Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a
terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function
also as a deflection of reality.
Kenneth Burke
I appreciate your problematizing of the word “literacy.” Despite your concern regarding the “list” approach, I think it serves the purpose of illustrating the dangers of defining literacy in narrow terms such as “comprehension of printed matter.” It may be easier to test and evaluate a limited definition of literacy, but for those who become entrenched in the “reflection” suggested by the definition, they forget that it is a “selection” of the possible definitions, and ultimately engage in tactics—consciously or unconsciously—that can lead to a “deflection” of a broader discussion of literacy. Yes, literacy is political, and we do students a disservice when we don’t acknowledge its political nature.
For this post I’d like to discuss Oakland University’s First-Year Writing Program (FYWP), in part because it’s what I’ve been thinking about lately, but also because I think it will provide an interesting case example of how the politics of literacy can play out in higher education. When I first started teaching in the Department of Rhetoric at OU in 1995, the FYWP was defined by terminology that characterized the two courses in the program, Composition I and Composition II, as “service courses.” The descriptions of these two courses emphasized teaching the conventions of “academic discourse” (admittedly, an ambiguous phrase) that would enable students to write successfully in their other college courses. In short, the FYWP was meant to serve the rest of the university, placing it in a position of servitude, a marginal place with limited political power, funding, etc. This position of Composition in higher education, of course, isn’t unusual. FYWP’s have traditionally resided in the margins of English Departments, the courses taught primarily by T.A.’s and adjuncts, those with the least amount of power in academia. Interestingly, OU’s FYWP was not part of the English Department but instead was run by the Department of Rhetoric, which had married itself to the Department of Communication and Journalism, two departments that offered programs leading to a major and a minor. However, despite this amalgamation—three departments in one—Rhetoric remained the weakest of the three. This marginal position was largely due to the fact that Rhetoric course offerings were mainly comprised of “service courses” taught primarily by non-tenure faculty who, although they were members of the American Association of University Professors, were still near the bottom of the university hierarchy. At this time, the “research paper” was the assessment benchmark used to evaluate both students and the FYWP. In the case of the former, students were required to receive a 2.0 on their research papers in Composition II in order to pass the course and fulfill the university writing requirement, regardless of the grades received on the rest of their coursework. In the case of the latter, the Department of Rhetoric engaged in a multi-year self-assessment in the late 1990’s that required all instructors to submit randomly selected student research papers for evaluation.
Fast-forward to 2008. The Department of Rhetoric has recently separated from the Department of Communication and Journalism. It is now called the Department of Writing and Rhetoric and offers a program leading to a major and a minor. Based on credit hours offered in the Fall 2008 Semester, it is the largest department in the College of Arts and Sciences. In short, the Department of Writing and Rhetoric has moved from a marginal position in the university to a place where it has more political power. With that move, it appeared the department had acquired the power to define the FYWP as something other than “service courses.” When an overview of the new curriculum was first announced, it decisively identified three core components: (1) rhetorical theory, (2) new media and multimodal composition, and (3) civic engagement. But as the discussion regarding the FYWP progressed, the terminology “shifted” and began to sound reminiscent of my early days at OU. The phrase “writing in the disciplines” was introduced into the conversation, a phrase that might sound less ambiguous than “academic discourse” but none-the-less implies that the FYWP is responsible for preparing students for writing in their other college courses. For the moment, it appears the framework of the FYWP as “service courses” has been given a seat at the discussion table.
Now I’m not saying that the FYWP doesn’t have a responsibility to the rest of the university in regards to fostering academic literacy. Composition II is part of the core courses that make up the University General Education Requirements. As such, it operates in relationship to the other courses students are taking at OU. What I question is the extent of the power the Department of Writing and Rhetoric has to define the FYWP. It’s true that the department holds more political power in its current conception, but it’s not the only department that holds a stake in the definition of literacy promoted in the FYWP. This is all troubling to me because I’m not sure at this point how “writing in the disciplines," if adopted as a defining terminology of the FYWP, will redefine or possibly even marginalize the three core components originally articulated. Already I’ve heard that “civic engagement” could be as simple as writing an op-ed. Yes, this communication act could be considered “civic engagement,” but the terminology “op-ed” could act as a “selection of reality” that limits the discussion of what civic engagement could be in the context of the FYWP. Since I place a high value on critical literacy—or authentic literacy, the term you prefer, which is less politically neutral—I’m concerned about the FYWP being limited once again to the definition of “service courses.”