp. 453–72.

Seidenberg, Mark. Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can Be Done About It. Basic Books, 2017.

Smith, Cheryl Hogue. “Fractured Reading: Experiencing Students’ Thinking Habits.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 47, no. 1, 2019, pp. 22–35.

—. “Interrogating Texts: From Deferent to Efferent and Aesthetic Reading Practices.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 31, no. 1, 2012, pp. 59–79.

Sullivan, Patrick. “‘Deep Reading’ as a Threshold Concept in Composition Studies.” Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom, edited by Patrick Sullivan et al., National Council of Teachers of English, 2017, pp. 143–171.

Sullivan, Patrick, et al., editors. Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom. National Council of Teachers of English, 2017.

Sullivan, Patrick, and Christie Toth, editors. Teaching Composition at the Two-Year College, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017.

Tinberg, Howard. “When Writers Encounter Reading in a Community College First-Year Composition Course.” Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom, edited by Patrick Sullivan et al., National Council of Teachers of English, 2017, pp. 244–64.

“What Does it Really Mean to Be College and Work Ready? The English Literacy Required of Community College Students.” National Center on Education and the Economy, 2013, https://ncee.org/college-and-work-ready/.

Willingham, Daniel. The Reading Mind: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding How the Mind Reads. Jossey-Bass, 2017.

Wolf, Maryanne. Reader Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World. Harper, 2018.

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

The CCCC 2021 Workshops below will be held on Wednesday, April 7, at the following times:

• Morning Workshops: 11:00 a.m.–1:30 p.m. ET
• Research Network Forum: 11:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. ET and 12:30–2:00 p.m. ET
• Afternoon Workshops: 2:00–4:30 p.m. ET

This year Workshops are included in the virtual convention registration fee and do not require separate registration. The Workshops will not be recorded for post-event viewing so add them to your schedule for April 7 today!

To access the Workshops in the CCCC 2021 virtual platform, visit the Workshop Lounge and navigate to your selected Workshop.

 

Wednesday, April 7 — 11:00 a.m.–1:30 p.m. ET

Professional and Technical Writing
W-5   From Teaching Composition to Teaching Workplace Writing: Making an Effective Transition
This workshop is for writing teachers who have either transitioned or soon will transition into workplace writing. It will focus on how to prepare students for common workplace-writing tasks but will also serve as a good foundation for teaching technical writing or other more specialized workplace-writing courses.
Chair: Kathryn Rentz, University of Cincinnati
Workshop Facilitators: Matt Baker, Brigham Young University
Gina L. Genova, University of California Santa Barbara
Matthew Gilchrist, Lehigh University

Language and Literacy
W-7   Inclusive Grammars, Alternative Perspectives, Nuanced Meanings
We discuss inclusive approaches to grammars and instructional practices that celebrate and build on students’ own linguistic resources, and how these approaches and strategies can help students grow as independent writers.
Speakers: Whitney Gegg-Harrison, University of Rochester
Jinrong Li, Georgia Southern University
Cornelia Paraskevas, Western Oregon University
Deborah Rossen-Knill, University of Rochester
Joseph Salvatore, The New School

Reading
W-10   Teaching Critical Reading in First-Year Composition
This half-day workshop offers participants a comprehensive set of reading pedagogies to teach critical writing in first-year composition. The arc of the workshop follows the individual pedagogies employed for a single paper assignment: from the introduction of new readings to the self-reflection that students write upon completing their final draft.
Workshop Facilitators: Michelle Brazier, Raritan Valley Community College
Alexa Offenhauer, Raritan Valley Community College

Creating Writing and Publishing
W-11 Writing Creative Nonfiction: Finding the Extraordinary in the Ordinary
In this all-day writing workshop, sponsored by the Creative Nonfiction Standing Group, participants will explore creative nonfiction through writing to prompts and discussing teaching strategies and issues.
Chair: Christy Zink, George Washington University
Speakers: Lynn Bloom University of Connecticut, “The Watershed Transformation”
Melissa Goldthwaite, Saint Joseph’s University, “Hide and Seek”
Libby Falk Jones, Berea College, “Exercises in Style”
David MacWilliams, New Mexico State University-Alamogordo, “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”
Sandee McGlaun, Roanoke College, “Performing Silence”
Irene Papoulis, Trinity College, “Exploring your Relationship with Dancing”
Erin Pushman, Limestone College, “The Craft of Research in Creative Nonfiction”
Amy Quan, Ithaca College, “My, The Desks Look So Small”
Wendy Ryden, Long Island University Post, “Finding Your Inner Monster”
Mimi Schwartz, Richard Stockton University, “My Name Is…”
Jenny Spinner, Saint Joseph’s University, “Considering the To-Do List”

Wednesday, April 7 — 2:00 p.m.–4:30 p.m. ET

First-Year Writing
W-2   A Black Lives Matter/Critical Race Theory–Based, Culturally Responsive, Antiracist, and Race Radical Literacies LPC Workshop for Black Teachers of Writing and Co-Conspirators
The Language Policy Workshop highlights Black writing pedagogies for Black lives and their antiracist Black teaching practices in an effort to provide leadership to the field and unite with allies in our collective efforts to divest from the anti-Black language, writing, and literacies education complex.
Chair: Kim Lovejoy, Indiana University, “Antiracist Black Language and Writing Pedagogy”
Chair and Speaker: Elaine Richardson, The Ohio State University
Facilitator and Speaker: Austin Jackson, Brown University, “Race Radical Literacies”
Bonnie Williams, California State University Fullerton, “Teaching the African American Verbal Tradition as a Rhetorically Effective Writing Skill”
Roundtable Leaders: Isabel Baca, The University of Texas at El Paso, “Antiracist Black Language and Writing Pedagogy”
David Green, Howard University, “Antiracist Black Language and Writing Pedagogy”
Rashidah Jaami Muhammad, Governors State University, “Antiracist Black Language and Writing Pedagogy”
Denise Troutman, Michigan State University, “Antiracist Black Language and Writing Pedagogy”
Workshop Facilitator: Qwo-Li Driskill, Oregon State University, “Antiracist Black Language and Writing Pedagogy”
Respondent: Geneva Smitherman, Michigan State University Professor Emerita, “Antiracist Black Language and Writing Pedagogy”

Community, Civic & Public Contexts of Writing
W-3   Beyond the Classroom: Challenging the Commonplaces of Experiential Learning
This workshop examines and challenges the practice of experiential learning in writing classrooms. Facilitators will engage issues ranging from field trip logistics to equity concerns as universities race to embed experiential learning into the university experience.
Workshop Facilitators: William Carney, Cameron University, “Fieldwork: Helping Students Work outside and with Multiple Stakeholders”
David Grant, University of Northern Iowa, “Best-for-Now Strategies for Client-Based Experiential Learning Projects”
Ashley Holmes, Georgia State University, “From a SLAC to a State University: Making Experiential Learning Viable for Students and Faculty”
Rik Hunter, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, “Working On-Campus: Creating Experiences for Nontraditional Students”
Rebecca Jones, Montana State University, “Experiential Learning, an Overview”
Adrienne Lamberti, University of Northern Iowa, “Best-for-Now Strategies for Client-Based Experiential Learning Projects”
Rich Rice, Texas Tech University, “Internship Agreement Forms to Put Faculty and Student Service into Action”

Theory and Research Methodologies
W-4   Coalition as Commonplace
Inspired by the work of Chandra Talpade Mohanty (Feminism without Borders) and Karma Chávez (Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities), this workshop uses the methodologies of coalition building as systematic inquiry to advocate for ethical and effective research, collaborations, and knowledge sharing across the multiplicities of our identities.
Workshop Facilitators: Angela Clark Oates, California State University-Sacramento
Aurora Matzke, Azusa Pacific University
Lydia McDermott, Whitman College
Kate Pantelides, Middle Tennessee State University
Sherry Rankins-Robertson, University of Central Florida
Patty Wilde, Washington State University Tri-Cities
Speakers: Cheryl Glenn, Pennsylvania State University
Aja Y. Martinez, Syracuse University, “The Craft of Critical Race Counterstory”
Lana Oweidat, Goucher College, “Can We Do Better? Forging Unlikely Coalitions and Challenging the Neoliberal Landscape”
Margaret Price, The Ohio State University, “Accountability: A Topos, a Practice, a Form of Hope”
Joyce Rain Anderson, Bridgewater State University, “Bringing the World into Balance: Indigenous Women and the Four Rs”
Eileen Schell, Syracuse University, “Building Coalitions through Community Writing Groups”
Roundtable Leaders: Erin Costello Wecker, University of Montana
Rachel Daugherty, Texas Woman’s University
Rachelle Joplin, University of Houston
Kayla Kouryk, Olivet Nazarene University

College Writing Transitions
W-8   Reconsidering Basic Writing in the Changing Landscape
This workshop seeks to explore the commonplaces of Basic Writing amidst the changing educational landscape of acceleration, co-requisite models, placement reforms, state legislation, and removal of developmental coursework from academic departments.
Chairs: Leigh Jonaitis, Bergen Community College, “Reconsidering Basic Writing in the Changing Landscape”
Lynn Reid, Fairleigh Dickinson University, “Reconsidering Basic Writing in the Changing Landscape”
Peter Adams, Community College of Baltimore County
Marcia Buell, Northeastern Illinois University, “Dual Credit and Basic Writing”
Caitlin Gallagher, Wilmington University, “Supporting Strategic Writers”
Ian James, Arizona State University, “Unsettling Whiteness as Common Place in Basic Writing Theory and Practice”
Kelly Keane, Bergen Community College, “Dual Credit and Basic Writing”
William Lalicker, West Chester University, “Coming to Terms with the Changing Landscape”
A. Eric Lehman, University of Nevada – Reno, “Translingualism as Critique in Basic Writing”
Charles MacArthur, University of Delaware, “Supporting Strategic Writers”
Susan Naomi Bernstein, Queens College, “Unsettling Whiteness as Common Place in Basic Writing Theory and Practice”
Jennifer Burke Reifman, University of California, Davis, “Coming to Terms with the Changing Landscape”
Cheryl Smith, Kingsborough Community College, “Dual Credit and Basic Writing”

Writing Programs
W-9 Taking Action for Antiracist Workplaces: Developing Bystander Training for Writing Teachers and
WPAs
As writing teachers and experts, we are often in the position of listening and then needing to respond to questions that often reinforce linguistic and racial minoritization. The goal of this workshop is to lay the groundwork to develop antiracist responses.
Workshop Facilitators: Lindsey Albracht, CUNY Graduate Center, “Antiracist Work across Campus”
Sara P. Alvarez, Queen College, CUNY, “Antiracist Work in Classrooms”
Rachel Bloom-Pojar, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, “Antiracist Work across Campus”
Todd Craig, Medgar Evers College (CUNY), “Antiracist Work in Professional Disciplinary Spaces”
Al Harahap, University of Oklahoma, “Antiracist Work in Professional Disciplinary Spaces”
Brian Hendrickson, Roger Williams University, “Antiracist Work in Professional Disciplinary Spaces”
Shereen Inayatulla, York College, CUNY, “Antiracist Work in Classrooms”
Anna Plemons, Washington State University, “Antiracist Work across Campus”
Sherita Roundtree, Towson University, “Antiracist Work in Classrooms”
Amy Wan, Queens College/CUNY, “Antiracist Work in Professional Disciplinary Spaces”
Anna Zeemont, CUNY Graduate Center, “Antiracist Work in Classrooms”

Join us for some Cs the Day Gamification fun!  While you are attending the 2022 CCCC Annual Convention you will be able to earn points throughout the platform and compete for great prizes!

Please use this form to log your participation in this year’s event.

Cs the Day Event Quests:

1. Justice for All—Tweet or post about what you have learned about diversity, equity, and linguistic justice (this year’s CCCC theme) at the Convention. Alternatively, how can CCCC or your institution improve their diversity, equity, and linguistic justice initiatives? (25 points)
2. Memes & Multimodality—Create a meme about virtual conferencing or remote/hybrid learning. (Free meme generator: https://imgflip.com/memegenerator) (25 points)
3. The Good Times—Share your favorite story about a previous CCCC Annual Convention. (25 points)
4. This Could Be an Article—Identify a potential research project that could integrate what you learned at the Convention. (25 points + 25 points for plans to collaborate with other attendees)
5. Self-Care Selfie—Document yourself taking action to establish emotional/physical/spiritual balance and prevent feelings of isolation while conferencing virtually. (50 points)
6. Think-Pair-Share—Create a plan to share what you have learned from the Convention at your home institution/communities. (25 points)
7. Co-Op Mode—Document yourself playing a game (co-op or competitive) with another Convention attendee. (25 points + 25 points if they’re someone you met in the last year)
8. Your Favorite Chair—Read or watch any CCCC Chair’s Address and share a few lines that stood out to you. (50 points)
9. Swagger On—Use your favorite social media platform to share a photo of CCCC Convention swag you’ve held on to from years past. (Brownie points if it’s Cs the Day swag) (25 points)
10. Going Up?—Practice your elevator speech. Give a comprehensive,15-second description of the entirety of your research, thesis, diss, or 4C’s presentation, and post a video or written version on Twitter with the #4C22 hashtag. (50 points)
11. How I Met Your . . .—As versatile citizens of a networked world, we can find meaningful friendships across institutions. Tell us about a new connection that you created with a colleague while conferencing remotely. (25 points up to three times)
12. Feed the Birds—Use the #4C22 hashtag to share a note about why CCCC matters to you. (25 points)
13. Replay Value—Suggest a quest that absolutely must be included in the next version of Cs the Day. (50 points up to two times)
14. There Is Always Something to Be Thankful For—Use a social media platform of your choice to express your gratitude for someone who had a positive impact on your academic and/or professional development. You can tag them in it or not. However, use this as an opportunity to let that person/the world know that their work and influence mattered. (25 points up to three times)
15. Have You Met . . . ?—Write a third-person biography of your favorite composition theorist. Tell us about their work, their background, and why we should be reading/using their work in the classroom. (25 points up to three times)
16. Sharing the Knowledge—Tweet about what you learned at a session. (25 points up to five times)
17. Staying Connected—Join the CPGS Discord server or Facebook page or follow on Twitter. (25 points each)
18. Gaining XP—Attend a session about game-based pedagogy and/or research. (50 points up to three times)

Cs the Day Event Prizes:

The three top-scoring winners will receive a physical Sparkle Pony (ask us if you are not yet familiar with this CtD tradition), and the grand prize winner will receive a paid registration for CCCC 2023 in Chicago, courtesy of the CCCC Executive Committee!

Gamification begins Wednesday, March 9, at 11:00 a.m. ET and ends on Saturday, March 12, at 7:30 p.m. ET.

March 2021

The CCCC Executive Committee stands in solidarity with our Asian, Asian American, and Pacific Islander colleagues after the targeted, racist, and misogynist violence in Atlanta on March 16, 2021.

We condemn the historical legacy of anti-Asian racist policy and practice and the more recent invocation of anti-Asian rhetoric by national leaders, which we believe has contributed to a political climate that enables hate crimes such as these attacks.

We reaffirm our organizational commitment to ethical communication; to “supporting the agency, power, and potential of diverse communicators inside and outside of postsecondary classrooms” (CCCC Mission Statement); and to accountability for hate speech that paves the way for additional acts of violence.

We support all CCCC members in using their voices to combat racist violence and using their expertise as educators to create teaching and learning environments that help students negotiate toxic public discourse. Likewise, we support CCCC members in creating professional spaces that allow those who are targeted by such discourse to find empathy and healing. We stand as allies joined in the work of antiracist change-making in educational and other institutions.

We encourage you to visit the Anti-Asian Violence Resource website for strategies and tools for action, as well as the Asian Americans Advancing Justice site for professional learning opportunities.

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

March 3, 2021

This week, CCCC 2021 Program Chair Holly Hassel and event staff completed the difficult task of narrowing our list of accepted sessions by approximately 50 percent to accommodate the financial and logistical constraints of shifting from an in-person Convention to a virtual event. The CCCC Annual Convention is contracted several years in advance and typically involves a year of program planning. Moving online required months of contract renegotiation and multiple revisions to the program. Holly described this process in detail in a pair of blog posts published earlier this year, available here and here.

Throughout this process, transparency has been our watchword. However, we recognize that understanding why and how previously accepted sessions were cut from the Convention program does not mitigate the surprise, pain, and frustration of learning that your session was among those cut from the program. In a year marked by losses large and small, we are deeply sorry for inflicting an additional professional and personal disappointment.

As we move forward with CCCC 2021 preparations, we reaffirm our commitment to transparency and openness as we strive to create a welcoming, accessible, and inclusive virtual space in which to connect with one another online until we are able to come together in person once again.