Response to a "Values Statement" Draft

I don't often talk about writing pedagogy here, but given that most of my teaching is for Writing Program classes, and that my professionalization is continually ongoing, I've obviously developed many, many views on the theory and practice of writing, especially in Writing Programs.

Anyway, we've recently devised the draft for a "values statement," and it's loaded with words like compassion, autonomy, equity, inclusion, and curiosity. The whole thing made me roll my eyes, and in response to this draft, I presented my objections to the entire statement in the following manner

-----------------------
So .... I'll be honest. I absolutely hate this statement. The bolded words [compassion, autonomy, equity, inclusion, and curiosity] are a simple list of abstract-noun buzzwords, and although I have no real objections to any word in particular (for example, what rational person would reject autonomy?), that is largely because each buzzword is so vague that it means basically nothing. 

If I did not also believe that "values” statements are absolutely pointless documents, the kinds of things better at virtue signaling than at instigating programmatic change, then I might raise a stronger objection than I do. But of course I do believe they are pointless documents, and I don’t wish to rain on anyone's parade if this virtue signaling makes any CT faculty feel better. 

However, I cannot help but notice how completely this statement avoids saying anything substantive about writing itself. What about our commitment to genres analysis? Rhetorical situations? In producing stronger writers so that they may succeed in (a) other university classes, and (b) in the job market? The people who endorse values statements like these seem horrified by the notion that the main function of a Writing Programs is to prepare students for the job market, but that IS what the majority of our students -- including minority students -- are most interested in. They want to join the middle class if they're not there already, and insofar as writing is an essential skill for career advancement, the only real mission of a Writing Program should be to ensure that students have the competencies necessary to ensure such career advancement happens. But by talking about vague-sound progressive values rather than concrete skills, this statement seems to fundamentally misunderstand the Writing Program's core institutional mission.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Genre Fantasy Bestsellers through 1990

Image
I've been studying Keith Justice's Bestseller Index , which compiles information from two separate bestseller lists -- New York Times Book Review and Publishers Weekly -- up through 1990, and the results are ridiculously fascinating. For instance, you wanna take a stab at which SFF author has the most individual books appear on a bestseller list? No, it ain't Heinlein, Clark, Herbert, or Asimov. It's not even Terry Brooks or David Eddings. No, the answer is Piers Anthony . And even if you somehow pulled that name out of thin air, I guarantee you'll never guess how truly dominate Anthony was. Up through 1990, Anthony had more than double than number of distinct bestsellers than the next most frequent bestseller, Anne McCaffrey. Whereas Anthony had an astounding  22 different books appear on a bestseller list, McCaffrey had "only" 9.** Now, caveats. These numbers need to be taken with one (or two) grains of salt. For instance, although Anthony had 22 two dis
Read more

Thoughts upon Reading Tolkien's New & Expanded LETTERS

So, I'm reading through the newly expanded version of Tolkien's Letters. One thing I hadn't properly realized is that these letters were part of Carpenter's original manuscript back in 1981, but Carpenter had to cut them due to cost. Turns out that Carpenter had a pretty keen eye on what could bear cutting -- most of this new stuff isn't terribly interesting, but I discovered a few nuggets. VINDICATED!! (Me, sorta) Naturally, whenever you read new primary material, your first instinct is to check to see if anything contradicts something you've said in print ... especially biographically. Well, I've made three big "biographical" claims, and here's my sigh of relief: Concerning my claim that, in 1954, Tolkien and colleagues contrived to create CS Lewis's academic chair at Cambridge in exchange for them nominating EM Forster for the Nobel Prize. Nothing in  Letters  supports or contradicts this. In my recent article for  Notes & Queries ,
Read more

Uncovering CS Lewis's First Religious Poem

 So, with my article's official acceptance by the journal English Text Construction , it's time to let the cat out of the bag. Using a combination of metrical analysis and biography, I've ascertained with near perfect certainty the first religious poem C. S. Lewis poem ever wrote .... a short poem, "Sweet Desire," that scholars have never previously paid any attention to. This poem is firmly datable to early 1930, probably January or February is my guess, and given the poem's subject matter, it's clearly talking about CSL's fears and intellectual trepidation about becoming a theist and abandoning atheism for good. It's basically Lewis's version of Caedmon's Hymn . The full metrical details will have to await my article, but one interesting caveat on my claims to firstness. In my peer reviewer's commentary, they recommended I contact a CSL scholar named  Charlie W. Starr, who's been working on Lewis's handwriting for quite a lon
Read more