Volume 25, Number 6 Promoting the exchange of voices and ideas in one-to-one teaching of writing February, 2001
...FROM THE EDITOR...
In the world of writing labs, we en-gage in a multi-faceted array of ac-tions. For example we have data to col-lect, proposals to make, stories to tell, other fields of expertise to borrow from. And this month’s issue of the newsletter offers insights in each of these areas. Rachel Perkes leads us through the complexities of what she learned when she attempted to collect data on what might look like a reason-ably obvious matter of how we mea-sure usage of our labs. Julie Eckerle, Karen Rowan, and Shevaun Watson propose that we consider (and act on) a matter that hasn’t had adequate discus-sion—graduate student administrators. Bob Barnett and Jacquelyn Kleinedler show us how the employee handbook of a business like GAP can help us set policies and procedures. And the sto-ries of Jay Peters and Sarah Davis re-mind us of how rich stories can be and how much we learn from well-told ones like theirs.
This month’s newsletter has some great reading. Refill your coffee cup, find a quiet corner in your center, and enjoy.
• Muriel Harris, editor
...INSIDE...
National Online Dialogue Reveals Need for Standardization, Benchmarks
• Rachel B. Perkes 1
Conference Calendar 3
Graduate Student Writing Center Administrators: Some Concerns and Proposals
• Julie Eckerle, Karen Rowan, and Shevaun Watson 4
Tutors’ Column:
“Ethical Missteps, Conflict
ing Worldviews,
Power and Silence”
• Jay Peters 7
When Writing Centers Mind Their Own Business: A Cautious Comparison
• Bob Barnett and Jacquelyn Kleinedler 10
Something from Nothing: The Story (I Love to Tell) of the Development of the Writing Lab at Chowan College
• Sarah Davis 14
Recently, the director of our commu-nity college writing center approached me regarding our tutorial numbers. She wanted to know how we compared to other writing centers. Were we low, average, high? I posted on the WCenter listerv what I thought was a simple request: “Please tell me how many students your center tutors per semester and what your overall enroll-ment is”; The response was over-whelming and resulted in an engaging dialogue. Obviously, from the number of messages posted, keeping statistics is a pressing issue that writing centers across the country are grappling with.
I had anticipated nice, neat numbers that I could plug into a chart and hand to my director. As a starting point, I grouped the responses from centers ac-cording to their institution’s total en-rollment and on how they reported estimated numbers, i.e., by students or by tutorials/visits, per semester.
The range of numbers that poured in from all over the country was eye opening. For example, a community college in southern California with an enrollment of 19,029 students tutored 4,250 students per semester while an-other community college in California with a similar enrollment of 20,000 students tutored 519 students.
Among those writing centers reporting by number of visits/tutorials, a regional state college in Oklahoma with an enrollment of 4,300 students reported 2,200 tutorials in the fall semester, whereas a college in West Virginia
The Writing Lab Newsletter, published in ten monthly issues from September to June by the Department of English, Purdue University, is a publication of the National Writing Centers Association, an NCTE Assembly, and is a member of the NCTE Information Exchange Agreement. ISSN 1040-3779. All Rights and Title reserved unless permission is granted by Purdue University. Material will not be reproduced in any form without express written permission.
Editor: Muriel Harris Managing Editor: Mary Jo Turley English Dept., Purdue University, 1356 Heavilon, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1356 (765)494-7268. e-mail: harrism@cc.purdue.edu
mjturley@purdue.edu web site:http://owl.english.purdue.edu/lab/
newsletter/index.html
Subscriptions: The newsletter has no billing procedures. Yearly payments of $15 (U.S. $20 in Canada) are requested, and checks must be received four weeks prior to the month of expiration to ensure that subscribers do not miss an issue. Please make checks payable to Purdue University and send to the Managing Editor. Prepayment is requested for all subscriptions.
Manuscripts: Recommended length for articles is 10-15 double-spaced typed pages, 3-5 pages for reviews, and 4 pages for the Tutors’ Column, though longer and shorter manuscripts are invited. If possible, please send as attached files or as cut-and-paste in an e-mail to mjturley@ purdue.edu. Otherwise, send a 3 and 1/2 in. disk with the file, along with the paper copy. Please enclose a self-addressed envelope with return postage not pasted to the envelope. The deadline for announce-ments is 45 days prior to the month of issue (e.g. August 15 for October issue).
with a similar enrollment of 4,000 stu-dents reported 450 visits. However, a small church college in South Carolina with an enrollment of only 1,119 stu-dents reported 1,080 tutorials. To top it off, a brand new writing center at a university in Washington, D.C, with an enrollment of 5,358 students reported 1,349 visits in October alone!
So much for tidy, comparable num-bers. How could there be such differ-ences in tutoring statistics between writing centers? What could account for such a range in numbers? The more responses I received, the more I real-ized it would be impossible to do a comparative analysis. Why? Because there were so many different variables to consider, such as staffing, hours of operation, mandatory vs. voluntary vis-its, definition of tutorials, commuter vs. residential institution, and aca-demic disciplines served.
Out of these, three key variables seemed to particularly impact the num-bers: academic disciplines served, mandatory vs. voluntary visits, and definition of tutorials. For example, some colleges primarily serve English departments while others serve depart-ments from all over their campus. Some universities’ freshman year com-position classes require students to visit writing centers, whereas other colleges’ tutorials are strictly walk-ins. Further, some universities count only formal tutorials while others count in-formal, as well. Formal tutorials are typically a 30-minute, in-person ap-pointment with a tutor. Informal tutori-als consist of answering a question over the phone, giving out a handout, or helping a student use a computer. Online tutoring is gaining ground. Should these tutorials be defined as formal or informal? What is certain is that writing centers share common variables; what is not certain is how they are defined and thus counted.
From the online discussion, two terms emerged that warrant further scrutiny: usage rate and student popu-lation rate. Usage rate refers to the ac-tual number of students tutored divided by the number of tutorial appointments offered. For example, if 50 students are tutored and 100 appointments are of-fered, then a writing center’s usage rate would be 50%. As reported on the listserv, it seems 50% is typical. Stu-dent population rate, on the other hand, refers to the actual number of students served by a writing center during a given semester as compared to the institution’s total student body. As sug-gested by the listserv, 10% to 15% seems typical. For example, if a college’s enrollment is 10,000, then its center should be serving 1,000 to 1,500 students per semester. Perhaps these two terms could be adopted as part of the statistical jargon for writing cen-ters. And, if there is consensus, the two percentage rates could potentially set the standards for usage and service.
Here is the caveat. When used for their own individual institution, the above rates are straightforward. How-ever, when they are used for compari-son to other institutions, the rates be-come convoluted because writing centers have to take into account the previously discussed variables. In other words, if my college is serving 15% of the student population and that is the standard, then my number looks good. However, if I compare it to another college that is serving 30%, then my number looks poor. To do an accurate comparison, I would have to factor in if the other college’s number reflected mandatory visits, all disciplines, and informal tutorials whereas my number reflected voluntary visits, English only, and formal tutorials.
Writing center professionals also raised important issues about the pur-pose of keeping statistics. There seemed to be some consensus that data needed to be collected for two pur-poses: 1.) reporting writing center use and activity and 2.) planning for changes, growth, and development.
Further, many agreed that it was im-portant to know when to use which data, based on the audience. Others voiced concern that statistics could be “dangerous” because they might be used to demonstrate that the writing center was not working to full potential or that its tutors were not tutoring all the time. Interestingly, a couple of par-ticipants on the listserv took this con-cept of low statistics and turned it on its head. They proposed that a success-ful writing center might actually di-minish its numbers because confident writers feel less need to return to the center.
Despite the philosophical pros and cons of keeping numbers, it is apparent that writing centers are individually gathering data. Many of the respon-dents supported the use of statistics, saying numbers were a “rhetorically sound” way for writing center directors to defend and/or expand their budgets, staffing, and services. In other words, statistics provide persuasive factual evidence. It is also apparent that writ-ing centers need a standardization of measures or at least benchmarks. For example, I offered on the listerv to for-ward results from a survey on small college writing centers conducted in 1999. One morning alone, I had 41 emails from across the country, and even Europe, requesting the results. (Those results were published in Bruce Pegg, Shireen Carroll, and Steve New-mann’s “Size Matters: Administering a Writing Center in a Small Private Col-lege,” Writing Lab Newsletter 24.5 [January 2000]: 1-5.)
In doing any comparative analysis, it is critical that apples be compared to apples and oranges be compared to or-anges. Currently, that is difficult, if not impossible, for writing centers. While statistics might be a double-edged sword, the real danger is not the statis-tics themselves, but in the possible misinterpretation. Standards—that are flexible enough to allow for the differ-ent goals, missions, and philosophies of writing centers—would go a long way toward ensuring that statistics are used meaningfully. When shared, such standard measurements and terms would provide writing centers with much-needed benchmarking. When I posted my query, I had no idea that it would spark a national dialogue. As a result of this online discussion, we now know that a model for developing a joint statistical study exists. Thus, could the National Writing Center As-sociation apply this model to develop a set of common measures that could be used jointly by writing centers? Ulti-mately, that is the question. Note: There were many voices that contrib-uted to this online dialogue, and I hope my analysis has done them justice. I could not have written this article with-out their thoughtful insights. There are too many to list by name, but thanks and credit to you all.
Rachel B. Perkes
Del Mar College
Corpus Christi, TX
Feb. 16-18, 2001: Southeastern Writing Centers Association, in Auburn, AL Contact: Isabelle Thompson, Auburn University (thompis@groupwise1.duc.auburn.edu) and Glenda Conway, University of Montevallo (conwayg@montevallo.edu)
March 3, 2001: Northern California Writing Centers Association, in Rohnert Park, CA Contact: Scott L. Miller and Rose Gubele at the Sonoma State University Writing Center, 1801
E. Cotati Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928. Ph: 707-664-4401; e-mail: writing.center @sonoma.edu. Conference website: <http:// www.sonoma.edu/programs/writingcenter/ ncwca2001>
March 23-24, 2001: East Central Writing Centers Association, in Granville, OH Contact: Cindy Johanek, English Dept, Denison University, Granville, OH 43023. Ph: 740-587-5793; e-mail johanek@denison.edu. Conference website:<http://www.denison.edu/ecwca2001>
March 29-31, 2001: South Central Writing Centers Association, in Lafayette, LA Contact:James McDonald, Department of English, P. O. Drawer 44691, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504-4691. Phone: (337) 482-6907; e-mail: jcm5337 @louisiana.edu
March 31, 2001: Northeast Writing Centers Association, in Worcester, MA Contact: Anne Ellen Geller, Writing Center/ Writing Program, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01610, (508) 793-7469, angeller@clarku.edu. Conference website: <http:// www2.clarku.edu/resources/writingcenter/ NEWCA/>
June 18-20, 2001: European Writing Center Association, in Groningen, The Netherlands Contact: e-mail: eataw.conference@let.rug.nl; fax: ++31.503636855. Conference website: <http:/ /www.hum.ku.dk/formidling/eataw/>
Sept. 14-15, 2001: Midwest Writing Center Association, in Iowa City, IA Contact: SuEllen Shaw, shaws@mnstate.edu, or Cinda Coggins, CCoggins66@aol.com. Confer-ence website: <www.ku.edu/~MWCA>.
Graduate student writing center administrators:
As former graduate student adminis-trators in college or university writing centers, we would like to draw atten-tion to the relative invisibility of graduate student administrators in for-mal writing center publications and public forums. This lack of representa-tion is striking since graduate students have played vital roles in the day-to-day operations of many writing centers for decades, and they have always been an integral part of the writing center community and its professional organi-zations. At this point in the develop-ment of the field, we think it is time to focus on the unique needs of graduate student administrators. Thus, this essay presents background information on graduate student administrators, offers some solutions proposed to the Na-tional Writing Centers Association (NWCA) Executive Board, and calls on the writing center community to further examine these issues.
According to our preliminary research, approximately 80% of a representative sample of writing centers at institutions with graduate programs relies on graduate student tutors and/or administrators.1 Many English graduate pro-grams provide assistantships in writing centers, while others require participa-tion in centers before or in conjunction with teaching assistantships. Moreover, writing centers are increasingly impor-tant sites of research and professional development for graduate students in many fields, including rhetoric and composition, English as a Second Lan-guage, and education.
Not only do graduate students perform numerous roles in writing centers, they also work from unique, and frequently tentative, positions. Admittedly, many of the difficulties we out-line are often experienced by faculty and staff administrators. However, it does not follow that because graduate and faculty/staff administrators face many of the same problems, graduate administrators can employ the same strategies for overcoming those ob-stacles. For example, they hold less au-thority and decision-making power than other administrators, often com-plicating and/or inhibiting their super-visory responsibilities and administra-tive efficacy.
Although administrative experience is invaluable for many graduate stu-dents, both they and the centers in which they work can be negatively im-pacted by graduate student administra-tion. Graduate students usually hold their appointments on a year-to-year or term-to-term basis, necessarily affect-ing the stability of writing centers. There are rarely procedures to counter-act the effects of such turnover, and a center’s continuity and efficiency are often seen as goals antithetical to the needs and abilities of new graduate student administrators. Because gradu-ate students must make timely progress toward degrees, the time they can dedi-cate to writing center work and re-search is often limited. Some graduate students are appointed to administra-tive positions when such work does not complement their area of scholarship, thus splitting students’ professional and intellectual lives.
Overall, there is a serious lack of consistency among graduate student administrators’ responsibilities and op-portunities, issues seldom addressed in the field’s professional literature. Graduate students are under-represented, if not absent, from our scholarly discussions despite the fact that they provide valuable work for writing centers and in turn receive invaluable experiences.
We began discussing these concerns with other graduate student administra-tors in 1998 and have since attempted to address the problems by developing online resources2 and presenting at national conferences.3 At CCCC 2000, we conducted a pre-conference work-shop which focused on professional development issues and sought input from graduate student administrators and faculty/staff directors who work with graduate assistants. Workshop participants addressed the scope of a graduate administrator’s job while ac-knowledging the ways local contexts shape specific writing centers. All agreed that graduate student adminis-trators should not be paper pushers or the sole administrator for a center. Rather, graduate student administrators should occupy an assisting role, and, according to context, have the opportu-nity to gain administrative experience, participate in tutor training and assess-ment, contribute to the development of the center and its programs, benefit from the mentorship of an experienced writing center or writing program ad-ministrator, and tailor center responsi-bilities and professional development opportunities to his/her individual needs. The support and suggestions we received from these participants led us to develop the following proposal, which we recently submitted to the NWCA Executive Board. We include an edited version of the proposal here, followed by updates on the outcome of the proposal.
First, we propose that the NWCA Board include a graduate student representative, with all the privileges and responsibilities such a position would entail. Given graduate students’ high level of involvement in writing centers, a graduate representative would assure that graduate student concerns are ad-dressed at the national level, as well as increase the efficacy of the NWCA Board through the addition of another vital perspective.
Second, we propose that the Gradu-ate Student Writing Center Adminis-trators listserv and web page be inte-grated more fully into existing NWCA resources and that NWCA help make these resources more widely known. Although NWCA relies on individuals and their home institutions to maintain its own web-based resources, it is more difficult for an individual graduate stu-dent to maintain such resources. Be-cause her/his affiliation with an institu-tion is relatively brief and access to institutional and technological support can be tenuous, we risk losing the pages and resources each time the cur-rent list owner and site manager moves to a new position or institution.
Third, we propose that more atten-tion be given to the unique concerns of graduate student administrators in the public documents created by and for our profession. For example, a useful addition to the Writing Center Re-source Manual would be a chapter that addresses professional development and management issues unique to graduate student administrators; it would also be useful for graduate stu-dents to participate in the writing and production of this chapter.
Fourth, we propose that the NWCA endorse a formal statement in direct support of graduate student administra-tors and their professional growth. To-ward this end, we have included a draft of a statement modeled in part on Jeanne Simpson’s 1985 article, “What Lies Ahead for Writing Centers: Posi-tion Statement on Professional Con-cerns.” Like Simpson’s statement, ours outlines ideal conditions. Furthermore, while we appreciate the implicit sup-port Simpson’s statement provides for the healthy and productive working conditions of graduate students,4 we hope to make the needs of graduate students more explicit.
be discussed.
should receive the same pay rate as graduate students with teaching assistantships.
12. Assistant directorships should incorporate research and publication opportunities.
These four proposals were submitted to the NWCA Executive Board at the NWCA 2000 Conference, and the first three proposals were passed unani-mously. In the first case, the Board agreed to “convert” an existing at-large seat to a graduate student at-large seat. Second, Bruce Pegg, the web master for NWCA’s web site, agreed to incor-porate the Graduate Student Writing Center Administrators listserv and web page into the NWCA web site, and, third, the General Editor of NWCA Press, Byron Stay, agreed that a chap-ter focusing on graduate student ad-ministrative concerns should be in-cluded in the next edition of the Writing Center Resource Manual, cur-rently in the revision process. Finally, the Board agreed to discuss the pro-posed Position Statement further and include the statement on the agenda for the next Board meeting at CCCC 2001. While we hope the Board will formally endorse the statement, we also believe that individual directors can use this document immediately to inform and extend their work with graduate ad-ministrators.
In the end, the Position Statement does not seek to constrain individual centers with mandated guidelines, but instead encourages departments, pro-grams, centers, and directors to attend to the professional development of graduate student administrators. Such work will eventually lead to better pre-pared writing center directors and, in turn, more successful writing centers. Writing centers simply do not benefit from graduate student administrators who are not effectively trained, who are unconnected from other student-ad-ministrators, who receive little encour-agement to pursue writing center re-search, or who remain relatively invis-ible to the professional organizations. Writing center directorships are in-creasingly being filled by those who gained writing center experience in graduate programs. To be vibrant sites of practice and research, writing cen-ters depend on experienced and knowl-edgeable leadership from directors pre-pared to face the institutional and intellectual challenges of effective and creative administration.
These are exciting developments, and the enthusiasm and interest dem-onstrated during our various work-shops, presentations, and hallway dis-cussions at conferences indicate that we are not the only ones who believe so. We look forward to continuing the conversation with others in the writing center community as this issue finally receives the attention it deserves.
Julie Eckerle (ecker014@tc.umn.edu)— University of Minnesota — Minneapolis, MN
Karen Rowan (kr7238@albany.edu) — State University of New York — Albany, NY
Shevaun Watson (watsons1@muohio.edu) — Miami University — Oxford, OH
(Ed. note: For those interested in responding to the authors’ invitation to continue the conversation on this topic, the authors’ e-mail addresses are included above. And they welcome comments.)
Simpson, Jeanne. “What Lies Ahead for Writing Centers: Position Statement on Professional Con-cerns.” Landmark Essays on Writ-ing Centers. Ed. Christina Murphy and Joe Law. Davis, CA: Hermagoras, 1995. 57-61.
1 The representative sample included all of the writing centers that were
linked to the NWCA homepage when the research was conducted in 1998. Currently, one of the writers, Shevaun Watson, is pursuing funding for a more comprehensive study on the extent of graduate student involvement in writing centers.
2 Kendra Banks Perry, who was instru-mental in our early efforts to address these issues, created The Graduate Stu-dent Writing Center Administrators listserv and web page. These resources can be accessed at http://home. earthlink.net/~bibliophiles/wc.htm.
3 Shevaun Watson, Andrea Deacon, Charles Schuster, Nancy Grimm, and Nancy Barron presented “Making the Invisible Visible: The Role of Writing Centers in Graduate Education” at CCCC 1999, and Kendra Banks Perry, Julie Eckerle, and Karen Rowan pre-sented “Giving a Voice to the Graduate Student Writing Center Administrator” at NWCA 1999.
4 Simpson suggests that directorships be faculty positions and hopes that her statement will “encourage a trend to-ward graduate programs that provide specific training for writing center di-rectors” (58).
5The authors would like to thank all of those in the writing center community who have supported and contributed to our work on these issues. We are espe-cially grateful to Jon Olson for his re-sponses to drafts of the proposal pre-sented here and his continued mentorship.
Check the date above your name in the mailing label on the last page of this issue. You may be “expiring,” and we wouldn’t want such a horrible thing happening to you. (Besides, we’d miss you!) To re-subscribe, if necessary, contact Mary Jo Turley (see information on page 2).
Summer in the writing center is usu-ally a pretty relaxed time. Not too much tutoring happens, but the ap-pointments that we do have tend to be some of the most atypical. I think this is because the summer writers are usu-ally new to college, taking the intro-ductory writing course early; and the tutors are usually more lethargic, more inclined to let the writer have most of the control of the session. There’s something about the combination of lazy tutoring, and writers who are ea-ger to “get ahead” through summer courses, that makes for a unique tutor-ing dynamic that I don’t see during the rest of the school year. The tutor/writer relationship becomes more friendly, less businesslike. I think that some of the most interesting and troubling ap-pointments happen at these times, when our guard is down, when we’re a little distracted by the weather, or by the end of the semester, by final exams and vacations. The more unusual things seem to happen when we’re not ready to think about them and reflect on them. We’ll say, “That was strange,” and move on to whatever else is on our minds. I want to get this all down before I forget it.
I tutored a man yesterday, I’ll say his name is “Joe.” He was probably in his late forties, balding and graying. He was coming back to school after al-ready graduating years ago with a de-gree in computer science. He had been teaching automotive repair at a post-secondary technical school, and he de-cided that he wanted to teach in the high schools instead. In order to ac-complish his goal, he had to take more college classes, which was why he was here in the summertime, taking two
classes in the general education program. He said, “I found that most of what we taught at the technical school was a result of poor teaching at the high school level. And I’m the kind of guy, I want to be a part of the solution. I don’t want to be part of the problem.”
He came to me with paper assign-ments for both the Western Literature survey course, and the Western Civili-zations survey course. He said both classes were irrelevant. He said, “I look at these teachers, and I say they only have jobs because people like me are forced to take their classes. You can’t do anything with this. What I teach, you can take out into the world and make money.”
Money seemed to be the bottom line. That did not bode well for our relation-ship, as I have trouble even remember-ing to fill out my time sheet here. I like to think that getting paid is a necessary but not a primary concern for me, as it seemed to be for Joe. I’m used to being poor. I wasn’t sure what to say. I searched for some way to engage him in the assignments, some perspective we could use that might ease his resis-tance. But the appointment became one in which he told me his worldviews (what he thought was important and unimportant), and I tried to subtly sug-gest the benefits of the general educa-tion program for everyone, even for him, while trying not to be too heavy-handed with my own opposing views. He showed me two essays about the origins of civilization he found to be exceptionally irrelevant. They both dis-cussed the possibility that Western civilization was influenced by African civilizations, that Greece had its roots in Egypt. He said, “This is bullshit.
Why do I care? Leave history for the historians. I’m in the real world.”
I felt very sad for him when he said this, but I didn’t press the issue. I de-cided to let him think what he wanted. But what he seemed to be saying to me was, “I am not concerned with where civilization started. It makes no differ-ence to me whether it began in Europe or Africa. That is a problem that does not leave the classroom, and I am in the ‘real world,’ outside of the class-room, where you need to make money.” Even while Joe never hesi-tated to speak his mind, and sometimes to very aggressively express his opin-ions, this statement, to me, was an ac-ceptance of powerlessness and silence.
I think this is where Joe’s professors failed him, and where I failed him, too. Nobody tried to make him see just how deeply his life and his ways of thinking were affected by questions like, “Where did civilization originate: Eu-rope, Africa, Asia?” He felt that it was just some intellectual exercise with no real connection to anything. But what those questions are really asking us to do (and this is something I didn’t talk to Joe about) is to examine where we are right now, and to look at how our understanding of the world has been constructed, how it has been con-structed for us. What could be more real than that?
How does a belief that Progress started in Europe contribute to Eurocentric attitudes?
How does that belief make me feel really good about myself, as a white person, believing that “we” (white people) are the masters of our own past and future, that we are the creators of so much Progress?
How does that affect our everyday interactions with non-white people?
What are the implications of believ-ing that African cultures also had some influence on Western civilization? Or that that’s where the Western World began? How then must racial attitudes be reconfigured? How have racial atti-tudes changed since, say, Heart of Darkness was written? Why have they changed?
I think that’s the point of reading such essays in a Western Civilization class. It can be a really empowering experience to see for the first time where our ideas have come from and to see that we are in control of changing what we think. Joe said he would rather not question where his ideas came from: “Leave history to the histo-rians. I’m in the real world.” My read-ing of this statement was that Joe would rather let someone else decide what he should think. This made me think that Joe has shut down. He has stopped asking questions, and he has focused his attention on goals: “This is what I want, and this is what I need to do to get it.” He has resigned himself to “getting by” in the real world.
It is important to point out here that the person I am writing about is not re-ally Joe—he is my reading of Joe. I come to every tutoring session with my own assumptions about the world, and it is inevitable that these assumptions color my interpretations of what stu-dents say to me; they even color my in-terpretations of history assignments. I cannot ignore my worldview, and I cannot speak for Joe nor for what Joe thinks. I can only look at Joe through my own lens, even as I try to be objec-tive. For example, I tried to be sympa-thetic to Joe while I tutored him, and to see things the way he saw them, but these were the thoughts that ran through my head while he talked: “get-ting by” is a survival tactic, the need to maintain. It means that we do what it takes to keep our heads above water. When we concern ourselves with get-ting by, it is because we are set in a certain lifestyle for whatever reasons, and we feel forced to make a living which will maintain that lifestyle. Joe seemed to have resigned himself to survival.
These are the thoughts that ran through my head while he talked: op-pressed people stay oppressed because they are so caught up with survival in an existing social order that they can-not afford to take the time to question or challenge that order: While I oppose my unfair working conditions, who will feed my children? I’m not saying that Joe is suffering from so much op-pression. He is a college graduate, he has taught at a post-secondary school. He is in a relatively powerful social position. He has options. But I saw an opportunity while working with him to encourage him to be critical about the world, not to accept a career teaching automotive repair just because it is useful and it makes money. I saw an opportunity to empower a student voice, but I did not take it. Why?
I am not a political activist (or am I?). I am only a writing tutor (is there a difference?).
Joe took the two history essays out of his bag after we had finished talking about another assignment he needed help with, a critical paper on Oedipus Rex, for his Western Literature class. So it was only the last half hour or so of the appointment when we turned to the “irrelevant” history class he was taking. When he took out the two es-says, he said he was frustrated that he had to write a summary of them. He didn’t even want to read them. In fact, he was so frustrated, he said that he was tempted to find someone who liked to read history, or who was good at it, and tell that person to name a price. He said he’d pay someone (me?) to write the assignment, as long as he could be sure that it was done carefully and correctly. He wasn’t asking me to tutor him on the history assignment. He knew what he had to do. He took it out of his bag just to say this to me. Was he offering me money to write his paper for him?
Ethics is a topic we don’t discuss much in this writing center, but you see it written about in writing center literature, and there seems to always be a presentation on “Writing Center Eth-ics” at the New England Writing Cen-ters Association (NEWCA) confer-ences. When we do talk about it, it’s usually in reference to some isolated incident like this one, where one tutor had one experience in which academic honesty became an issue. Then we talk about it and come to some consensus that the tutor handled the situation in the best possible manner, considering they were on the spot like that. There are no general guidelines or policies to follow, other than “don’t write their papers for them.”
I wasn’t expecting him to offer me money to do his work. It was like the floor fell out from under me. I had no answer, no idea how these situations were to be handled. There were no general guidelines or policies to fol-low. I kept my eyes glued on his as-signment sheet, for fear that any eye contact would be misconstrued as some illicit agreement between us. It was bad enough that I already didn’t know what to say to a man who didn’t share my views about the empowering possibilities of a college education; now I had to make this appointment productive in light of his offer, too.
What was he thinking? Can I get him in trouble for this? He is a teacher. He knew he overstepped his boundaries. When I didn’t acknowledge his subtle request, he acted as though he were only saying in passing that the class was a waste of his time. He said, “In any case, that’s just what I think. But I know that when you’re in school, there are going to be things you have to do that you don’t want to. It’s the same as in high school. It’s a discipline. You have to realize that in order to get where you want to be, you have to get these things out of the way.” Who was he trying to convince?
I was wondering what my proper re-sponse should be. Should I get him in trouble? Instead, I thought first, “I could use the money.” And then I thought about what that would have meant for the writing center, to have tutors who will accept cash under the table in exchange for academic dishon-esty, and to have that kind of informa-tion passed around the college, that money is the bottom line for us, too. I could have offered my services to him so easily, and for a fairly high price I’m sure, based on his frustrations. But I thought, why am I here? Why am I talking to this man right now? As ide-alistic as it may sound, our writing center, along with many others, is based on empowerment through writ-ing. I’m committed to listening to and validating the voices of writers who sometimes feel like they don’t have a voice, a feeling that can manifest itself in comments as straightforward and typical as, “I’m no good at writing. I don’t have anything to say,” or in com-plicated and resistant ways like, “Leave history for the historians. I’m in the real world.” I thought what hav-ing me write a paper for money would have meant for Joe. He would like to get through these few classes with as little work as possible, and he would never take the chance (he didn’t want the chance) of putting his ideas into writing. He was silenced by “the real world,” to the point where he would have let me speak for him, but I de-cided not to say anything. Until now anyway.
What’s most interesting to me about all of this lies in the implications of ethical missteps and conflicting worldviews on the interaction between the tutor and writer. You see, I have this faulty perception of what ideally happens in a tutoring session. I like to think that, when I sit down to tutor, I and the student both stop being whole people, in a way. We assume the roles of Tutor and Writer, and we let go of all the other roles for a while. This is obviously impossible, if only because how we think about and talk about writing is invariably bound up in how we think about and talk about the rest of our lives. My own morals, ethics, and philosophies, as well as Joe’s, kept asserting themselves during this ap-pointment. I couldn’t help but interact with him on a person-to-person level. My own ideals couldn’t be ignored as long as his were being so insistent. This created a wall between us. What could I have done?
Like Joe, I too resorted to survival. To me, Joe’s aggressive resistance to writing—the feeling that it was im-practical and a waste of his time— stemmed from the same kind of com-mon feelings that other students have about writing, as seen in statements like, “I’m not a writer,” or “I’ve never been any good at writing.” When we tutor students who say these things, part of our job is to help them become more comfortable with hearing and us-ing their own writing voice, by saying things like, “Well, when do you write?” or “In what ways are you a writer?” But with a more aggressive expression of silence, like Joe’s, I balked. I didn’t suggest to him that writing could mean much more to him than just intellectual exercise, that it could be a source of power for him. I didn’t say to him, in any way, any of the things that I thought, any of the things that I’m writing here. I swal-lowed them. I did not speak, and I did not encourage Joe to speak or to write. Instead, I sympathized. I said, “Yeah, it’s going to be tough for me to make a living with a degree in English,” and, “I’ll bet every freshman who takes these classes thinks the same thing you do.” I checked the clock to see how much time we had left.
How many times do we tutor, aware of the possibilities for change, only to become complacent during the appointment, and to just get by with whatever is good enough? We choose not to say things, and then attribute our own silence to the specific tutoring dy-namic. I could list any number of things about my tutoring relationship with Joe which discouraged me from doing more than “getting by.” I could say he had a very aggressive personal-ity and very strong opinions about things. He commanded a lot of space: he leaned forward when he spoke, and he used his hands a lot. He was bigger than I am. I didn’t feel like I could talk to him as a peer.
But such a list is not very helpful to me. The specific tutor/student dynamic does influence what we decide to do in a session, since we are forced to react to the situation at hand before we can really consider the theories behind our reaction. But it doesn’t give me much to go on . . . .
These are my questions for other peer tutors:
Jay Peters Rhode Island College Providence, RI
When writing centers mind their own business: A cautious comparison
In his article, “The Writing Center as Managerial Site,” Ronald Heckleman broaches the touchy subject of compar-ing writing center directors to business managers, and by extension, compar-ing writing centers to businesses. His use of Stephen Covey’s The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is in-tended to outline the “general charac-teristics of an effective manager” that he believes “we can usefully relate to writing centers” (2). Few, if any, writ-ing center professionals may be eager to share philosophies, practices and even terminology with the business world, whose participants we’ve come to stereotype as shrewd policy makers and enforcers; decision makers with vi-sion toward quantities and final prod-ucts; unscrupulous players with a sup-ply-and-demand, bottom-line-margin mentality. Heckleman, however, urges us to consider some of the issues com-mon to both fields, which he believes will work toward “demystify(ing) the concept of management as it applies to writing and especially to writing cen-ters” (1).
Heckleman’s article breaks important ground in the writing-center-as-busi-ness debate, and as writing center pro-fessionals, we must at least acknowl-edge the possible connections between business and writing center manage-ment styles, which he addresses. We also need to ask tough questions like, “Can we make comparisons between businesses and writing centers?” and if so, then “What can we learn from the business world to improve what we do in the writing center world?” and “How can we incorporate ideas from the outside without compromising the intellectual integrity of our own field?” Whether these questions cause us to re-affirm or rethink our attitudes toward the idea of writing centers as manage-rial sites, they surely lend themselves to the kind of self-reflection indicative of effective writing center directors. In our attempt to answer some of the questions we have posed, we intend to discuss a comparison directed specifi-cally toward the issue of policy-mak-ing, since this is the area where we be-lieve writing centers and business operations share the most similarities. We do not intend this article as an ar-gument for melding our writing center tutoring philosophy with that of the typical small business. A full-blown comparison would eventually break down because the nature of the rela-tionship between a writing center and students and that of the business and the customer is different. The similar-ity in comparison lies more with the in-ternal structure of the organization, and in this respect writing centers can learn a great deal about improving their po