Category: Uncategorized

Craig A. Meyer, Ohio University

Incidents of intellectual property seem to be becoming more common, especially in academic circles. For me, one event sticks out: the dissertations of Chuck Boening and William Meehan. In the first half of 2009, news broke about a plagiarism case involving a university president, Meehan of Jacksonville State University (JSU). The charge was brought by R. David Whetstone, who believes Meehan and JSU took unjustified control of “some 55,000 plant specimens” that he insists are his (Stripling). In bringing the accusation of plagiarism, Whetstone hoped to demonstrate Meehan’s propensity “of taking academic work done by others” to the courts and somehow get control of the plants (Associated Press).

Even though the court case about a bunch of plants was the primary story, it soon took a backseat to the charge of plagiarism against Meehan, who appears to have, at the least, improperly used Boening’s earlier dissertation. In short, Boening’s dissertation related to sabbatical leave at the University of Alabama. Meehan, using Boening’s dissertation as a “model,” also studied sabbatical leave but at JSU (Boening). The allegation by Whetstone, which was picked up by major media markets, created online buzz. Websites soon began showing highlighted verbatim portions of the two dissertations (still commonly found by searching online for “what does plagiarism look like”).

At this point, I heard about the story, and I figured instead of taking the media as fact, why not e-mail Meehan? So I did. Meehan responded quickly about the allegation against him; he writes, “I disagree with the allegation” (“Re: Inquiry”). (I highlight that he does not deny the allegation, merely that he disagrees with it, but perhaps I’m splitting hairs.) Meehan continues to point out how the allegation is merely “an attempt to receive financial benefit” from JSU, which seems reasonable if Whetstone was not getting the plants (5 Aug. 2009). Further, Meehan explained, “our attorneys have asked I be circumspect” about the case, and his dissertation committee also “disagree[s] with the allegation” (5 Aug. 2009). At this point, I let the matter rest.

Then a few months later, I got to wondering about the outcome and contacted Meehan again. In a follow-up e-mail (24 Jan. 2010), Meehan directed me to the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision about including the charge of plagiarism with that of the plant specimens case; the court concluded that the allegation of plagiarism is “irrelevant” to the original case and “would serve only to embarrass and annoy Meehan” (Whetstone). And thus, they did not entertain the plagiarism, and the case seems to fizzle out.

Now, I do not know if Meehan plagiarized his dissertation, but the visuals (and commentary) online make it look as though he did. Conversely, Boening, also an academic, has been mostly silent about Meehan and the charges related to his (Boening’s) dissertation. So, once again, I went to the source and e-mailed Boening. Like Meehan, Boening was kind enough to respond; he writes, “I have nothing terribly official or insightful to say” (Boening). But he does have some insightful comments about the comparison between the two dissertations: “when one pores over the actual writing, it gets troubling” (Boening). Further, he explains how he has compared the two, and if a student turned similar work in, he “would not hesitate to turn the matter over to our dean” because of the similarities (Boening). Like me, Boening admits he does not know “if the alleged plagiarism was intentional,” but he does report, “[a]t the very best, it was very sloppy on his [Meehan’s] part, and certainly lazy.”

It would, however, be tragic if someone in a president’s position at a university did plagiarize because that sets a troubling example for today’s students and faculty. With the ability to Google words, phrases, and sentences, plagiarism has taken a rightfully heavy toll on those that have plagiarized, but even those that have made sloppy mistakes with no intent to use someone else’s work without proper acknowledgement have been caught up in such allegations. Moreover, the number of software programs available to uncover plagiarism (or similar concerns) continues to increase. Yet in my experience, I’ve noted a few students still want to take shortcuts, for whatever reason or reward, in producing work for classes. I believe we must acknowledge that some students do, in fact, want to pull the wool over our eyes, while others simply make mistakes. And then there are some that only care about getting to the next level, and once they are there, the ends justified the means. Although I do not like the potential of any one taking material from someone else without proper citation or acknowledgement, if the universities, chairs, and even those that have allegedly been plagiarized decide not to act, investigate, and follow up, I must also be acquiescent and do nothing either. There is, however, one final note that I find interesting:  “Meehan turned in his dissertation on June 28, 1999, four days before he officially became president at JSU” (Jones).

Works Cited

Associated Press. “Alabama College President Accused of Plagiarism.” USA Today. Gannett. 2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2010.

Boening, Chuck. “RE: Plagiarism.” Message to Craig A. Meyer E-mail. 27 Jan. 2010. E-mail.

Jones, Adam. “Prof Denies Contact Regarding Plagiarism.” Tuscaloosanews.com. Tuscaloosa News, 8 May 2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2010.

Meehan, William A. “Re: Inquiry.” Message to Craig A. Meyer E-mail. 5 Aug. 2009. E-mail.

—. “Re: Inquiry.” Message to Craig A. Meyer E-mail. 24 Jan. 2010. E-mail.

Stripling, Jack. “In Living Color.” Inside Higher Ed. Inside Higher Ed. 3 Jun. 2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2010.

Whetstone v. Meehan et al.. 1081413. Supreme Court of Alabama. 2009. Alabama Appellate Watch. Lightfoot. 2010. Web. 25 Jan. 2010.

Laurie Cubbison, Radford University

Overview of the case

J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series has generated an active, global fan community eager to purchase not only the novels and films but also products associated with the series. To that end, Rowling has also published books mentioned in the novels – Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them—with proceeds going to charity. The series’ popularity has led fans to create websites on which they share ideas, information, and their own creative work inspired by the series with scant regard to issues of copyright infringement. Fans’ high interest in generating their own materials and their willingness to buy associated products has resulted in the Harry Potter series becoming the focal point of  the copyright issues connected to fan communities populated` by both children and adults .  After licensing the Harry Potter films, Warner Brothers sent cease-and-notices in 2000 to websites whose domain names featured some aspect of the series . The resulting fan backlash convinced Warner Brothers to back away from enforcing copyright against amateur websites so as not alienate the built-in audience for its films and other Harry Potter products.

One popular fan-generated website was The Harry Potter Lexicon created by Stephen Vander Ark with the eventual aid of nine other fans . The website is typical of encyclopedias generated in relation to fantasy and science fiction series. Such series engage in world-building: the construction of a setting with its own history, geography, literature, and sciences. Encyclopedias, whether fan-generated or licensed by the author, help readers keep track of the “fictional facts” that provide the context for the narrative. In 2007, with anticipation for the final Harry Potter novel running high, Roger Rapoport of RDR Books approached Vander Ark to develop the website into a print publication that would incorporate information from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, as well as the other novels. The book was to be limited to the website’s encyclopedia sections, with entries organized alphabetically, and to be published by October 2007. Rapoport began marketing the proposed book. While Rowling’s attorneys had been willing to ignore the fan-generated websites, a published book that might compete with an encyclopedia prepared by Rowling was a different story; therefore, they sent a series of cease-and-desist letters and then filed suit.

Weighing the Criteria of Fair Use

The case hinged on whether the manuscript for the proposed book qualified as a fair use of Rowling’s work, including not only the seven novels, but also the two companion books, as well as other products (Famous Wizard cards and The Daily Prophet newsletters). An important point to be made is that the lawsuit did not address the website, which is still available online; it only covered the book to be published for profit.  Thus, the legal status of online fan-generated materials remains murky.

As Judge Patterson balanced the fair use criteria against each other, he asserted that in its function a reference guide to a creative work qualifies as fair use. However, the status of this particular manuscript involved more than its intended purpose; it also involved the extent to which Vander Ark and his co-authors used Rowling’s language in creating The Lexicon. Patterson ruled that the manuscript drew not only “fictional facts” but also Rowling’s own language from the source texts through extensive quotation, sloppy paraphrasing, and inconsistent citation. Information from the two companion books was judged to be particularly problematic, as those two books served a similar reference function to The Lexicon, and the high quantity of information drawn from them could harm the market for them. In his ruling Patterson did not consider the potential market harm to an encyclopedia prepared by Rowling herself to be a sufficient argument against The Lexicon, stating that “Notwithstanding Rowling’s public statement of her intention to publish her own encyclopedia, the market for reference guides to the Harry Potter works is not exclusively hers to exploit or license, no matter the commercial success attributable to the popularity of the original works.” He added that “While the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon’s purpose of aiding readers of literature generally be encouraged rather than stifled” .

Publication of the manuscript was thus enjoined. However, that was not the end of the story. Although the defendants’ attorneys appealed the verdict, they later withdrew the appeal. Anthony Falzone, who aided the defense as a representative of the Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, reported on his blog that following the trial, Vander Ark created a new manuscript that “addressed some of the concerns expressed by J.K. Rowling at trial, and those expressed by Judge Patterson in his thorough and detailed decision,” leaving both plaintiffs and defendants satisfied . The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to the Harry Potter Fiction and Related Materials was published in January 2009. In a follow-up to the trial, Robert S. Want has published an overview of the case, complete with court documents and an extensive discussion of fair use , a book that could serve as a textbook in a course with fair use as its theme.

Rewriting The Lexicon

In the introduction and acknowledgements, Vander Ark called it “a new, different book with a new focus and purpose, mindful of the guidelines of the court” . The published book demonstrates that the project changed from one that gathered information and wording indiscriminately from Rowling’s oeuvre to a much more systematic and focused document. Rather than slavishly relying on Rowling’s language as the website does (and as the trial transcript indicates that the original manuscript did), The Lexicon provides a straightforward identification of the term, with comments, allusions, and clarifications placed in italics at the end of some entries. In the process the text moves from being dominated by fannish enthusiasm to becoming professional, even scholarly, in its tone.

And that perhaps is the crux of the issue when it comes to the difference between fan-generated encyclopedias and professionally published reference guides. Fan-generated materials are acts of love requiring many hours of work, prepared according to fan community standards that value a comprehensive supply of information over scholastic citation practices and legal standards of fair use. The remuneration for such work comes in the form of the adulation and appreciation of other fans. But when the work passes from the fan community into the broader arena of commercial products associated with a particular fandom, the rules appear to change. Or perhaps, it is rather that the rules begin to be applied. In my opinion, two significant facets of this case are 1) that only the book project and not the website was included in the case; and 2) that the defendants withdrew their appeal and wrote a new version of the book that met the guidelines established in the trial.

Thus, a lesson that can be gleaned from the case is that the legal process of establishing fair use in relation to particular texts can in fact guide the revision of those texts into ones that are able to serve the same purpose more effectively while still meeting a legal standard. In the process of transforming a fan-oriented text into a professional version, the fan grows as a writer, producing a text that surpasses in quality the earlier copyright-infringing version.

A significant implication for teachers of writing is the role that plagiarism in the form of sloppy quotation and citation played in the determination of fair use in this case, but also how Vander Ark as a writer made the material his own through the production of the published book. Thus, the website, the lawsuit, and the published book become a valuable case study of source use, fair use, and revision.

References

Falzone, A. (2008, 6 December 2008). Lexicon Resurrected. Retrieved 14 February, 2009, from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5960.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York U P.

Murray, S. (2004). ‘Celebrating the Story the Way It Is’: Cultural Studies, Corporate Media, and the Contested Utility of Fandom. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 18(1), 7-25.

Vander Ark, S. (2000-2008, 20 July 2006). The Harry Potter Lexicon.  Retrieved 16 February, 2009, from http://www.hp-lexicon.org/.

Vander Ark, S. (2009). The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction and Related Materials. Muskegon, Mich.: RDR Books.

Want, R. S. (2008). Harry Potter and the Order of the Court: The J. K. Rowling Copyright Case and the Question of Fair Use. New York: NationsCourts.com.

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al. v. RDR Books et al., 07 Civ. 9667 (United States District Court, Southern District of New York 2008).

Introduction: Copyright and Intellectual Property in 2009

Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

The 2009 CCCC Intellectual Property Annual is the fifth issue published and my third as editor. In it, the contributors continue filling a niche in the research area of the intersection between copyright, intellectual property, and rhetoric and composition studies: articles that combine journalism and scholarship. It is our hope to keep the rhetoric and composition community informed of the latest developments in copyright and intellectual property, as it truly is a global issue with high economic and political stakes, with activists who approach the policies from a variety of perspectives. Universities adopt open access policies, new technologies prompt revisiting of copyright laws, and copyright activists think of new approaches to licensing the uses of creative and intellectual work, more and more alternatives to “all rights reserved.” We continually revisit these ideas in the classroom, too, as they pertain to definitions of authorship and plagiarism.

I have decided to keep the Creative Commons license we have been using for The CCCC Intellectual Property Annual in past years. One noteworthy difference between this issue and those past  is that the 2009 issue contains nine articles, by far the highest number we have featured. I am pleased to see that the interest in copyright and intellectual property seems to be growing.

• Downloadable PDF of these pieces.
• Downloadable Word Document of these pieces.

An Issue for Open Education: Interpreting the Non-Commercial Clause in Creative Commons Licensing

Charles Lowe, Grand Valley State University

The Option Not to Act: The Dissertations of Boening and Meehan

Craig A. Meyer, Ohio University

Copyright in the Hands of Creators:  Australasia’s Growing Creative Commons

Carol Mohrbacher, St. Cloud State University

Two Competing Copyright Curricula: The 2009 Release of Intellectual Property Curricula from the Recording Industry Association of America and the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Creative Commons Plus: Increasing Options for Content Creators

Kyle Stedman, University of South Florida

Breaking Free: The Fight for User Control and the Practices of Jailbreaking

Devon C. Fitzgerald, Millikin University

Apple App Store Arbitrates the Cellular Wireless Public Sphere, For Now.

Dayna Goldstein, Georgia Southern University

MIT Will Publish All Faculty Articles Free in Online Repository (2009 Decision)

Charlotte Brammer, Samford University

J.D. Salinger and 60 Years Later: The Struggle between Copyright and the First Amendment

Kim D. Gainer, Radford University

Laurie Cubbison, Radford University

In December 2007, the Center for Social Media, led by Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi of American University, released “Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video”, a study of the use of copyrighted material in videos produced by amateur video producers and posted online to Youtube.com and many other sites.  In this study, the authors examine and categorize the ways in which such material is used and argue that Fair Use guidelines can apply to much of the work being produced and posted online.

The study frames the practices of amateur video producers in relation to participatory culture as described by Henry Jenkins, Lawrence Lessig, Yochai Benkler , Rosemary Coombe, Kembrew McLeod and others.  The report argues that copyright owners “are shaping the emergent environment with private regulation and legal actions. They are doing so largely without information about creator practices in this unprecedentedly participatory popular culture” . Thus, the goal of the study is to describe the uses of copyrighted material and argue that many of the practices constitute fair use.

The report defines fair use and describes its implications for video production, in particular the aspect of fair use related to whether or not a use is transformative. It also refers to the role of communities of practitioners in developing statements of how to meet fair use guidelines by citing a 2005 report also published through the Center for Social Media: “Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use” by the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, the Independent Feature Project, the International Documentary Association, the National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture, and the Washington, D. C. chapter of Women in Film and Video.  That statement detailed guidelines for documentary producers who wished to use copyrighted materials for critique, illustration, ambiance, and/or historical significance. The 2005 statement also distinguished between material that must be licensed  and those uses which qualified as fair.  Aufderheide and Jaszi cite the statement by documentary makers as an example of a community of producers whose claims about fair use have been accepted by copyright stakeholders, and they identify similar uses of copyrighted material among amateur video producers. However, in the more recent “Recut, Reframe, Recycle”, they describe other kinds of practices using copyrighted material that may also be considered fair use, even if using a significant amount of quoted material.

Even though fair use may be applied to the use of copyrighted materials by amateur video producers, Aufderheide and Jaszi point out that producers may fall afoul of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, since a copyright holder may require a hosting company to remove a user-generated file which contains copyrighted material, even if that material may qualify as fair use.  The aim of this report, according to its authors, is to clarify the fair use issues for online video by detailing “the difference between quoting for new cultural creation and simple piracy” while also “clarify[ing] the significance of the legal doctrine of fair use within the online environment” .

According to the report, the study “conducted an environmental scan of online video practices between September and December 2007” for video that had been created by amateurs, posted to the Internet, and which indicated a degree of originality and/or transformation . Sites scanned included YouTube, Revver, Google Video and many others, with researchers using search engines and contributed links to find the materials in question.  According to the report, the researchers distinguished between videos with no copyrighted material, those which were exclusively copyrighted and contained no user-generated content, and those “that incorporated copyrighted works into new creations” , the latter category being the subject of the study.

The researchers identified nine categories of use of copyrighted material within amateur online video: 1) parody and satire; 2) negative or critical commentary; 3) positive commentary; 4) quoting to trigger discussion; 5) illustration or example; 6) incidental use; 7) personal reportage or diaries; 8) archiving of vulnerable or revealing materials; and finally 9) pastiche or collage .  The report specifies parody/satire as particularly popular, with celebrities, politicians, and popular culture texts such as movies and television shows as common targets. This usage is significant, since courts have consistently supported fair use in relation to parody.  Closely related to parody was negative critique, much of which was political but which also included meta-commentary on media texts. Positive commentary included tributes to deceased celebrities such as Steve Irwin as well as fan tributes to particular movies and television shows.  The category of quoting to trigger discussion included much evaluative material, with the copyrighted material often being framed as the best or worst within a particular category as specified by the poster.  The illustration or example category included copyrighted material in order to support a thesis, and Aufderheide and Jaszi point out the importance of this type of use in the statement by the documentary filmmakers. Incidental use also mapped to the documentary statement in that these videos often contained copyrighted material as a backdrop to other activities. The personal reportage/diary category generally included material in which the video’s producer appeared on a television show or with a performer in a way that featured the producer in the context of someone else’s copyrighted material, as when a fan goes onstage to participate in a concert. The archiving category included videos that the poster perceived as vulnerable to censorship or lack of publication, including various statements by public figures that the posters wish to keep in the public eye. Finally, the pastiche/collage category included a wide variety of materials which may or may not include critique but which juxtapose images and sounds in order to create a specific effect on the viewer.

Implications

Although this report specifically addresses online video, its implications for fair use extend to a variety of other practices by “the people formerly known as the audience” , from the creation of fan fiction and fan art to multimedia presentations for the classroom. By categorizing the kinds of use of copyrighted materials and indicating ways in which these uses may or may not meet Fair Use guidelines, “Recut, Reframe, Recycle” frames the conversation about the Fair Use of copyrighted materials in ways that acknowledge the creativity that media consumers apply to the texts they consume.  These implications extend to the classroom, where students may construct multimedia presentations that use copyrighted material and then may wish to include them in electronic portfolios posted to the Internet. In fact, it would be worth determining in an additional study how many of the videos in the commentary and illustration categories began as class projects. As yet, however, no actual legal precedents exist to clarify the fair use guidelines of these materials, particularly in the context of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Works Cited

Aufderheide, Pat, and Peter Jaszi. Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video.  2007. Center for Social Media. Available: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/. March 2 2008.

Association of Independent Video Filmmakers and, et al. Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use.  2005. Pdf. Center for Social Media. 2008 13 March.

Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006.

Coombe, Rosemary, and Andrew J. Herman. “Culture Wars on the Internet: Intellectual Property and Corporate Propriety in Digital Environments.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 100.4 (2001): 919-47.

Coombe, Rosemary J. The Cultural Life of Intellectual Property: Authorship, Appropriation, and the Law. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998.

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York U P, 2006.

Lessig, Lawrence. Code Version 2.0. New York: Perseus Books, 2006.

—. Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. New York: Penguin Books, 2003.

McLeod, Kembrew. Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

—. Owning Culture: Authorship, Ownership & Intellectual Property Law. Popular Culture – Everyday Life. Ed. Toby Miller. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.

Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Two significant events occurred on the open access front in 2008. First, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Law School voted to put an open access policy into effect. Second, the American Psychological Association attempted to collect a $2,500 fee per article from authors required by the NIH Open Access Mandate of 2007 to make their article available in PubMed Central. In this report, I will describe both of these developments.

Harvard Goes Open Access

This policy, voted into effect by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on February 12, 2008 and by Harvard Law School on May 1, 2008, requires faculty to deposit their articles into DASH (Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard), Harvard’s institutional repository. While faculty still own the copyright to articles they write, the open access policy grants the university a nonexclusive, automatic license to publish faculty members’ articles in their repository. Faculty members are required to deposit the author’s final version or the published version of the article (Office for Scholarly Communication, 2008a).

Open Access and the American Psychological Association

The open access community cheered when, in 2007, a law went into effect stating that any articles coming out of research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be made open access through PubMed Central, an open-access repository. Although the final version of the mandate allows for the publishers a six-month waiting period to provide a continued incentive to pay to subscribe to the journal for immediate access to the articles, and thus a profit for the publishers, the mandate was a gain for open access advocates.

However, in July of 2008, the American Psychological Association attempted to charge a “deposit fee” to any author required to deposit his or her article into PubMed Central. Within one day, the APA had pulled the policy. Librarian Dorothea Salo (2008b) preserved the language of the policy on her weblog, Caveat Lector:

Authors publishing in APA or EPF journals should NOT deposit, personally and directly, Word documents of APA-accepted manuscripts or APA-published articles in PubMed Central (PMC) or any other depository. As the copyright holder, APA will make necessary deposits after formal acceptance by the journal editor and APA.
[. . .]
In compliance with NOT-OD-08-033, APA will deposit the final peer-reviewed manuscript of NIH-funded research to PMC upon acceptance for publication. The deposit fee of $2,500 per manuscript for 2008 will be billed to the author’s university per NIH policy. Deposit fees are an authorized grant expense. The article will also be available via PsycARTICLES.

For an author to deposit an article into PubMed Central, it is free. The APA, however, declared that for the privilege of being published in one of its journals or those of the Educational Publishing Foundation, the author must agree not to deposit the article himself or herself (for free), but must instead give the APA $2,500 to deposit the manuscript. The authors, or their universities, would have had to buy the right to make the article open access, which is required by law anyway. In addition, as PubMed Central mainly covers biology, public health, and medicine, articles in psychology only make up a tiny fraction of the articles in the repository. The APA, apparently, did not want to make even a small number of articles available on PubMed Central without a hefty fee.

Open-access bloggers and librarians, including Peter Suber, Dorothea Salo, and Stevan Harnad, immediately began posting about the story and emailing faculty members, and the APA experienced pressure from a variety of parties. Suber summarized the absurdity of the APA’s policy thus: “Even after collecting the fee, the APA will not deposit the published version of the article, will not allow [open access] release for 12 months, will not allow authors to deposit in [PubMed Central] themselves (and bypass the fee), will not allow authors to deposit in any other [open access] repository, and will not allow authors to retain copyright” (2008). The next day, the APA removed the language from its site and posted a notice saying that they would post articles of NIH-funded research in PubMed Central in compliance with the open access mandate (Salo, 2008c). Though there is not an easy way to tell which articles in APA journals have been funded by NIH, I strongly suspect that those articles – available free of charge on PubMed Central – still cost $11.95 each as do all articles on APA’s site for their journals, PsycARTICLES.

They are still, however, charging any author whose research was funded by the Wellcome Trust, a charity that funds medical research, a fee of $4,000 per article to make the article open access. The Wellcome Trust has a policy that any articles based on research it funds must be made freely available to the public in PubMed Central or UK PubMed Central. If an article in an APA journal is based on research funded by the Wellcome Trust, APA charges the author and/or the author’s university $4,000 for the right to put that article in PubMed Central, which the Wellcome Trust will reimburse (American Psychological Association, 2008). The APA will also make those Wellcome Trust articles available open-access on PsycARTICLES, the APA’s site for their journals. Whether the APA’s loss for publishing one journal article in PubMed Central and UK PubMed Central equals to $4,000 I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Conclusion: Implications for Rhetoric and Composition

When I first heard about the Harvard Open Access Policy, and the MIT university-wide policy that followed in early 2009, I wondered: what happens if a journal publisher says it won’t publish a paper if an early draft or author’s final version is already published online? This practice, which open access conversationalists call the Ingelfinger Rule, carries no legal weight, as the author owns the copyright at the time the paper is put into an institutional repository, but a publisher’s policy can be quite forceful for professors who are expected to publish to keep their jobs. I thought Harvard and MIT might be effectively forcing their faculty members to play chicken with the publishers: “If you won’t let me publish this paper in my repository, I’ll be forced to send the paper elsewhere – and you’ll no longer have the opportunity to publish a paper by a Harvard professor.”

On further thought, though, and after I read some material about the policy on Harvard’s Office of Scholarly Communication site, I understood the policy’s power. If a journal refuses to publish an article previously made available via open access, a Harvard faculty member has a few options: she can withdraw the submission and try to publish the paper elsewhere, she can petition for a waiver from Harvard’s Open Access Policy, or she can try to get the publisher to change the contract to allow the repository publication – with the full support of Harvard and its Office of Scholarly Communication, which will help professors negotiate with publishers. Salo offers the following analysis of the policy (2008a):

The Harvard policy puts publishers in an extraordinarily weak position. They can’t denounce it; that’s tantamount to denouncing faculty, which would be utterly suicidal. (Publishers can and do slag librarians. They can and do slag government. They can’t slag faculty, and they know it.) I don’t think they can sue; even if they could win in court (which I rather doubt, though standard not-a-lawyer disclaimers apply), the hideous publicity from suing Harvard would stick like tar. They can’t prevent eager librarians at Harvard from setting up and filling a repository. Even their standard lines of FUD won’t work—they can’t seriously spin this as “a vote against peer review,” because really, is Harvard going to do anything that damages peer review? Of course not! All the publishers can realistically do is plead poverty, and a look at their lobbying budgets and profit margins scotches that argument.

As faculty members, we have more power than we think in negotiating with publishers. I will reiterate here, as I often do, the importance of trying the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition’s Author’s Addendum when asked to sign a publishing contract, even if the publisher is likely to say no. In 2005, members of the Intellectual Property Caucus called this the “Just Ask!” campaign, with the idea that even if the publisher does not allow the author to retain copyright, regain copyright a year after publication, self-archive the paper, or whatever the author is requesting, the publisher will be on notice that faculty members want to do things like this. When an Author’s Addendum is backed by an institution, the message is even stronger. Perhaps 2009 will bring more institutional open access policies, but because we cannot always depend on our institutions to support our desire to self-archive our publications, I argue that as composition and rhetoric scholars, we should organize and write a statement directed specifically to publishers of journals in our field, answering specific language of their copyright contracts and advocating open access of our work.

Appendix: An Open Access Glossary

The first three terms can be found at Harvard’s DASH Repository: Rights and License FAQ:

Author’s draft: a paper that you or I might write – this paper might not have gone through a peer review process yet, or it might have gone through informal review by colleagues you ask for feedback, or you might have gone through blind review and revised it, but not gotten it accepted yet. “Author’s draft” simply means a paper in some stage of revision for which you, the author, still own copyright.

Author’s final version: a paper that’s been accepted by a journal after you’ve revised for peer review comments. You still own the copyright, but you’re probably about to sign it away to a journal publisher.

Published version: a paper in-press. It’s like the author’s final version, except with the copyediting, formatting, and typesetting done by the journal publisher. You probably don’t own the copyright to this version.

Green road to open access: a term referring to authors’ self-archiving, and more specifically to journal publishers that allow these rights (Harnad et al, 2004).

Gold road to open access: scholarship that is open access by default, particularly journals that  are open access (Harnad et al, 2004). In rhetoric and composition, we have several of these: Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy; Enculturation; The Writing Instructor; Composition Forum; Computers and Composition Online; KB Journal; Across the Disciplines; and more.

The Ingelfinger Rule: the policy of some publishers that they do not publish work that has been posted anywhere in the past, even in draft form. The term comes from Franz Ingelfinger, a past editor of The New England Journal of Medicine (Suber, 2004).

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. (2008). Document deposit procedures for APA journals.  Retrieved March 30, 2009, from http://www.apa.org/journals/authors/pubmed-deposit.html

Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C.,  Stamerjohanns, H., Hilf, E.R. (2004). The access/impact problem and the green and  gold roads to open access. Serials Review, 30, retrieved March 30, 2009, from   http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/impact.html

Office for Scholarly Communication. (2008). DASH repository: Rights and license FAQ.  Retrieved March 30, 2009, from http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/DASH/dash-copyright-faq.php

Office for Scholarly Communication. (2008). Policy FAQ. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from  http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/OpenAccess/policy.php#q10

Salo, D. (2008, Feb. 14). Pyrrhic victories. Caveat Lector. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from  http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/2008/02/14/pyrrhic-victories/

Salo, D. (2008, July 15). NIH’s acid test. Caveat Lector. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from  http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/2008/07/15/nihs-acid-test/

Salo, D. (2008, July 16). Surprise! Caveat Lector. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from  http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/2008/07/16/surprise-2/

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition. (2006). Author rights: Using the  SPARC author addendum to secure your rights as the author of a journal article.  Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.shtml

Suber, P. (2004). Guide to the open access movement. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/guide.htm

Suber, P. (2008, July 15). APA will charge authors for green OA. Open Access News. Retrieved  March 30, 2009, from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/07/apa-will-charge-authors-for-green-oa.html

Jeff Galin, Florida Atlantic University

The case of Barbara Bosch v Susan Ball-Kell and Ronald Rager Not Reported in F. Supp.2d, 2006 WL 258053 (C.D.Ill. August 31, 2006), 80 U.S.P.Q2d 1713 is one of the only cases in federal course since the 1976 revision of the Copyright statutes that directly addresses faculty ownership of teaching materials.  As a result, its findings have important implications for university faculty on issues of work for hire, the common law teacher exemption to work for hire, fair use, and intellectual property policies.  In this short article, I will not lay out the historical framework for these arguments, several of which I address in “Own Your Rights:  Know When Your University Can Claim Ownership of Your Work.”  Rather, I’ll offer enough context to understand the issues raised by this case to highlight its potential impact on ownership and control of faculty teaching materials in American universities.  

Case Background

Barbara Bosch brought a copyright infringement suit against the Susan Ball-Kell and a former university Dean, Karl Rager, based on their unauthorized copying and distribution of her pathology course materials.  In light of the Court’s reading of the teacher exception to the work-for-hire doctrine and the history of the University’s copyright policy, the Court denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion on claims of work made for hire.  The Court also denied summary judgment on a fair use defense so that “all facts and reasonable inferences” could be made in court where they could be fairly judged.  The judge did warn, however, that the plaintiff’s “ability to succeed on her infringement claim at trial is far from clear.”  Summary judgment was not awarded to Defense to Dismiss Contributory and Vicarious Infringement on the part of the former Dean because direct infringement by a primary infringer required additional findings of fact.  Until the fair use claim could be settled, direct infringement could not be establish.  The Court did award summary judgment on Plaintiffs Request for Damages and Injunctive Relief and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 

While court documents before the jury trial and after are publicly available, a summary of the trial itself is not.  The following analysis is derived from public court documents, several documents collected from the plaintiff, and a personal interview with the plaintiff in the Spring of 2007. 

The full historical details that pressed Barbara Bosch to file suit against Susan Ball-Kell and Dean Karl Rager are worth noting but are beyond the scope of this case summary.  The record represents a story of outrageous treatment of Bosch, which led to a Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure report that censored the Dean for “interference with a department’s curriculum affairs,” creating “an environment hostile to intellectual enquiry and academic debate,” “attempting to isolate Dr. Bosch physically, by locking her out of her office and other department areas, and by ordering department staff not to communicate with her,” “casual disregard for the tenure system,” and “condoning of the use (and seemingly even of the purloining) of intellectual property of a faculty member for someone else’s use” (13).

Bosch filed for copyright on her pathology teaching materials and later filed a copyright lawsuit Ball-Kell and Dean Rager for materials that Ball-Kell continued to use under her own name after Bosch filed her claim.  Soon thereafter, Bosch resigned her position as Associate Professor and took a position at another medical school.  Before the case went to court, Dean Rager finished his term as Dean and Ball-Kell stopped teaching in the department. The University hired an extremely aggressive law firm to defend the case.  After multiple motions were filed and adjudicated, the case went to court. 

The jury found that Bosch owned two of three documents she claimed.  It also found, however, that the University had a right to use her course materials under fair use provisions.  She filed a motion for a new trial based on bad jury instructions, which was denied.

The University filed for compensation for all court fees of over half a million dollars.  The Court awarded the University half of the allowed fees, $256, 391.25 Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 2994085 (C.D.Ill. Oct. 11, 2007), an amount on top of what she had already paid her own attorney for several years of legal work.  The case is in the final stages of settlement in March 2008.

Arguments

Two primary arguments concern faculty and their teaching materials:  1) whether Bosch should retain ownership of her teaching materials or whether they belong to the university as work for hire; and 2) Even if Bosch retains ownership, whether the university has fair use rights to them without her permission.

Copyright Ownership of teaching materials or Works for Hire?

The court ruling on “Works Made for Hire” appears to be the most definitive rejection of work for hire ownership in academia to date.  The Court held that “in an academic setting, an employee may be assigned to teach a particular course, but then is generally left to use his or her discretion to determine the focus of the topic, the way the topic is going to be approached, the direction of the inquiry, and the way that the material will ultimately be presented” Bosch v. Ball-Kell, No. 03-1408, 2006 WL 2548053, at 7 (C.D. Ill. Aug 31, 2006).  When the Defendants argued that “these cases apply solely to faculty publications for scholarly review or self-promotion,” the Court held that it “does not read the cases that narrowly,” but qualified that “Bosch does not rely solely on the case law.”  The Court found arguments of Weinstein v. University of Illinois and Hays v. Sony Corporation of America so compelling that it recognized the survival of the common law teacher exemption in the 1976 Copyright Act.  As a result, the Court deferred to language of the UIC Intellectual Property Policy, minutes concerning the implementation of the policy, the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure report condemning Dean Rager’s behavior, and the American Association of University Professors Statement on Copyright to determine “legislative intent” of language in the policy.  This evidence proved that the term “class notes” included teaching materials such as course syllabi within the definition of Traditional Academic Copyrightable Works from the UIC IP policy.  This determination convinced the jury that Bosch owned two of the three sets of copyrighted materials that she had registered. 

Fair Use Defense Upheld for Use of Teaching Materials

While Bosch v Ball-Kell may have set a new standard for determining faculty ownership of their teaching materials at universities, its findings of fair use of those same materials has set what may be a new and troubling standard.  The defense asserted that even if the works in question could not be defined as Works Made for Hire, the Defendant’s use of the materials was fair use according to section 107 of the Copyright Act.  In the absence of a trial summary, I piece together below the decision on an affirmative fair use defense from the summary judgment hearing, “Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial and to Alter or Amend Judgment,” and the Court’s response to combined “Plaintiff’s Motion” and “Defendants’ Rule 50 Motion to Direct Entry of Judgment.”  The jury decided that use of the materials was fair use based on the standard four-part test:

Character

There was no doubt that the works were for educational rather than commercial purposes.  The works were not deemed transformative in any way Cambell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994), citing Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562.  In fact, evidence was presented that Bosch’s name was removed from the documents and replaced with Ball-Kell’s. In the Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial or Alter or Amend Judgment, the Court held that in a case like this which concerns educational purposes, “factor one will normally tilt in the defendant’s favor.” Nixivm Corp. v. Ross Institute, 364 F. 3d 471,477 (2nd Cir.2004), cer. denied, 543 U.S. 1000 (2004).  Summary judgment was not granted concerning “[e]vidence of bad faith conduct or predatory intent” Sony Corp. V. Universal City Studios., 464 U.S. 417, 448 (1984); Weissmann v. Freeman, 8a68 F.2d 1313, 1323 (2nd Cir. 1989).  Bad faith was not found, however, at trial.

Nature

The works in question were found to be largely factual and scientific in nature rather than creative, despite the fact that fair use “has not been traditionally recognized as a defense to charges of copying from an author’s as yet unpublished works” Not Reported in F. Supp.2d, 2006 WL 258053 (C.D.Ill. August 31, 2006), 80 U.S.P.Q2d 1713  

Amount

Defendants contended that their use of teaching materials was deminimus and insubstantial, amounting only to 21 pages.  This claim proved convincing because ownership to the third set of materials was awarded to the University by the jury.  Despite the fact that Bosch’s former Chair gave her the “General Pathology Course Introduction” with the intent to transfer copyright, the jury was convinced that documents in question were developed by her former Chair “specifically for the University’s General Pathology Course in the scope of Dr. Bartlett’s employment and had been given to students in that course for many years” Defendants’ Rule 50 Motion to Direct Entry of Judgment as a Matter of Law and Plaintffi’s Motion for a New Trial and to Alter or Amend Judgment Not Reported in F. Supp.2d, 2007 WL 2572383 (C.D.Ill. Aug 29, 2007). 

Impact on Market

Bosch contested that the “Court erred in instructing the jury to find in favor of Defendants on factor four of the fair use defense . . .” because “she was entitled to an instruction allowing the jury to determine whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by Defendants would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the original.  Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 2572383 (C.D.Ill. Aug. 29, 2007).  The Court held that Bosch made no attempt to publish these works, and the Defendants used the works in the same way as Bosch for classroom purposes.  Furthermore, “Bosch fails to acknowledge the fact that there was no evidence produced at trial from which a reasonable jury could have discerned any impact on the potential market or value of the works.  Therefore, the question of harm or market for the works would amount only to “rank speculation.”

Implications for Ownership of Teaching Materials

1) The extraordinary summary of works made for hire, the assertion that the teaching exemption for works in academia survived the 1976 Copyright Act, and the reliance on university intellectual property policies with emphasis on legislative intent make this case a must read for any ownership dispute of teaching materials at a university.  Unless, there are explicit statements in letters of appointment or other official university policies, this case suggests that faculty may typically own copyrights in their teaching materials.  Furthermore, this case reminds us how important it is for us all to read carefully our institutions’ intellectual property policies and to know how key terms are defined such as Substantial University Support, Traditional Works of Scholarship, Instructional Works, and Institutional Works (see Own Your Rights for a full analysis of IP policies). 

2) On the other hand, this case alerts faculty that universities may have rights that enable them to use some of our teaching materials without our permission even if we own the copyrights outright.  Some universities have formalized this relationship by “unbundling” intellectual property rights for teaching materials by retaining perpetual licenses for use while faculty retain other rights.  Many programs desire such rights to insure consistency and continuity of academic programs.  This case also suggests that publishing teaching materials, documented plans to use them in research or a textbook, or other demonstration of market value can give faculty greater control of their teaching materials if a dispute arises over them. 

3) It behooves us all to note further the chilling effect this case has on future litigation over these issues.  The emotional, financial, and professional costs of such litigation are devastating.  Universities that threaten litigation can point to this case to coerce faculty into controlling contracts or unfair practices.  Bosch was motivated to pursue her rights, but has paid dearly for them.  It is unlikely that such a case will move through the Federal courts for quite some time. 

For all of these reasons, Bosch v. Ball-Kell may become a landmark case like Weinstein, Hays, and Cambell.  It has certainly provided us with ample reasons to know our rights over our teaching materials.

Works Cited

Galin, Jeffrey.  “Own Your Rights:  Know When Your University Can Claim Ownership of Your Work.”  Composition & Copyright:  Perspectives on Teaching, Text-Making, and Fair Use.  Steve Westbrook and Timothy Hodge Eds.  Albany: SUNY P, (in press).

“Report on complaint against Regional Dean Donald E. Rager (Peoria) by Associate Professor of Clinical Pathology BARBARA D. BOSCH.”  Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure 12 Apr. 2003.

Kim Dian Gainer, Radford University

Overview

For the past three years, several companies and organizations have been competing over what model to follow in making computer hardware and software available to primary and secondary students in the developing world.  The outcome of this competition may have a serious effect upon the question of whether open source software will make inroads against the Microsoft operating system that is installed in the vast majority of computers.

Background

In 2005 Nicholas Negroponte, co-founder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Laboratory, announced the formation of the nonprofit One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Foundation, an organization dedicated to the goal of placing a low-cost laptop in the hands of each child in participating developing nations.  The foundation proposed to develop a rugged laptop that would be sold in bulk to nations that would distribute units to individual students.  It was the intention of the foundation to keep the cost of each unit in the range of one-hundred dollars.  That goal was not realized, and the projected price of each unit was approximately two-hundred dollars when mass production began in November of 2007.  However, the technical goals of the project have been met.  The XO (if you turn the logo sideways, O upwards, it is supposed to look like a child with limbs outstretched) is based on an Advanced Micro Devices processor, and its software, provided by Red Hat, is a version of the open source—and free—Linux system.  Built in are a camera and microphone, and it comes equipped with a memory-card slot, a graphics tablet, and a game-pad controller.  Its screen rotates so that it can be used as a tablet.   It is enabled for both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, and even in the absence of an internet connection, the computers link with each other as part of a ‘mesh network’ that is established automatically whenever one XO is turned on in the vicinity of another.  (The internet connection is also automatic.)  It is light, weighing a little more than three pounds, in part because the need for a fan has been engineered out of it.  Its battery will last for six hours and can be recharged by a pull cord.  Both its screen and the system by which it is powered incorporate what many industry analysts consider to be breakthrough technology.

However impressive its technological specifications, foremost in the minds of the developers was the need to make the laptop suitable for use in developing nations.  The XO was designed to be energy efficient because it is intended for use in a market where electricity may be limited.  It also was designed for an environment in which conditions may be harsh and technical support lacking.  It has a sealed keyboard and is intended to be spillproof and impervious to rain and dust.  It may be dropped from a height of five feet without suffering damage.  Impressed by its suitability for use by children in developing nations, the Smithsonian’s Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum included the XO in its exhibit of affordable inventions intended to address Third World needs in the areas of shelter, health, water, education, energy, and transport.

The Struggle for Market Share

Initially, the technical appeal of the XO was not sufficient to entice many nations to participate in the project.  When mass production began, the OLPC Foundation was certain of only one order: 100,000 units destined for Uruguay.  To achieve the necessary economy of scale, the Foundation then adopted a “get one give one” model that was in force for the final two months of 2007.  Consumers in developed nations would purchase two computers for four-hundred dollars, one to be delivered to the purchaser, the other to be delivered to a student in a developing nation.

In the opinion of some observers, developing nations may have been reluctant to order the laptop because for-profit companies were actively seeking to discourage the mass adoption of an open source product that was not Windows compatible and did not rely upon an Intel chip and thus had the potential to devalue proprietary software and hardware.  For companies such as Windows and Intel, the stakes may be very high.  The potential market targeted by the OLPC program is huge, consisting of two billion students in developing nations.  If the OLPC program were to succeed in placing low-cost laptops in the hands of these children, for-profit corporations would not only forfeit immediate sales of laptops and bundled software; the students participating in the program might grow into adult consumers familiar with alternatives to Windows software and Intel chips.

For-profit companies, in particular Microsoft and Intel, appear to have taken a three-fold approach toward discouraging the mass adoption of the XO.  First, industry spokesmen ‘talked down’ the project.  Craig Barrett, the chairman of Intel, was quoted as calling the XO a “$100 gadget” (Johnson), and Microsoft’s Bill Gates repeatedly raised doubts about the suitability of the XO for children in developing nations.  The most egregious incident, however, probably took place after Peru agreed to participate in the program.  Shortly afterward, an Intel representative visited a Peruvian official and roundly criticized the XO—this in spite of the fact that Intel had only a few months prior signed on to the project and pledged financial support for it.  This incident caused a bitter public breach between Intel and the OLPC Foundation that included the resignation from the board of the Foundation of an Intel executive who had taken a seat on the board only a few months earlier. 

Companies have also introduced competing laptops.  Asus Computer International of Taiwan has had some success with individual sales of its Eee PC, sold at prices that range from two-hundred to four-hundred dollars, and reports that it is in negotiations to sell bulk orders to governments in both developed and developing nations.  The Eee PC is a retail brand of Intel’s Classmate PC mini-laptop that is being sold at a price of between two-hundred and three-hundred dollars.  Unlike Asus Computer, Intel markets the Classmate PC only to governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations and thus has positioned its laptop as a direct competitor to the OLPC’s XO.  Moreover, OLPC’s Negroponte has accused Intel of offering the Classmate at below cost in order to undercut sales of the XO.

Finally, for-profit companies have sought to derail the project by offering software and services that encourage the purchase of competing laptops.  In certain developing nations, Windows offers governments and schools a software bundle at a cost of $ 3 per unit, turning its software into a loss leader for the sale of Windows-compatible hardware.  As for Intel, it has initiated what it calls the “World Ahead” program,

a strategy to increase the use of computer technology in developing countries. For example, Intel’s Rural Connectivity Platform project is working on ways to extend the range of WiFi wireless networking from a few hundred feet to a dozen or more miles. Such a WiFi system could deliver cheap Internet access to remote villages, and make it easy to put the Classmate laptops online. It would also give everyone in the village an incentive to buy more computers, most of them loaded with Intel chips.  (Bray, Nov. 14, 2007)

OLPC Fights Back

Negroponte had always been outspoken in defending the OLPC program, and following the revelation that Intel had sought to interfere with the Foundation’s contract with Peru, he went on a verbal offensive.  In addition, as mentioned above, the program initiated the “get one give one” program.  Advanced Micro Devices and Red Hat continued to stand behind the program, as did other entities, such as Google.  The Foundation entered into an agreement with the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to place UNICEF-generated educational content on the laptops.  By March of 2008, orders of the XO were verging on the half a million mark.  Countries participating, in addition to Uruguay and Peru, include Rwanda, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, and Mongolia.  Meanwhile, Intel has been unable to sell as many of its Classmates PCs as it had anticipated.  By the end of 2007, Libya and Nigeria had signed orders for approximately 170,00 of the laptop, but Intel has suffered significant bad press as a result of its attempt to sabotage sales of the XO to Peru. 

Implications

Interestingly, orders for the XO now include 15,000 for schools in Birmingham, Alabama.  Designed for developing nations, the XO has nonetheless found a small market in the United States.  This development may presage a long term threat to Intel’s and Windows’ dominance of the computer and software market in developed nations.  At the moment, however, the battle is for control of emerging markets in the developing world.  In a move that may be an acknowledgement that a low-cost open source laptop would interfere with its attempts to penetrate and dominate this market, Microsoft is now pressing the OLPC Foundation to modify the XO so that it will run Windows XP.  However, the requested modifications would raise the cost of the laptop, and the Foundation has declined to alter the design of its laptop.

In addition to raising the price of the XO, the requested modifications would run counter to the Foundation’s vision of children as independent thinkers in control of the learning environment.  The XO is designed so that children themselves can service the computer.  The battery, for example, is easily replaced.  Similarly, the Foundation has embraced open source software not only for reasons of cost but also because its transparency, it was hoped, would encourage children to create their own programs or modify existing ones.  As one reviewer wrote,

The OLPC is designed to follow the “constructionist” theory of education (where children learn by doing and experiencing), which means that its creators wanted every level of the machine to be tinkerable, explorable and configurable by a curious child. Both Microsoft and Apple offered their operating systems for free for the project, but were turned down in preference to open software that could be manipulated and improved upon by the OLPC’s own users.  (O’Brien)

That such tinkering within an open source environment may threaten the dominance of proprietary software was illustrated by a project undertaken by a group of hackers at the Twenty-third Chaos Communication Convention held in Berlin in January of 2007.  These hackers set out to enable an XO to play Flash content without the use of Adobe’s proprietary Flash software.  Among the group was Rob Savoy, “the creator of Gnash, a free reimplementation of Flash” that was “painstakingly coded by developers who’ve never agreed to Adobe’s licence [sic]” (O’Brien).  After several hours, Savoy and his compatriots were playing Flash movies on the XO without ever having installed Flash.  Not only would their additions to the XO’s open source software allow children to watch Flash; the modifications would also allow youngsters to create Flash-compatible content.

In spite of a recent upsurge in orders for the XO, it is much too soon to tell whether the OLPC Foundation will succeed in its goal of placing laptops in the hands of significant numbers of children in developing nations.  However, if the Foundation does meet its goal, the above scenario suggests that control over computer applications may shift as proprietary software is bypassed by users who create their own programs or modify existing ones.  For this reason, in the coming year, Microsoft and Intel will no doubt continue to battle to prevent the XO or similar open source computers from establishing a foothold in a market potentially so profitable.  

Works Cited

Bray, Hiawatha.  (2007, Nov. 14).  Cheap Laptops as a Money Maker.  While Group Wants to Give Them to Children, Two Firms Eye Profits.  The Boston Globe C1.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic. 19 February 2008

_____.  (2007, Dec. 1).  One Laptop Per Child Orders Surge; Peru Wants 260,000 machines; Mexican Billionaire Signs Up.  The Boston Globe D1.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum.  (2007, May 4–Sept. 23, 2007). One Laptop Per Child.  In Design for the Other 90%.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/one-laptop-per-child.

Hille, Kathrin.  (2007, April 9).  The Race for the Dollars 100 Laptop: A Charitable Project Has Uncovered the Marketing Power of the Poor.  Financial Times (London) 1.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

Johnson, Bobbie.  (2007, May 31).  Which Laptop Per Child?  The Chipmaking Giant Intel is Accused of Damaging the Non-profit Scheme to Provide Cheap Laptops for the Developing World. It Says It’s Helping.  The Guardian (London) Technology Pages 1.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

Lohr, Steve.  (2007, Sept. 24).  Buy a Laptop for a Child, Get Another Laptop Free.  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com.

Markoff, John.  (2007, Jan. 29). At Davos, the Squabble Resumes on How to Wire the Third World.  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com.

_____.  (2006, Jan. 30).  Battle to Bring Cheap PCs to the Masses.  The International Herald Tribune 18.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

_____.  (2006, Nov. 30).  For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate.  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com.

_____. (2007, July 14) Intel, in Shift, joins Project on Education.  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com.

_____.  (2008, Jan. 4).  Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs.  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com.

_____.  (2008, Jan. 5).  Intel Quits Efforts to Computers to Children.  The New York Times C3.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

_____.  (2006, Oct. 11).  U.S. Group Reaches Deal to Provide Laptops to All Libyan Schoolchildren.  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com.

Microsoft Wants One Laptop Per Child System to Run Windows XP.  (2007, Dec. 6).  Techweb.   Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

Naughton, John. (2008, Jan. 13).  A Little Green Computing Machine That Made Intel See Red.  The Observer (England) 12.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

O’Brien, Danny.  (2007, Jan. 12).  Child-friendly Laptop Project a Warning to Market. The Irish Times 7.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

One Laptop Per Child.  (Nd).  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://laptop.org/en/index.shtml.

Pogue, David.  (2007, Oct. 7).  Laptop with a Mission Widens Its Audience.  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com.

_____.  (2007, Oct. 4).  PC for the Poor is Useful for Everyone Else, Too.  The International Herald Tribune 18.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

Rush, Dominic.  (2008, Jan. 13).  Intel Suffers Bad Issues of Trust.  Sunday Times (London) 26.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

Schofield, Jack.  (2007, Oct. 18).  Is the £199 Laptop a PC or an Appliance? The Asus Laptop is More Than Just a Computer: It’s a Return to the Idea of the Closed Box and an Attempt to Get the Next Billion Users.  The Guardian (London) Technology Pages 3.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

U.S. City Might Buy ‘Third World’ Laptops.  Birmingham, Ala., Officials OK $3.5 Million to Buy 15,000 from Foundation.  (2008, March 5).  MSNBC.  Retrieved March 5, 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23486845/.

Witchalls, Clint.  (2005, Feb. 17).  Bridging the Digital Divide: A $ 100 Laptop Aims to Bring Equal Technology Opportunities to Children in the Developing World. The Guardian (London) 24.  Retrieved March 1, 2008 from LexisNexis Academic.

Introduction

Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Co-Chair, 2008 CCCC Intellectual Property Caucus

The year 2007 carried quite a few key developments for those who follow issues and debates related to copyright and intellectual property. For the third year running, then, the CCCC Intellectual Property Committee is pleased to publish this annual report in the service of our first goal, to “keep the CCCC and NCTE memberships informed about intellectual property developments, through reports in the CCCC newsletter and in other NCTE and CCCC forums.”

In assuming the editorship of this year’s collection, I have chosen to implement two changes which I believe embody the values of the Caucus and the IP Committee. First, I have licensed the collection under a Creative Commons license. This license allows readers to use the collection beyond the boundaries of fair use, provided the collection is not used for commercial purposes, the authors of the articles are credited, and no derivative works are made. One exception to the condition regarding derivative works concerns modifications for purposes of accessibility. Readers can, for example, create an audio recording of the collection or increase and change the font for the visually impaired. The main purpose for the Creative Commons license is to enable cross-publishing of the collection in a variety of online publication venues. I also hope that readers find the collection useful for the classroom. This collection may be reprinted in course packs or archived on course web sites under the terms of the Creative Commons license.

The second change I have made is to make the collection available in Open Document Format. In the past, the collection has been published in html and pdf format, as it is this year, but I am also publishing it as an .odt file, which can be opened in at least two open source word processing programs: OpenOffice and NeoOffice. I am uploading the file in .odt format as a public acknowledgment of the IP Caucus’s growing awareness of software as intellectual work and open source software as intellectual work that is free and open for all to use and build upon.

• Click here for a downloadable PDF of these pieces.
• Click here for a downloadable Word Document of these pieces.

McLean Students File Suit Against Turnitin.com: Useful Tool or Instrument of Tyranny?
Traci A. Zimmerman (Pipkins), James Madison University

The Importance of Understanding and Utilizing Fair Use in Educational Contexts: A Study on Media Literacy and Copyright Confusion
Martine Courant Rife, Lansing Community College and Michigan State University

The National Institutes of Health Open Access Mandate: Public Access for Public Funding
Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

“Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video”
Laurie Cubbison, Radford University

One Laptop Per Child Program Threatens Dominance of Intel and Microsoft
Kim Dian Gainer, Radford University

Bosch v Ball-Kell:  Faculty May Have Lost Control Over Their Teaching Materials
Jeff Galin, Florida Atlantic University

Introduction

Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Co-Chair, 2008 CCCC Intellectual Property Caucus

The year 2007 carried quite a few key developments for those who follow issues and debates related to copyright and intellectual property. For the third year running, then, the CCCC Intellectual Property Committee is pleased to publish this annual report in the service of our first goal, to “keep the CCCC and NCTE memberships informed about intellectual property developments, through reports in the CCCC newsletter and in other NCTE and CCCC forums.”

In assuming the editorship of this year’s collection, I have chosen to implement two changes which I believe embody the values of the Caucus and the IP Committee. First, I have licensed the collection under a Creative Commons license. This license allows readers to use the collection beyond the boundaries of fair use, provided the collection is not used for commercial purposes, the authors of the articles are credited, and no derivative works are made. One exception to the condition regarding derivative works concerns modifications for purposes of accessibility. Readers can, for example, create an audio recording of the collection or increase and change the font for the visually impaired. The main purpose for the Creative Commons license is to enable cross-publishing of the collection in a variety of online publication venues. I also hope that readers find the collection useful for the classroom. This collection may be reprinted in course packs or archived on course web sites under the terms of the Creative Commons license.

The second change I have made is to make the collection available in Open Document Format. In the past, the collection has been published in html and pdf format, as it is this year, but I am also publishing it as an .odt file, which can be opened in at least two open source word processing programs: OpenOffice and NeoOffice. I am uploading the file in .odt format as a public acknowledgment of the IP Caucus’s growing awareness of software as intellectual work and open source software as intellectual work that is free and open for all to use and build upon.

• Click here for a downloadable PDF of these pieces.
• Click here for a downloadable Word Document of these pieces.

McLean Students File Suit Against Turnitin.com: Useful Tool or Instrument of Tyranny?
Traci A. Zimmerman (Pipkins), James Madison University

The Importance of Understanding and Utilizing Fair Use in Educational Contexts: A Study on Media Literacy and Copyright Confusion
Martine Courant Rife, Lansing Community College and Michigan State University

The National Institutes of Health Open Access Mandate: Public Access for Public Funding
Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

“Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video”
Laurie Cubbison, Radford University

One Laptop Per Child Program Threatens Dominance of Intel and Microsoft
Kim Dian Gainer, Radford University

Bosch v Ball-Kell:  Faculty May Have Lost Control Over Their Teaching Materials
Jeff Galin, Florida Atlantic University

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v53-4

Grimm, Nancy Maloney. Shanghai Quartet: The Crossings of Four Women of China byMin-Zhan Lu. CCC. 53.4 (2002): 747-750.

McComiskey, Bruce. Literacy Matters: Writing and Reading the Social Self by Robert P. Yagelski. CCC. 53.4 (2002): 751-753.

Rodby, Judith. Popular Literacy: Studies in Cultural Practices and Poetics . John Trimbur, ed. CCC . 53.4 (2002): 753-756.

Mahiri, Jabari. Minding the Body: What Student Athletes Know about Learning by Julie Cheville. CCC. 53.4 (2002): 757-759.

Bauer, Dale M. Water Drops from Women Writers: A Temperance Reader . Carol Mattingly, ed. CCC. 53.4 (2002): 759-761.

Frick, Jane and Nancy Blattner. “In Brief: Reflections on the Missouri CWA Surveys, 1989-2001: A New Composition Delivery Paradigm.” CCC. 53.4 (2002): 739-746.

White, Linda Feldmeier. “Learning Disability, Pedagogies, and Public Discourse.” CCC. 53.4 (2002): 705-738.

Abstract:

I analyze the public and professional discourse of learning disability, arguing that medical models of literacy misdirect teaching by narrowing its focus to remediation. This insight about teaching is not new; resurgent demands for behaviorist pedagogies make understanding their continuing appeal important to composition studies.

Keywords:

ccc53.4 LearningDisabilities Students Pedagogy Research Spelling Problems Dyslexia Accommodation Public Neurology Reading

Works Cited

Allington, Richard, and Haley Woodside- Jiron. “Thirty Years of Research in Reading: When Is a Research Summary Not a Research Summary?” Goodman 143-57.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1995.

Barkley, Russell A. “The Assessment of Attention in Children.” Lyon 69-102.

Bartlett v. NY State Board of Law Examiners. U.S. Court of Appeals. Docket No. 97-9162. 14 September 1998. Rpt. in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Decisions 27 May 2000 <http://www.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/search-second.html>.

Bartoli, Jill, and Martin Botel. Reading/ Learning Disability: An Ecological Approach. New York: Teachers College P, 1988.

Bender, William N. “Innovative Approaches to Reading.” Bender 83-105. . “Learning Disabilities in the Classroom.” Bender 3-26.

—., ed. Professional Issues in Learning Disabilities: Practical Strategies and Relevant Research Findings . Austin: Pro-Ed, 1999.

Berninger, Virginia W., and Robert D. Abbott. “Redefining Learning Disabilities: Moving beyond Aptitude-Achievement Discrepancies to Failure to Respond to Validated Treatment Protocols.” Lyon 163-83.

B�rub�, Michael. Life As We Know It: A Father, a Family, and an Exceptional Child . New York: Pantheon, 1996. Bialostok, Steve. “Offering the Olive Branch: The Rhetoric of Insincerity.” Language Arts 74 (1997): 618-29.

Bigler, Erin D., Renee Lajiness-O’Neill, and Nancy Louise Howes. “Technology in the Assessment of Learning Disability.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 31 (1998): 67-82.

Blachman, Benita. “Early Intervention and Phonological Awareness: A Cautionary Tale.” Foundations of Reading Acquisition and Dyslexia: Implications for Early Intervention . Ed. Benita Blachman. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 1997. 409-30.

Brueggemann, Brenda Jo, Linda Feldmeier White, Patricia A. Dunn, Barbara A. Heifferon, and Johnson Cheu. “Becoming Visible: Lessons in Disability.” CCC 52 (2001): 368-98.

Coles, Gerald. The Learning Mystique: A Critical Look at “Learning Disabilities .” New York: Pantheon, 1987.

—. Misreading Reading: The Bad Science That Hurts Children . Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2000.

—. Reading Lessons: The Debate over Literacy . New York: Hill and Wang, 1998. Cronin, Eileen M. Helping Your Dyslexic Child: A Step-by-Step Program for Helping Your Child Improve Reading, Writing, Spelling, Comprehension, and Self- Esteem . Rocklin: Prima Publishing, 1994.

Cruickshank, William. Foreword to the First Edition. Learning Disabilities and Brain Function: A Neuropsychological Approach . 3rd ed. By William H. Gaddes and Dorothy Edgell. New York: Springer- Verlag, 1994. xii-xv.

Dudley-Marling, Curt, and Don Dippo. “What Learning Disability Does: Sustaining the Ideology of Schooling.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 28 (1995): 408-14.

Dunn, Patricia. Learning Re-Abled: The Learning Disability Controversy and Composition Studies . Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook, 1995.

—. Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of Writing . Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook, 2001.

Fink, Rosalie. “Literacy Development in Successful Men and Women with Dyslexia.” Annals of Dyslexia 48 (1998): 311-46.

Fletcher, Jack M., and Barbara Foorman. “Issues in Definition and Measurement of Learning Disabilities: The Need for Early Intervention.” Lyon 185-200.

Franklin, Barry, ed. Learning Disability: Dissenting Essays . Philadelphia: Falmer, 1987.

Freppon, Penny. “Understanding the Nature of Reading and Writing Difficulties: An Alternative View.” Reading & Writing Quarterly 10 (1994): 227-38.

Gaddes, William H., and Dorothy Edgell. Learning Disabilities and Brain Function: A Neuropsychological Approach . 3rd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.

Gerber, Paul J., and Henry B. Reiff. Speaking for Themselves: Ethnographic Interviews with Adults with Learning Disabilities . Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1991.

Goodman, Kenneth, ed. In Defense of Good Teaching: What Teachers Need to Know about the “Reading Wars.” York: Stenhouse, 1998.

—. “Who’s Afraid of Whole Language? Politics, Paradigms, Pedagogy, and the Press.” Goodman 3-37.

Graff, Gerald. Beyond the Culture Wars: How Teaching the Conflicts Can Revitalize American Education. New York: Norton: 1992.

Grundin, Hans, and Keith Stanovich. “Who’s Romanticizing Reality? A Response to Keith Stanovich: Comment/Reply” The Reading Teacher 48 (1994): 8-12.

Guckenberger et al. v. Boston University et al. U.S. District Ct. Massachusetts. 15 August 1997. Rpt. in The Chronicle of Higher Education Documents 10 September 1997 <http://chronicle.com/che-data/focus.dir/data.dir/0818.97/bu.htm>.

Healy, Patrick. “CUNY’s 4-Year Colleges Ordered to Phase Out Remedial Education.” Chronicle of Higher Education 5 June 1998: A26.

Hebel, Sara. “New Supreme Court Rulings Could Impede Disability-Bias Suits against Colleges.” Chronicle of Higher Education 2 July 1999: A31.

Horner, Bruce. ” Discoursing Basic Writing .” CCC 47 (1996): 199-222.

Hughes, Margaret, and Dennis Searle. The Violent E and Other Tricky Sounds: Learning to Spell from Kindergarten through Grade 6 . York: Stenhouse, 1997.

Johnson, Sharon E., and William N. Bender. “Language Arts Instructional Approaches.” Bender 107-39.

Kantrowitz, Barbara, and Anne Underwood. “Dyslexia and the New Science of Reading.” Newsweek 22 November 1999: 72-78.

Kavale, Kenneth A., and Steven R. Forness. “Defining Learning Disabilities: Consonance and Dissonance.” Issues in Educating Students with Disabilities . Ed. John Wills Lloyd, Edward J. Kameenui, and David Chard. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.

Kelman, Mark, and Gillian Lester. Jumping the Queue: An Inquiry into the Legal Treatment of Students with Learning Disabilities . Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1997.

Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools . New York: HarperCollins, 1991.

Krashen, Stephen D. Three Arguments against Whole Language & Why They Are Wrong . Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1999.

Lane, Harlan. “Constructions of Deafness.” The Disability Studies Reader. Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York: Routledge, 1997. 153-71.

Lee, Christopher, and Rosemary Jackson. What about Me? Strategies for Teaching Misunderstood Learners. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2001.

Linton, Simi. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity . New York: New York UP, 1998.

Lyon, G. Reid, ed. Frames of Reference for the Assessment of Learning Disabilities: New Views on Measurement Issues . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1994.

—. “Why Reading Is Not a Natural Process.” Educational Leadership 55 (1998): 14-18.

McQuillan, Jeff. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims, Real Solutions . Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1998.

Merzenich, Michael M., William M. Jenkins, Paul Johnson, Christopher Schreiner, Steven L. Miller, and Paula Tallal. “Temporal Processing Deficits of Language-Learning Impaired Children Ameliorated by Training.” Science 271 (1996): 77-80.

Messer-Davidow, Ellen. “Manufacturing the Attack on Liberalized Higher Education.” Social Text 36 (1993): 40-80. Rpt. in After Political Correctness: The Humanities and Society in the 1990s . Ed. Christopher Newland and Ronald Strickland. Boulder: Westview Press, 1995. 38-78.

Moats, Louisa Cook. “Assessment of Spelling in Learning Disabilities Research.” Lyon 333-49.

Morris, Robin. “A Review of Critical Concepts and Issues in the Measurement of Learning Disabilities.” Lyon 615-26.

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Learning Disabilities. By Sharon Neuwirth. Washington, DC: GPO, 1993.

Oakland, Thomas et al. “An Evaluation of the Dyslexia Training Program: A Multisensory Method for Promoting Reading in Students with Reading Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 31 (1998): 140-47.

Poplin, Mary. “Research Practices in Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disability Quarterly 7 (1984): 2-5.

Read, Charles. Children’s Categorization of Speech Sounds in English . Urbana: NCTE, 1975.

Reiff, Henry B., Paul J. Gerber, and Rick Ginsberg. Exceeding Expectations: Successful Adults with Learning Disabilities . Austin: Pro-Ed, 1997.

Resnick, Lauren. “Shared Cognition: Thinking as Social Practice.” Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition . Ed. Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1991. 1-20.

Rose, Mike. “Narrowing the Mind and Page: Remedial Writers and Cognitive Reductionism.” CCC 39 (1988): 267-302.

Selingo, Jeffrey. “Judge Says Boston U. Can Require Learning Disabled to Meet Language Requirement.” Chronicle of Higher Education 12 June 1998: A42.

—. “Judge Says Boston U. Violated Rights of Learning Disabled.” Chronicle of Higher Education 5 September 1997: A65.

Shapiro, Joseph. “The Strange Case of Somnolent Samantha.” U.S. News & World Report 14 April 1997: 31.

Shaywitz, Sally E. “Dyslexia.” Scientific American 275 (1996): 98-104.

Shaywitz, Sally E., Bennett A. Shaywitz, Jack M. Fletcher, and Michael D. Escobar. “Prevalence of Reading Disability in Boys and Girls: Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study.” Journal of the American Medical Association 264 (1990): 998-1002.

Sigmon, Scott B. Critical Voices on Special Education: Problems and Progress Concerning the Mildly Handicapped . Albany: SUNY P, 1990.

Simpson, Eileen. Reversals: A Personal Account of Victory over Dyslexia . 1979. Rev. ed. New York: Noonday-Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1991.

Sleeter, Christine. “Literacy, Definitions of Learning Disabilities and Social Control.” Ed. Berry Franklin. Learning Disability: Dissenting Essays . Philadelphia: Falmer, 1987. 67-87.

Sparks, Richard L., and Leonore Ganschow. “The Boston University Lawsuit: Introduction to the Special Series.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 32 (1999): 284-85.

Spear-Swerling, Louise, and Robert J. Sternberg. Off Track: When Poor Readers Become “Learning Disabled.” Boulder: Westview Press, 1996.

Stanovich, Keith E. How to Think Straight about Psychology . 4th ed. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.

—. “Dysrationalia: A New Specific Learning Disability.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 26 (1993): 501-15.

—. “The Sociopsychometrics of Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 32 (1999): 350-61.

Stanovich, Paula, and Keith E. Stanovich. “Research into Practice in Special Education.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 30 (1997): 477-81.

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

Strosnider, Kim. “Boston U. Chief Admits He Made Up Story of Disabled Student.” Chronicle of Higher Education 18 April 1997: A38.

Taylor, Denny. Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science: The Political Campaign to Change America’s Mind about How Children Learn to Read . Urbana: NCTE, 1998.

Torgesen, Joseph. “Learning Disabilities Theory: Issues and Advances.” Vaughan and Bos 3-21.

Traub, James. City on a Hill: Testing the American Dream at City College . Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1995.

Treiman, Rebecca. “Spelling in Normal Children and Dyslexics.” Foundations of Reading Acquisition and Dyslexia: Implications for Early Intervention . Ed. Benita Blachman. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 1997. 191-218.

Vaughan, Sharon, and Candace Bos, eds. Research Issues in Learning Disabilities: Theory, Methodology, Assessment, and Ethics . New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.

Vaughan, Sharon, and G. Reid Lyon. “Ethical Considerations When Conducting Research with Students with Learning Disabilities.” Vaughan and Bos 315-28.

Vellutino, Frank. Dyslexia: Theory and Research . Cambridge: MIT Press, 1979. Weaver, Constance. “Facts on Research on the Teaching of Phonics.” WLU Fact Sheets 21 December 2001 <http://legacy.ncte.org/wlu/factsht.shtml>.

Westling, Jon. “Getting Government Out of Higher Education.” The Heritage Foundation Lectures and Seminars 3 May 1995 and 6 July 1998 <http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/education/lect533.html>.

Wolinsky, Sid, and Amy Whelan. “Federal Law and the Accommodation of Students with LD: The Lawyers Look at the BU Decision.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 32 (1999): 286-91.

Ysseldyke, James E., and Bob Algozzine. Critical Issues in Special and Remedial Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.

Zemelman, Steve, Harvey Daniels, and Marilyn Bizar. “Sixty Years of Reading Research: But Who’s Listening?” Phi Delta Kappan 80 (1999): 513-17.

Richardson, Elaine. “‘To Protect and Serve’: African American Female Literacies.” CCC. 53.4 (2002): 675-704.

Abstract:

This chapter seeks to add to our understanding of literacy as it relates to African Americans, with a focus on African American female literacies. Primarily, I argue that mother tongue literacy is central to literacy education.

Keywords:

ccc53.4 Women AfricanAmerican Literacy Language Mother Life School Students Practice Culture

Works Cited

Alim, H. Samy. “We Are the Streets: Street Conscious Copula Variation.” Paper Presented at The Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 4-7, 2001.

Arnold, Karen, and P. Murphy. “Campus and Classroom: The Experiences of Minority Students in Predominantly White Universities.” Beyond the Dream: Meaningful Program Evaluation and Assessment to Achieve Equal Opportunity at Predominantly White Universities . Ed. Robert E. Stake, Stafford Hood, Henry T. Frierson. Greenwich: Jai Press, 1994. 17-46.

Aveisa, Jeanne. Airport Drug Seizures Up but Customs Reports Fewer Passengers Were Searched <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/travel/daily news/customs001020.html> Washington, 20 Oct. 2000.

Baugh, John. Black Street Speech: Its History, Structure, and Survival. Austin: U of Texas P, 1983.

Boykin, A. Wade. “Reading Achievement and the Social-Cultural Frame of Reference of Afro-American Children.” Journal of Negro Education 53.4 (1984): 464-73.

Campbell, Kermit. “The Rhetoric of Black English Vernacular: A Study of the Oral and Written Discourse Practices of African American Male College Students.” Diss. Ohio State U, Columbus, Ohio, 1993.

Chude-Sokei, Louis. “Dread Discourse and Jamaican Sound Systems.” Language, Rhythm, and Sound: Black Popular Cultures into the Twenty-First Century . Ed. Joseph K. Adjaye and Adrianne R. Andrews. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1997, 185-202.

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment . New York: Routledge, 1991.

Collins-Eaglin, Jan, and Stuart A. Karabenick. “Devaluing the Academic Success of African American Students: On ‘Acting White’ and ‘Selling Out.'” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA, April 12-16, 1993. (ERIC Database No. ED 362587).

Cooper, Anna Julia. A Voice from the South. 1892. Introd. Mary Helen Washington. The Schomburg Library of Nineteenth- Century Black Women Writers. New York: Oxford UP, 1988.

Davis, Angela Y. The Angela Y. Davis Reader . Ed. Joy James. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1998.

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

Dubois, William Edwardburghardt. The Souls of Black Folk. Ed. David Blight and Robert Gooding-Williams. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997.

Equiano, Olaudah. The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the African. In The Classic Slave Narratives. Ed. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. New York: New American Library, 1987.

Fine, Michelle. “Silencing and Literacy.” Literacy among African American Youth: Issues in Learning, Teaching, and Schooling. Ed. Vivian Gadsden and Daniel A. Wagner. Creskill: Hampton Press, 1995. 201-22.

Ford, Donna. Reversing Underachievement among Gifted Black Students: Promising Practices and Programs. New York: Teachers College P, 1996.

Fordham, Signithia. “‘Those Loud Black Girls’: (Black) Women, Silence, and Gender ‘Passing’ in the Academy.” Beyond Silenced Voices: Class, Race, and Gender in United States Schools. Ed. Lois Weis and Michelle Fine. Albany: State U of New York P, 1993. 81-111.

—. Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity, and Success at Capital High. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.

Foster, Michele. “Sociolinguistics and the African-American Community: Implications for Literacy.” Theory into Practice 31.4 (1992): 303-11.

Gaines, Ernest. Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman . New York: Bantam Books published by arrangement with The Dial Press Edition, 1971.

Gee, James Paul. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses . London: Taylor & Francis, 1996.

Gibbs, Jewell Taylor et al. Young, Black, and Male in America: An Endangered Species. Dover: Auburn House, 1988.

Gilmore, Perry. “‘Gimme Room’: School Resistance, Attitude, and Access to Literacy.” Rewriting Literacy: Culture and the Discourse of the Other. Ed. C. Mitchell and K. Weiler. New York: Bergin and Garvey, 1991. 57-73.

—. “Spelling ‘Mississippi’: Recontextualizing a Literacy-Related Speech Event,” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 14 (1983): 235-55.

Grant, Linda. “Black Females’ ‘Place’ in Desegregated Classrooms,” Sociology of Education 57.2 (1984): 98-111.

Holtzclaw, William Henry. The Black Man’s Burden. New York: Negro Universities P, 1970.

hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Houston Stanback, Marsha. “Language and Black Woman’s Place: Evidence from the Black Middle Class.” For Alma Mater: Theory and Practice in Feminist Scholarship. Ed. Paula A. Treichler, Cheris Kramarae, and Beth Stafford. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1985. 177-93.

Hubbard, Lea. A Gendered Look at the Academic Achievement of Low-Income African American High School Students: Strategies of Success. ED 414 287. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March 1997.

Hudley, Cynthia A. “Using Role Models to Improve the Reading Attitudes of Ethnic Minority High School Girls.” Journal of Reading 36.3 (1992): 182-88.

Hurston, Zora Neale. Mules and Men. In The Norton Anthology of African American Literature. Ed. Henry L. Gates, Jr., and Nellie McKay. New York: Norton, 1996. 1032-41.

Jacobs, Harriet. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl . In The Classic Slave Narratives. Ed. Henry L. Gates, Jr. New York: New American Library, 1987. 333-515.

Kelley, Robin. “Kickin’ Reality, Kickin’ Ballistics: Gangsta Rap and Postindustrial Los Angeles.” Droppin’ Science: Critical Essays on Rap Music and Hip Hop Culture. Ed. William Eric Perkins. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1996. 117-58.

Labov, William. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1972.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. The Dream Keepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Lee, Carol. Signifying as a Scaffold for Literary Interpretation: The Pedagogical Implications of an African American Discourse Genre . Urbana: NCTE, 1993.

Logan, Shirley Wilson. “We Are Coming”: The Persuasive Discourse of Nineteenth- Century Black Women. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1999.

MacIntosh, Peggy. White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies. Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women, no. 189. Wellesley: Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women, 1988.

Mahiri, Jabari. Shooting for Excellence: African American and Youth Culture in New Century Schools. Urbana and New York: NCTE and Teacher’s College P, 1998.

Majors, Richard, and Janet Mancini Billson. Cool Pose: The Dilemmas of Black Manhood in America. New York: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1992.

Marshall, Paule. “The Making of a Writer: From Poets in the Kitchen.” The Norton Anthology of African American Literature. Ed. Henry L. Gates, Jr., and Nellie McKay. New York: Norton, 1996. 2072-79.

Martin-Jones, Marilyn, and Kathryn Jones. Multilingual Literacies: Reading and Writing Different Worlds. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000.

Moody, Joycelyn. Enslaved Women as Autobiographical Narrators: The Case of Louisa Picquet. Paper Presented at the Ethnic Rhetorics Conference, Pennsylvania State U, July 2001.

Morgan, Joan. When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost: My Life as a Hip-Hop Feminist. New York: Simon, 1999.

Morrison, Toni. Beloved: A Novel . New York: Knopf/Random House, 1987.

“Officers to Be Fired in Tyisha Miller Shooting Case.” <http://www.cnn.com/us/9906/12/riverside.firing> Posted 12 June 1999.

Oxford English Dictionary. “Metronymic.” London: Oxford UP, 1987.

Robertson, Claire. “Africa into the Americas? Slavery and Women, the Family, and the Gender Division of Labor.” More Than Chattel: Black Women and Slavery in the Americas. Ed. David Barry Gaspar and Darlene Clark Hine. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1996. 3-40.

Royster, Jacqueline Jones. Traces of a Stream: Literacy and Social Change among African American Women . Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 2000. Smitherman, Geneva. Talkin’ and Testifyin: The Language of Black America. Detroit: Wayne State U, 1977.

—. “Black Language and the Education of Black Children: One Mo Once.” Black Scholar 27.1 (1997): 28-35.

—. Talkin That Talk : Language, Culture, and Education in African America. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Souljah, Sister. No Disrespect . New York: Times Books, 1994.

Stevenson, Brenda E. “Gender Convention, Ideals, and Identity among Antebellum Virginia Slave Women.” More Than Chattel: Black Women and Slavery in the Americas. Ed. David Barry Gaspar and Darlene Clark Hine. Bloomington: Indiana UP. 169-90.

Street, Brian. “Literacy Events and Literacy Practices: Theory and Practice in the New Literacy Studies.” Multilingual Literacies: Reading and Writing Different Worlds. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000. 17-29.

—. ed. Cross-Cultural Approaches to Literacy. New York: Cambridge UP, 1993. Troutman, Denise. “The Tongue or the Sword: Which Is Master?” African American Women Speak Out on Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas . Ed. Geneva Smitherman. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1995.

Truth, Sojourner. “New York City Anti- Slavery Meeting,” Sojourner Truth as Orator: Wit, Story, and Song. Ed. Suzanne Pullon Fitch and Roseann M. Mandziuk. Westport: Greenwood, 1997. 57.

Walker, Alice. “In Search of Our Mother’s Gardens.” Call and Response: The Riverside Anthology of the African American Literary Tradition . Ed. Patricia Liggins Hill et al. Boston: Houghton, 1998. 1802-07.

Watson, Clifford, and Geneva Smitherman. Educating Black Males: Detroit’s Malcolm X Academy Solution. Chicago: Third World Press, 1996.

Williamson Nelson, Linda. “Code-Switching in the Oral Life Narratives of African- American Women: Challenges to Linguistic Hegemony.” Journal of Education 172.3: 142-55.

Wolfram, Walt. Dialects and American English. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents, 1991.

Woodley, Charles. “The Pseudomasculine Identity and the African American Male.” The Crisis of the Young African American Male in the Inner Cities: Vol. 1. A Consultation of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, 1999. 152-60.

Yasin, Jon A. “Rap in the African-American Music Tradition: Cultural Assertion and Continuity.” Race and Ideology: Language, Symbolism, and Popular Culture. Ed. Arthur Spears. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1999. 197-223.

Bruch, Patrick and Richard Marback. “Race, Literacy, and the Value of Rights Rhetoric in Composition Studies.” CCC. 53.4 (2002): 651-674.

Abstract:

The fiftieth anniversary issue of CCC included a call from Geneva Smitherman for compositionists to renew the fight for language rights. In this article, we take up Smitherman’s call by situating the theory of language rights in composition studies in a brief history of rights rhetoric in the United States.

Keywords:

ccc53.4 Rights Rhetoric Language Students Struggle AmericanRhetoric AfricanAmerican Composition Literacy Equality Resolution Race

Works Cited

Ball, Arnetha, and Ted Lardner. ” Dispositions toward Language: Teacher Constructs of Knowledge and the Ann Arbor Black English Case .” College Composition and Communication 48 (1997): 469-85.

Berthoff, Ann E. “Response to ‘Students’ Right to Their Own Language’.” College Composition and Communication 26 (1975): 216-17.

City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. 488 U.S. 469. U.S. Supreme Ct. 1989.

“Civil Rights: The March’s Meaning.” Time Magazine 6 Sept. 1963: 13-15.

Faigley, Lester. ” Literacy after the Revolution .” College Composition and Communication 48 (1997): 30-43.

Gray-Rosendale, Laura. “Inessential Writings: Shaughnessy’s Legacy in a Socially Constructed Landscape.” Journal of Basic Writing 17.2 (1998): 43-75.

Johnson, Lyndon. Commencement Address. Rpt. in Lee Rainwater and William L. Yancey. The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy . Cambridge: MIT P, 1967. 125-32.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. The Trumpet of Conscience . New York: Harper, 1968. . “Civil Right No. 1: The Right to Vote.” New York Times Magazine 14 Mar. 1965: 26-27.

Prendergast, Catherine. ” Race: The Absent Presence in Composition Studies .” College Composition and Communication 50 (1998): 36-53.

“The Responsive Communitarian Platform: Rights and Responsibilities.” Rights and the Common Good: The Communitarian Perspective . Ed. Amitai Etzioni. New York: St, Martin’s, 1995.

Smith, Allen N. “No One Has a Right to His Own Language.” College Composition and Communication 27 (1976): 155-58.

Smitherman, Geneva. ” CCCC’s Role in the Struggle for Language Rights .” College Composition and Communication 50 (1999): 349-76.

Steinberg, Stephen. “The Liberal Retreat from Race during the Post-Civil Rights Era.” The House That Race Built: Black Americans, U.S. Terrain . Ed. Wahneema Lubiano. New York: Pantheon Books, 1997. 13-47.

Students’ Right to Their Own Language . Spec. issue of College Composition and Communication 25 (1974): 1-32.

Thompson, Becky W., and Sangeeta Tyagi. Introduction. “A Wider Landscape . . . without the Mandate for Conquest.” Beyond a Dream Deferred: Multicultural Education and the Politics of Excellence . Ed. Thompson and Tyagi. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993. xiii-xxxiii.

To Secure These Rights: The Report of the President’s Commission on Civil Rights . Rpt. in The Civil Rights Reader: Basic Documents of the Civil Rights Movement . Ed. Leon Friedman. New York: Walker, 1968.

Walker, Samuel. The Rights Revolution: Rights and Community in Modern America . New York: Oxford UP, 1998.

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

Trainor, Jennifer Seibel. “Critical Pedagogy’s ‘Other’: Constructions of Whiteness in Education for Social Change.” CCC. 53.4 (2002): 631-650.

Abstract:

This article examines the contradictory representations of whiteness in the literature on critical pedagogy and argues that a deeper engagement with these contradictions can help critical educators in their work with white students. The essay explores a number of sites: the rhetoric of critical pedagogy, the literature on whiteness that has surfaced in the past five years: and concludes by analyzing portraits of white students as they read texts that challenge them to think about race and racial identity in new ways.

Keywords:

ccc53.4 Students Whiteness Identity Texts Pedagogy Rhetoric Values Class CriticalPedagogy Discourses Race Multicultural

Works Cited

Anderson, Virginia. “Property Rights: Exclusion as Moral Action in ‘The Battle of Texas.'” College English 62 (2000): 445-72.

Barthes, Roland. Mythologies . New York: Noonday Press, 1957.

Behar, Ruth. The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology That Breaks Your Heart . Boston: Beacon Press, 1996.

Berlin, James. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures : Reconfiguring College English Studies. Urbana: NCTE, 1996.

Cushman, Ellen. The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner- City Community. Albany: SUNY Press, 1998.

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

Ezekial, Richard. “Talking about Race with America’s Klansmen.” Critical White Studies: Looking behind the Mirror . Ed. R. Delgado and J. Stefancic. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1997.

Frankenberg, Ruth. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness . Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993.

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

Gallagher, Charles. “White Reconstruction in the University.” Socialist Review 24 (1995): 165-87.

Giroux, Henry. “Rewriting the Discourse of Racial Identity: Towards a Pedagogy and Politics of Whiteness.” Harvard Educational Review 67 (1997): 285-319.

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

Henwood, Doug. “Trash-o-nomics.” White Trash: Race and Class in America. Ed. Annalee Newitz and Matt Wray. New York: Routledge, 1997. 177-91.

hooks, bell. “Representing Whiteness in the Black Imagination.” Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism. Durham: Duke UP, 1997.

Hwang, David Henry. M. Butterfly . New York: Penguin Books, 1994.

Ignatiev, Noel, and John Garvey. “Abolish the White Race by Any Means Necessary” in Race Traitor. Ed. Ignatiev and Garvey. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Jordan, June. “Nobody Mean More to Me Than You and the Future Life of Willie Jordan.” The Writer’s Presence: A Pool of Essays. Ed. Donald McQuade and Robert Atwan. Boston: Bedford, 1994. 491-504.

Kintz, Linda. Between Jesus and the Market: The Emotions That Matter in Right-Wing America . Durham: Duke UP, 1997.

Klein, Deborah. “Deborah Klein Responds.” College English 62.6 (July 2000): 769-72.

Knoblauch, C. H. “Critical Teaching and Dominant Culture.” Composition and Resistance. Ed. Mark Hurlbert and Michael Blitz. Portsmouth: Heinemann- Boynton/Cook, 1991.

Lazere, Donald. “Spellmeyer’s Naive Populism.” College Composition and Communication 48 (1997): 288-92.

Loewen, James. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong . New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995.

Lu, Min-Zhan. ” Redefining the Literate Self: The Politics of Critical Affirmation .” College Composition and Communication 51 (1999): 172-94.

Martinez, Elizabeth. 500 Anos Del Pueblo Chicano/500 Years of Chicano History: In Pictures . Albuquerque: Southwest Community Press, 1990.

McIntyre, Alice. Making Meaning of Whiteness: Exploring Racial Identity with White Teachers. Albany: SUNY Press, 1997.

Newitz, Annalee, and Matt Wray, ed. White Trash: Race and Class in America. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Rakow, Lana. “Gender and Race in the Classroom: Teaching Way Out of Line.” Feminist Teacher 6 (1992): 10-13.

Sandoval, Chela. “Theorizing White Consciousness for a Post-Empire World: Barthes, Fanon, and the Rhetoric of Love.” Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism. Durham: Duke UP, 1997.

Silko, Leslie Marmon. Almanac of the Dead. New York: Penguin Books, 1992.

Skorczewski, Dawn. ” ‘Everybody Has Their Own Ideas’: Responding to Clich� in Student Writing .” College Composition and Communication 52 (2000): 220-39.

Sleeter, Christine. “How White Teachers Construct Race.” Race, Identity, and Representation in Education. Ed. Cameron McCarthy and Warren Crichlow. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Smith, Jeff. “Students’ Goals, Gatekeeping, and Some Questions of Ethics.” College English 59 (1997): 299-320.

Wiegman, Robyn. “Whiteness Studies and the Paradox of Particularity.” Boundary 2.26 (1999): 115-50.

Horner, Bruce and John Trimbur. “English Only and U.S. College Composition.” CCC. 53.4 (2002): 594-630.

Abstract:

In this article, we identify in the formation of U.S. college composition courses a tacit policy of English monolingualism based on a chain of reifications of languages and social identity. We show this policy continuing in assumptions underlying arguments for and against English Only legislation and basic writers. And we call for an internationalist perspective on written English in relation to other languages and the dynamics of globalization.

Keywords:

ccc53.4 Language English Students Writing ModernLanguages Curriculum Composition Work EnglishOnly Monolingualism Globalization Immigrants Identity LanguagePolicy Policy

Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union. “The Rights of Immigrants.” ACLU Briefing Paper, 1998. <http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp20.html>

American Immigration Control Foundation. “Reciting the Pledge.” Political advertisement. Des Moines Register 4 January 2000: 5A.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism . Rev. ed. London: Verso, 1991.

Babbitt, E. H. “How to Use Modern Languages as a Means of Mental Discipline.” PMLA 11 (1896): 52-63.

Bartholomae, David. “Writing on the Margins: The Concept of Literacy in Higher Education.” A Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers . Ed. Theresa Enos. New York: Random, 1987. 66-83.

Boomer, Garth, Nancy Lester, Cynthia Onore, and Jonathan Cook, eds. Negotiating the Curriculum: Educating for the 21st Century . London: Falmer, 1992.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power . Ed. John B. Thompson. Trans. Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1991.

Brannon, Lil. “Confronting the Logic of Instrumentalism: Using Rhetoric for Social Change.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Phoenix, AZ, 13 March 1997.

Brereton, John C. The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, 1875-1925: A Documentary History . U of Pittsburgh P, 1995.

Canagarajah, A. Suresh. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching . Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999.

Carter, Franklin. “Study of Modern Languages in Our Higher Institutions.” PMLA 2 (1887): 3-21.

Chiang, Yuet-Sim D., and Mary Schmida. “Language Identity and Language Ownership: Linguistic Conflicts of First- Year University Writing Students.” Harklau et al. 81-96.

Conference on College Composition and Communication. National Language Policy Statement, 1988. <http://legacy.ncte.org/positions/national.html>

Crawford, James. Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of “English Only .” Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1992.

—. “Canard: ‘Multilingual Government.'” <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/can-mult.htm> 1997.

—. “What’s Behind Official English?” Language Loyalties 171-77.

Douglas, Wallace. “Accidental Institutions: On the Origins of Modern Language Study.” Criticism in the University . Ed. Gerald Graff and Reginald Gibbons. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1985. 35-61.

Draper, Jamie B., and Martha Jim�nez. “A Chronology of the Official English Movement.” Excerpted from “Language Debates in the United States: A Decade in Review.” EPIC Events 2.5 (1990): 1, 4, 7. Rpt. Language Loyalties 89-94.

“English Language Bill OK’d.” Des Moines Register 18 March 1999: 1A.

Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Ten Virgin Acres. A Freshwater Stream. Dozens of Old-Growth Trees. What a Great Place to Build a Parking Lot for the New High-Rise.” Political Advertisement. Des Moines Register 12 January 2000: 5M.

Fishman, Joshua A. “The Displaced Anxieties of Anglo-Americans.” Excerpted from “‘English Only’: Its Ghosts, Myths, and Dangers.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 74 (1988): 125-40. Rpt. Language Loyalties 165-70.

Fox, Tom. Defending Access: A Critique of Standards in Higher Education. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Heinemann, 1999.

Frodesen, Jan, and Norinne Starna. “Distinguishing Incipient and Functional Bilingual Writers: Assessment and Instructional Insights Gained through Second-Language Writer Profiles.” Harklau et al. 61-79.

Graff, Gerald. Professing Literature: An Institutional History . Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987.

Greene, Jamie Candelaria. “Misperspectives on Literacy: A Critique of an Anglocentric Bias in Histories of American Literacy.” Written Communication 11.2 (1994): 251-69.

Halloran, S. Michael. “From Rhetoric to Composition: The Teaching of Writing in America to 1900.” A Short History of Writing Instruction: From Ancient Greece to Twentieth-Century America . Ed. James L. Murphy. Davis: Hermagoras, 1990. 151-82.

Harklau, Linda, Kay M. Losey, and Meryl Siegal, eds. Generation 1.5 Meets College Composition: Issues in the Teaching of Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL . Mahwah: Erlbaum, 1999.

—. “Linguistically Diverse Students and College Writing: What Is Equitable and Appropriate?” Harklau et al. 1-14.

Harste, Jerome C., Virginia A. Woodward, and Carolyn L. Burke. Language Stories & Literacy Lessons. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1984.

Hart, James Morgan. “English as a Living Language.” PMLA 1 (1884-85): xi-xviii.

Hewett, W. T. “The Aims and Methods of Collegiate Instruction in Modern Languages.” PMLA 1 (1884-85): 25-36.

Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860-1915 . Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1944.

Horner, Bruce. “The ‘Birth’ of ‘Basic Writing.'” Horner and Lu 3-29.

—. “Mapping Errors and Expectations for Basic Writing: From the ‘Frontier Field’ to ‘Border Country.'” Horner and Lu 117-36.

—. “‘Students’ Right,’ English Only, and Re-imagining the Politics of Language.” College English 63 (2001): 741-58.

—. ” Traditions and Professionalization: Reconceiving Work in Composition .” College Composition and Communication 51 (2000): 366-98.

Horner, Bruce, and Min-Zhan Lu. Representing the “Other”: Basic Writers and the Teaching of Basic Writing. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1999.

Horowitz, Donald L. Ethnic Groups in Conflict . Berkeley: U of California P, 1985. Hunt, Theodore W. “The Place of English in the College Curriculum.” PMLA 1 (1884- 85): 118-132.

“Immigrants’ English, Welcome Centers Eyed.” Des Moines Register 24 February 1999: 4M.

Inglehart, Ronald F., and Margaret Woodward. “Language Conflicts and Political Community.” Excerpted from Comparative Studies in Society and History 10 (1967): 27-45. Rpt. Language Loyalties 410-23.

Joynes, Edward J. “Reading in Modern Language Study.” PMLA 5.2 (1890): 33-46.

Kachru, Braj B. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non- Native Englishes . Oxford: Pergamon, 1986.

—. “Monolingual Bias in SLA Research.” TESOL Quarterly 28 (1994): 795-800.

Kelly, Louis G. 25 Centuries of Language Teaching: An Inquiry into the Science, Art, and Development of Language Teaching Methodology, 500 B.C.-1969 . Rowley: Newbury House, 1969.

Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy . Ed. James Crawford. U of Chicago P, 1992.

Leki, Ilona. “Cross-Talk: ESL Issues and Contrastive Rhetoric.” Severino et al. 234-44.

Leung, Constant, Roxy Harris, and Ben Rampton. “The Idealised Native Speaker, Reified Ethnicities, and Classroom Realities.” TESOL Quarterly 31.3 (1997): 543-75.

Lowell, James Russell. “Address.” PMLA 5.1 (1890): 5-22.

Lu, Min-Zhan. “Conflict and Struggle: The Enemies or Preconditions of Basic Writing?” Horner and Lu 30-55.

Manogaran, Chelvadurai . Ethnic Conflict and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka . Honolulu: U of Hawaii P, 1987.

Matsuda, Paul Kei. “Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor.” College Composition and Communication 50.4 (1999): 699-721.

Matsuda, Paul Kei, and Tony Silva. “Cross- Cultural Composition: Mediated Integration of U.S. and International Students.” Composition Studies 27.1 (1999): 15-30.

McArthur, Tom. The English Languages . Cambridge UP, 1998.

Montaner, Carlos Alberto. “Talk English: You Are in the United States” [“Why Fear Spanish?”]. Miami Herald 25 April 1988: 14A. Rpt. Language Loyalties 163-65.

Muchiri, Mary N., Nshindi G. Mulamba, Greg Myers, and Deoscorous B. Ndoloi. ” Importing Composition: Teaching and Researching Academic Writing beyond North America .” College Composition and Communication 46.2 (1995): 175-98.

National Council of Teachers of English. Resolution on Developing and Maintaining Fluency in More Than One Language. <http://legacy.ncte.org/resolutions/fluency971997.html>

National Council of Teachers of English. Resolution on English as a Second Language and Bilingual Education. <http://legacy.ncte.org/resolutions/bilingual821982.html>

Nayar, P. Bhaskaran. “ESL/EFL Dichotomy Today: Language Politics or Pragmatics?” TESOL Quarterly 31.1 (1997): 9-37.

Negative Population Growth. “How Do You Feel about Paving over the Amber Waves of Grain, the Purple Mountains Majesties and the Fruited Plain?” Political advertisement. Des Moines Register 4 January 2000: 6A.

Nelson, Gayle L., Ruth Spack, and Joan G. Carson. “Comments on Ruth Spack’s ‘The Rhetorical Construction of Multilingual Students.'” TESOL Quarterly 32 (1998): 727-46.

Nicolau, Siobhan, and Rafael Valdivieso. “Spanish Language Shift: Educational Implications.” Language Loyalties 317-22.

Pillet, Roger A. Foreign Language Study: Perspective and Prospect . Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1974.

Population-Environment Balance. “Mass Immigration Costs Taxpayers over $69 Billion a Year. Chicken Feed Compared to the Environmental Costs.” Political advertisement. Des Moines Register 3 January 2000: 6M.

Rodby, Judith. Appropriating Literacy: Writing and Reading in English as a Second Language . Portsmouth: Boynton/ Cook, 1992.

Russell, David. Writing in the Academic Disciplines, 1870-1990 . Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.

Schiffman, Harold. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy . London: Routledge, 1996.

Severino, Carol, Juan C. Guerra, and Johnnella E. Butler, eds. Writing in Multicultural Settings. New York: Modern Language Association, 1997.

Shaughnessy, Mina P. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing . New York: Oxford UP, 1977.

Silva, Tony, Ilona Leki, and Joan Carson. “Broadening the Perspective of Mainstream Composition Studies: Some Thoughts from the Disciplinary Margins.” Written Communication 14 (1997): 398-428.

Soliday, Mary. “Class Dismissed.” College English 61 (1999): 731-41.

—. “The Politics of Difference: Toward a Pedagogy of Reciprocity.” Severino et al. 261-72.

Spack, Ruth. “The Rhetorical Construction of Multilingual Students.” TESOL Quarterly 31 (1997): 765-74.

Sridhar, S. N. “A Reality Check for SLA Theories.” TESOL Quarterly 28 (1994): 800-05.

Stern, H. H. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching . Oxford: Oxford UP, 1983. Tambiah, S. J. Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy . U of Chicago P, 1986.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Resolution on Language Rights [1987]. Rpt. Language Loyalties 148-49.

Thompson, Karen. “The Ultimate Working Condition: Knowing Whether You Have a Job or Not .” College Composition and Communication Forum Winter 1998: A19-24.

Titone, Renzone. “History: The Nineteenth Century.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. Ed. Michael Byram. London: Routledge, 2000. 264-270.

Trimbur, John. “The Problem of Freshman English (Only): Toward Programs of Study in Writing.” WPA 22.3 (1999): 9-30. U.S. English. “In Defense of Our Common Language.” Rpt . Language Loyalties 143-47.

Vald�s, Guadalupe. “Bilingual Minorities and Language Issues in Writing.” Written Communication 9.1 (1992): 85-136.

Van Essen, Arthur. “History from the Reform Movement to 1945.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning . Ed. Michael Byram. London: Routledge, 2000. 270-75.

Veltman, Calvin . The Future of the Spanish Language in the United States . New York and Washington, DC: Hispanic Policy Development Project, 1988.

—. Language Shift in the United States . The Hague: Mouton, 1983.

Veysey, Laurence R. The Emergence of the American University . Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1965.

Zamel, Vivian. “Complicating Perspectives on the Acquisition of Language and Literacy.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Minneapolis, MN, 13 April 2000.

—. “Toward a Model of Transculturation.” TESOL Quarterly 31 (1997): 341-52.