WSP HillTV Forum Talk from Minnie Bruce Pratt
]]>The purpose of the Corporate Image, Policy, and Culture Investigation unit and assignment is to get WRT 307 students to see the many ways that corporate culture is contradictory and varied. Students often think that the corporate image which is built through thousands (some times billions) of marketing dollars is the truth about the companies for whom they may work. Unfortunately, the "good image" of the marketing push is often not the whole story. The company may seem family friendly, but in actuality, their policies and day to day workplace culture tell another story. This unit is and opportunity for students to explore these dissonances in order to not only see how individual companies function, but also to see the many sites where writing can create an image and culture which may not always be seen by the public. Calendar.
]]>In preparation for the commentary writing assignment, students screened either “Before Stonewall” or “After Stonewall.” I told them that they should be paying attention to any patterns or trends that may emerge as identifying patterns and trends is the first step toward writing a commentary. Also, I asked that they take detailed notes so that they may refer to them during our discussions. At the next class meeting, the conversation was pretty informal in that I didn’t have a script in mind: no points that I wanted to be sure to address. Instead, we just talked. They shared the new information they learned, their ignorance about this particular community, and general responses and comments. Ultimately, I wanted students to begin to understand that all communities deal with social issues in particular ways. The films served as alternative terministic screens from which students could see other worldviews and hear other voices. For their writing, I challenged them examine their immediate context, identify any patterns and trends, and write a commentary that analyzes these patterns and trends as a way to understand a cultural phenomenon. Also, I reiterated that their commentaries should do more than analyze: they should offer some resolutions or conclusions.
]]>This assignment intends to work with students on issues surrounding representation and reality, through a critical analysis of the workings of power. Students are asked to work in small groups with their peers discussing the dominant narratives which consistently occur in our text, Mirrors and Windows. At this point in the semester, students are aware of the workings of masculinity and femininity and its relationship to the American Dream. Thus, students do consistent work critiquing notions of the family, and the particular roles that appropriate bodies are to assume within these paradigms. Specifically, students are asked to pay particular attention to overarching questions which deal mainly with the ways that borders are strictly placed around identities in terms of sexuality and gender. They must distinguish what remains (hetero) normative throughout the text, and what remains excluded, silenced, marginalized, or unintelligible.
In last semester's 205 class my class's shared text was Randall Kennedy's Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. My students' second research-paper assignment, the first of significant length for the semester, asked them to do, in pairs, one of two things: either use Kennedy's bibliography as a jumping-off point to find out more about a particular historical event, media figure, or legal case he presented, and analyze his presentation of that event (etc.) in light of what their research uncovered, or pick a different word and do a smaller-scale version of Kennedy's project: a sustained piece of researched writing uncovering both the word's historical development and its complicated standing in today's society as it's used differently by different people (this was an adaptation from the "Word" assignment Jeff Simmons wrote for 105; when I used it in 105 my students and I were both frustrated by feeling like we needed more research than 105 was designed to include in order to do justice to their selections).
]]> Most of them chose the second option, and two pairs independently chose to research the word "faggot." One of those pairs was a self-selected partnership of international students who told me they made that choice because overhearing the word consistently confused them: no one could tell them what homosexuality had to do with sticks. The other paired a 19-year-old white man who openly identified as gay and a 40-something-year-old black man who identified himself most prominently as a father and community churchgoer. The topic was the younger man's idea; the older went along with it primarily because he was no match for the younger's stubborn insistence. The older man told me, as they got into researching the project, that he was only doing this for the grade; he really didn't think the topic had anything to do with him and expected that he would have to show a lot of patience to put up with the younger man's views on a subject he wasn't entirely comfortable with. The research that they did and the paper they produced told a very different story, however; their final product, although not elegantly composed, told a story about the way the term created, defined, and limited the developing masculinity of all young men in this country, and the older man told me after the project was complete that he'd realized the topic very much had to do with him, with his self-conception and the way he'd come to occupy and think about his own cultural position.Because peer workshopping was a necessary facet of their paper-writing processes, a few other groups in the class also had a chance to read these papers and talk about the research going into them, so the ideas they generated enjoyed a wider circulation than the small groups responsible for their presentation, but formally or collectively taking them up was never a goal or outcome of the activity. The class, then, didn't ostensibly teach against heteronormativity (although I'm sure I made a comment or two to redirect some overly-assumption-based contributions to classroom discussions), but it did make room for students' exploration of some of the language they hear every day, providing opportunities for them to investigate beyond normative usage to examine history and implication. What's most important to me as a writing teacher is finding ways to develop my students' sensitivity to language—to what words they use, and how, and why, to who those words serve to draw attention to and to eclipse—which in very material ways creates and perpetuates heteronormative assumptions. Jeff's word essay was a great way for me to do that in both my 105 and 205 classrooms last year, especially when paired with Kennedy's text in the context of a research course.
The purpose of this exercise is to get out of the het/homo binary, and look at the complexities within the queer community itself over the questions and practices of assimilation. Are gay families making the US world safer for all gay folks, or just for the ‘good gays’ who choose to live in traditional family structures, thereby making the world much less safe for those who seek other ways to live and form relationships and be sexual? I like Halberstam’s play on heteronormativity, and I think that this particular topic opens up into larger questions of ideology and power in terms of gender, sexuality, and intimacy that have implications for non-queers as well as for queers. Who gets to decide who the ‘good’ gay or straight person is, what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ sexual practice, and how the line gets drawn and by whom?
This writing assignment is designed to help students bridge between LGB
and T. It's important for students to understand that gender and
sexuality are not the same, but that communities of
sex-and-gender-oppressed people do overlap. Most importantly, students
need a way to see their everyday experiences of the "sex-gender binary"
as being connected to communities that they may sometimes see as very
"other" from themselves. I hope this assignment is the beginning of way
into these connections.
This assignment appears toward the end of my third unit of WRT 105. This
unit is concerned with gender and sexuality studies more broadly. We begin
by looking at gender studies through the lens of transgender studies and
intersexuality. Next, we will use the gay marriage debate as a case study to
begin understanding the rhetorical situation--voice, argument, audience,
etc. Finally, we will turn to Matthew Shepherd to discuss heteronormativity
and the climate for queer people in America. My aim for this assignment is
to get them to begin claiming their opinions and supporting them with data.
I am also hoping that this assignment will generate a fruitful discussion
where the students can make each other responsible for their claims.
by Michael Dwyer
I've never had any problems with my students actually doing readings. Most of the time, there is even a good amount of understanding about individual readings, as well. The problem in my class has always been one of getting my students to put sources "in conversation". This is an exercise I adapted from "dialogue-writing" assignments that has been both very productive, and a lot of fun.
* In the next class, I say, "Okay, forget about the presentations." I divide the class into fours again, only this time constituted of one "expert" on each one of the readings.
* Then I tell them to create a short, one act play in which the four authors of the text are engaged in some sort of discussion. What we don't want are four monologues--we want the authors to respond to one another's points, even clown on one another. We're looking for conflict. This skit must also include a fifth character--this character must enter the conversation halfway through, and must also be given the last line.
* These skits aren't only to be written--they're performed, in class. Each member plays the author that they are an "expert" on, and I will play the fifth character. Anything else goes--time, place, bad jokes about my beard, whatever.
* We have a lot of fun presenting these, but after the last one is done, I drop this on them: We've just enacted the precise way you should interact with sources in your papers. You ARE the fifth character--you come in to an already existing conversation, listen to the disparate views, and make the final judgment.
This activity is a lot of fun--they can be goofy, laugh at one another (and, most importantly, at me), but they also come up with some great insights into how sources would interact. It takes up a full class period, but it's always been worth it.
by Michael Dwyer
Also, I'm attaching a selection from Bomb the Suburbs. It's one of the more famous independently-produced books to come out of underground hip hop. It was published in 1994, so some of it is dated, but it's still worthwhile. Wimsatt, a white son of a U Chicago professor who fell in love with the Chicago graff-writing & breakdancing scenes, is an interesting counterpoint to Williams. He's currently an activist, and the author of NO MORE PRISONS (which can be seen spraypainted nationwide).
Download Bomb the Suburbs excerpt.
]]>I will have a blind student in my College Writing class next fall. Our special services will record the essays from the assigned reader, but I was wondering if there were any grammar and style exercises, or formatting guides (in other words a writing handbook) available for the blind. Also would love to have some advice from anyone who has had a similar teaching experience.
Have you met the blind student yet? Do you know whether s/he is 100% unsighted, or "legally blind"? There can be differences. For example, some students who are severely vision-impaired can still make out work sheets for in-class exercises if you make a special printed copy with very large typeface.
Will the student have a guide dog? It's important to reinforce the "no petting" rule, especially if the student is petite/female (for some reason, people pet women's guide dogs even after the owner says "please don't pet my dog, she's working").
Are you teaching in a computer lab? All of the techno-dynamics will come into play, but it might be groovy and eye-opening for *all* students in the class.
Are you an animated hand-talker? (i.e., do you use a lot of visual gestures and facial expressions to get things across during lecture/discussion?) If so, you'll want to find warm and including ways to "narrate" what you're gesturing about, so the unsighted student can be a part of things, and so these meanings come across clearly on his/her tape recorder.
Also, you need to lecture clearly, and remind other students to speak up and be clear, since your unsighted student will be recording the class period. Which reminds me...will your student have a note-taker? Some colleges provide this service, some don't. In my classes at one college, students could make a few dollars from the student assistance center by taking notes for their disabled classmates who were registered with the center.
Will you be showing videos/films? Will your special services center help the student work with visual media used in class?
OK, these are just some topics for you to consider.