Wow. So, this week's readings are pretty intense. Interpreting our First Amendment rights as Americans and applying those not only to our government policies, but to our personal and professional lives is, without a doubt, a tremendous challenge. What are the limits of "freedom of speech"? Should there be limits? What about hate speech? Should people like Brother Jed be allowed to lecture and spread what many consider to be "inappropriate and offensive speech" on our college campus?
As Sherwood and Freed discuss, freedom of speech is incredibly relevant to tutoring in a writing center. When faced with confrontational, offensive, or possibly inappropriate writing, what is our job as tutors? Is it appropriate for us to "question a student's beliefs and move from objectivity to subjectivity?" (Freed, 39). Would we, as Freed also writes, "be doing students a disservice by not voicing our own opinions, forcing them to scrutinize their work" (40)? As tutors, we have an obligation to help our tutees become better writers. When that obligation is challenged by a clash of personal beliefs, is it our responsibility to question the beliefs of the writers that come to us for help? What about speech that could be construed as offensive to the writer's audience? Is it our job to impose some form of censorship?
Freed concludes her piece with this: "We won't be able to change students' minds in one tutorial session, but we can open them." Do you find her statement appropriate?
I've asked a lot of questions and this is definitely an issue that merits in-depth thought and discussion. Feel free to answer as many or as few of them as possible. And please feel free to include any personal experiences relating to sessions you might have had that challenged your notions of "ethical tutoring".
I think in Freed’s conclusion the statement: “We won’t be able to change students’ minds in one tutorial session, but we can open them”, is appropriate. When it comes down to it, we are socially responsible for upholding the ideals of what may be considered morally right and wrong. We as individuals do not have the right to infringe on any one of our writer’s beliefs, but we can provide an educational experience. As someone committed to social responsibility, I feel that if I were put into any ethical session I would challenge the writer. It is difficult not interjecting our own ideals or arguing for the perceived “greater good”, but there is a time and place for it. My opinion is that in the event that a student is being ignorant and offensive, use the session as an opportunity to intellectually discover the “hate”. I feel that the paper, even though it is the job at hand, would become secondary. The focus should be put on the ideals being expressed through the paper and why.
ReplyDeleteAs writers and U.S. citizens we are entitled to freedom of speech, but obviously we have all been exposed to situations that have taught us the importance of curbing certain beliefs. Unfortunately, the reality is that there are limitations put on our right of free speech. Action and word potentials may unintentionally hurt others, that is why ethics are taken into account in school and work environments. Respect is the underlying ideal determining the moral capacity of a situation. As tutors in a session, we must respect the tutees and the audience. We cannot tell a writer something is morally right or wrong, considering everyone perceives the concept differently. Still, we must lead “hate writing” in a more productive/effective direction to better suit the student and environment.
Personally, I see the community shifting from more conservative views to more liberal views. Thus, I cannot imagine facing an offensive or politically incorrect student. But in the event of Brother Jed and students who might bring in heavily offensive work, we must personally decide how to handle the situation. The way I see it, your ability to make good decisions at a moment’s notice best represents your own personal set of beliefs. Beliefs you have grown up on or learned growing us have shaped you to better suit the character you wish to exemplify; our character is best based on who we are and what we do when no one is watching. So if I find myself in any similar situation, I would stand up for my beliefs and weigh them with opinions of others living in this society, because the golden rule is what I live by: treat others the way you wished to be treated.
Way to dominate again, Revae.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the "opening minds" statement is appropriate. As Sherwood points out, "students who express an unsavory opinion may do so out of naïveté or haste, and might gladly modify the opinion when they understand all of its implications" (58). Some students might only need a friendly tutor to say, "you know, this could be taken the wrong way." Something as simple as an unintended racial slur can damage a student's reputation if they don't understand the context they're using it in.
On the other hand, such as in Sherwood's case of the student who had a racist story in his essay with full understanding of its implications, we can only do so much to tell them that people would read this the wrong way. We can't tell him that it's "wrong" and we can't hamper his First Amendment rights. We certainly can explain what to a student what might happen if they submit an inappropriate story about their teacher or if they throw around sexist jokes in their essay, but it is ultimately the choice of the student to keep it or write something that would not damage their reputation and continue their negative (judgmental?) ways of thinking.
Sherwood also plays devil's advocate, saying that perhaps you could be hindering the student from submitting their only "A" paper of the semester, because though they are passionate about this idea, it is clearly controversial and inappropriate. So, as Revae mentions, we can "lead 'hate writing' in a more productive direction to better suit the student and the environment," but how can we do this? How can we keep the student motivated to write as colorfully as they did before, but this time on a more "appropriate" and considerate topic?
Great posts so far! I'll refrain from commenting too much here since I want to leave stuff for discussion, but for those of you who haven't posted yet (or those of you who return and decide you'd like to post again) here are some semi-new questions to keep things fresh:
ReplyDeleteAdding onto Hannah's question (and playing something of a Devil's Advocate to the Devil's Advocate (...assuming that such a thing is possible and that it's not just backtracking to the original opinion)) is it even appropriate/respectful to attempt to re-direct a writer's work in the first place? Isn't that a form of censorship in itself? And assuming we do decide to “censor” a student's work, however minimally, what sort of tutoring methods/techniques can we utilize to limit our contributions and ultimately keep the writer's work their own?
In Sherwood's essay, he presents the position of Nancy Grimm, who “contends that, whether they realize it or not, tutors typically act as enforcers of the dominant culture's model of academic literacy” (55). While we've discussed how our “American style” of essay writing dominates the way we tend to direct essays brought to us (especially essays by foreign students who are new to the “five paragraph, thesis statement style”), here we have a different situation. Rather than having to face stylistic cultural difference, we face a difference of what is considered “suitable essay content”. Do you agree or disagree with Grimm's opinion? Why? By attempting to re-direct writers' works, are we, in fact, contributing to “closing the system to difference”?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Adam, how DARE you put this week’s post up a couple hours late. The NERVE! ...Just kiddin’ buddy :-)
ReplyDeleteSherwood points out in his article that “There are special settings...where the principles of free speech...are limited.” The public university, however, is not one of them. Legally, there are no limits and should be no limits to free speech on our campus or in our writing center. Ideally, I still feel, there should be at least a few––especially regarding “hate speech”––but as the article also says, the enactment of language “prohibition” or even small-scale bans would be unconstitutional. And I can’t imagine how the enforcement of such limits would be carried out.
I have heard it said somewhere that when people abuse freedoms they lose them. An example of an individual who “abuses” the right of free speech (if such a person must be identified) is definitely Brother Jed––right on target, Adam. His doctrines are twisted, his approach is vindictively over-judgmental, and the entirety of his movement is hypocritical. Whatever biblical basis he started with has been perverted and distorted into a sensationalist, repulsive mockery of Christianity. I could support these statements with evidence, but that’s a whole other blog. I will just say that when I first saw him speak when I was freshman, I thought he was a hired actor from an anti-Christian organization who was being paid to publicly stereotype and vilify Christians. Seriously, I thought he was!
The language of ideas, Freed writes, is intricately tied to perceptions. Since Brother Jed’s language is so...well, cruel, and since it lacks any respect for the views, cultures, and lifestyles of others (besides his followers), I think he has abused his right of freedom of speech and does not deserve to speak on our campus.
But wait a minute. What if Brother Jed came to the writing center? And what if, heaven and academia forbid, I agreed with his views? Where would I draw the line then? I have to come back to the Sherwood article. The author leaves us with the advice that “such a delicate judgment [of when to urge self-censorship] must be heavily weighted on the side of the students’ best interests and away from our own political or ideological agendas.” So now I’m imagining a tutoring session with Brother Jed. He has presented his paper to me, which is full of hellfire and brimstone. Do I tell him to censor himself? Well, putting aside whether or not my beliefs are aligned with his, what should I base my “delicate judgement” on? Here is an excerpt of dialogue between Brother Jed and me that I have transcribed from my imagination:
ReplyDeleteMe: “Alright, after reading this it looks like you have a cohesive paper, Jedediah, and––”
Jed: “You can call me Jed. Or Brother Jed. Or just Brother.”
“Okay, Jed, it looks like you have a cohesive paper, and the part about guaranteed damnation for people wearing revealing jeans is, uh, riveting. But I was wondering: who is the audience of this essay?”
“Well, I have to present it to my gender studies class and professor.”
“I see. So how do you think it will be received?”
“With the wicked insouciance of Gomorrah!”
“Okay. I’m guessing that means...not well. And I would agree. So I think, in the interest of respecting the feelings and opinions of others, and achieving a good grade for yourself in the class, maybe you could tone down the diction a bit, and meet your argument a little more too.”
“...Well...alright, I suppose I could.”
“I mean, it’s up to you––after all, it’s your paper. Just remember, you came here seeking objective advice to improve your writing. And I think these things are important for you to consider in achieving that goal.”
“I, I will consider them. Thank you, Benjamin. Can I call you Brother Benjamin?”
“No.”
In this imaginary session, the tutor has done his best to “open” the mind of the writer, but not to “change” it, as Freed appropriately recommends. Here, Ben did not question Jed’s beliefs, nor did he play “devil’s advocate.” He merely pointed out some ways to accommodate Jed’s audience, so they could better understand and respond to the paper’s line of thought. Oftentimes, writers like Jed won’t realize all the potential repercussions of their arguments presented in raw, biased form. If this lack of awareness is not in their best interest, especially in the magnitude that could hurt their grade, it IS our job as tutors to inform them. Though we always need to do this in a gentle, respectful, and impartial way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow I really enjoyed that dialogue you included Ben! Impressive!
ReplyDeleteWith respect to re-directing a writer’s work (as mentioned in Adam's second post), when we acknowledge that writing is inappropriate or potentially offensive, we should be careful from that point not to push the writer into compromising their sense of individual opinion. There is a risk of “[intervening] in students’ ideas and opinions” in an unethical way by telling them they “simply can’t say things like this." Although I have not had any sessions dealing with offensive writing, I agree with Hannah about mentioning to the student the potential consequences/effects of writing that seems inappropriate. I think informing the student of these effects is a good way to avoid enforcing our personal ideas of right and wrong on the student because we are giving the student facts about such writing instead of giving opinion. In order to ensure that a writer’s work remains their own and that we have not simply imposed our ideas over their ideas, we can carefully ask questions to get a better grasp on the writer’s thoughts as long as our motive is not to force the writer into an opinion, but rather, to get the writer to think more critically about the structure of their argument.
In order to avoid enforcing a “singular standard” of literacy that Grimm mentions, I think a focus for “re-directing” could be helping the writer analyze how his or her argument is functioning. This process gives writers the opportunity to shift their essay content on their own (and if they so choose) as they examine their writing purely on a functional level. If they can look at the details of the functioning elements of their argument, they may choose on their own to rethink certain areas based on function without even intentionally focusing on the issue of right or wrong. Of course, the writer will not necessarily end up altering viewpoints, nor is the aim to force them into changing opinion, but at least the potential for deeper analysis of their argument is created by stimulating deeper levels of thought regarding the basic elements of their argument. With this kind of elemental analysis, diversity and independent thought would not be closed off, but would be stimulated in the writer’s analytic discussion of the material. I think focusing on the argument elements helps the student develop the flexibility to move into re-direction on their own (again, it is ultimately their choice whether they make changes or not). I also agree with Ben about pointing out to the writer the importance of the audience. Focusing on the audience (provided that the student is at least willing to consider this) avoids closing the doors of variation (an issue considered by Grimm); that is, it allows the student to maintain authority over their own opinions and simply encourages them to consider the presentation of these opinions in light of the audience. Since every writer is different, there can be no perfect way of dealing with this issue, but this could at least be a starting point.
This week's readings were really interesting because I think the issue of ethics is a slippery slope. Of course, my first instinct is to say immediately I wouldn't tolerate anything "unethical," but who defines what is right or wrong? As a tutor, I don't want to impose my moral standards on any student that comes to the writing center for help, but I also don't want to let potentially dangerous hate-speech go unnoticed on our campus. It seems from the posts above that we all feel a certain sense of responsibility, and that's good! That means we're good people!
ReplyDeleteKarena, I agree what both you and Hannah said about re-direction. By calling attention to the consequences of the student's work rather than the bare bones of the paper itself, we can avoid offending the student and imposing our own belief system upon them. Instead, we're providing them with a perspective on how their work will be received, and if they analyze their content in this light, they're probably more willing and open minded to change it.
Ben, I loved your imagining of a conversation with Brother Jed. You portrayed him very graciously, I doubt he would act anything like that in a real life conversation. But I like the way you handled the issue; you redirected him in a way that still allowed his views to stand, but offered a suggestion that was more than likely going to make his paper less aggressive and potentially offensive.
I think these techniques are the approach I would use to deal with something I deemed "unethical." I would try not to be ultra aggressive so as to offend the student, because, after all, the First Amendment still stands and it is by no means my right to infringe upon the rights of others. I would call attention to the WAY the paper was written, perhaps through its rhetorical devices, or diction, as Ben mentioned, then explained how these forms could possibly offend. I think by being colloquial and (seemingly) accepting of the student's point of view, even though it may personally offend me, would allow them to relate to me more as a tutor and possibly change the way their essay was written so as not to seem highly offensive.
If there was something extremist or blatantly bigoted that came into my hands as a tutor, I would probably pass it along to Chris (just being honest here) because I wouldn't want to put the integrity of the writing center into compromise by dealing with the situation in an inappropriate way.
After reading Ben's story, I seriously can't possibly say anything new, but bring up the concept of the classroom as a whole, steering a little away from the writing center. But not too much.
ReplyDeleteSo the point of just a classroom is to be able to voice these sorts of oppositions for the sake of learning. Now, I was a TA for a freshman English class once and I was leading the discussion on "Faith" and there was an openly vocal Atheist and a very strong-willed Roman Catholic. They immediately bumped heads, but in the most effective way so that there are those polar regions of opposition. Though it started off really healthy for both of them, as well as the class, to hear the extreme North and South point of views, it became dramatically scary when the Roman Catholic pulled out a Bible from her bag. Was this a learning experience or not?
So this brings up my point that playing the Devil's Advocate is all about learning. When you're on this college campus, you agree to be open to all cultures, beliefs, systems of thought and people. Even in my English 101, there was someone who did a presentation on gay equality, then another who presented on why we shouldn't have gay marriage. Of course, they didn't disrespect each other on any terms, which proves that we shouldn't censor either side on any issue. When it comes to tutoring, I've always felt that opening up their topic to ensure the other side has a position somewhere in their paper (for the sake of equality and full understanding) is completely necessary. Though, we shouldn't say things like, "Well, I don't believe in this..." we should approach it more like, "What if a completely different person said..." just so that they get the whole picture right. If someone were to get offended by knowing that there's another side to their case, then it's a personal issue, more so than us being out of line.
First of all, I totally agree with Karena that we have to be careful about pushing the writer in a direction that compromises their work. I personally think that the "opening minds" issue that Hannah and Revae discussed was the most significant part of the reading. As tutors, our job is to help the writer become a better writer. We aren't there to preach or coerce a writer into thinking like we do. We are there to open their minds to new approaches that will ultimately strengthen their arguments and make their writing more accessible. In that same vein, if a writer is illustrating ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of a subject, it is our JOB to open their minds to an approach or style of thinking that will improve their arguments and writing. Sherwood says "neither would it hurt to show the student the need to justify his contentions by presenting evidence or logical reasoning, and to then trace the lack of such evidence in his paper." This idea stands true for students who aren't ignorant, but simply have a controversial opinion. By questioning, NOT judging, a viewpoint, we are helping the writer really reflect on the arguments they've presented. This method also draws the tutor out of the line of fire. The last thing I want to do is become a target for a writer's anger or make a student feel inferior or judged because I have a different stance on a topic. Similarly, I think it's important that we leave our own opinions at the door with these writers. They didn't come to the center to hear what we have to say about abortion or racial equality or any other controversial topic. They want help with their writing. I know this can be hard, but I think that as tutors we also have to open our minds. By considering an opinion from a neutral standpoint, we'll be able to help the writer in many more ways than if we just got hung up on their extreme opinion.
ReplyDeleteOk, that was kind of a rambling paragraph. I personally think that every one has the right to their own opinion and we, as tutors, are not in a position to judge those opinions. We are in a position to challenge the opinions as a means of strengthening or reworking an argument. However when it comes to hate speech, I think it is very important to make the writer aware that the language their using has the potential of offending the reader and hurting their grade. If I had a student using shocking language, I would make them aware of the power held in the words, but I would never tell them to change the language. We have an obligation to make the writers aware of the power of their words, but we don't have the authority to force them to change. Ultimately, it's their choice.
Overall, I would approach this type of writing from a neutral standpoint. Leave my beliefs at the door while staying open to the views and trying to open the writer's mind to how their works will be perceived and making sure that they are aware of exactly what they are saying and the power behind their words.