Original_To:  BITNET%"mbu-l@ttuvm1.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:33:00 EDT
From:         "Composition Digest (Robert Royar,
              Moderator)" <R0MILL01@ULKYVX.BITNET>
Subject:      (Fwd: *C&CD*) RE: ReComposing (6)

Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 14:08:28 EDT
From:         IN%"RobertRoyar@Delphi.com" Robert Royar (C&CD Moderator)
Message-Id:   <1992Sep13.140828.1.Grendel.Lair@Cratylus>
Subject:      RE: ReComposing (6)
Reply-to:     IN%"R0MILL01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU"  C&CD
Organization: Cratylus Educational Software

First to answer Stuart's <sm51@PRISM.GATECH.EDU> question of whether I
still believe this thread (first about the UT Austin departmental split and
later about the relationship between comp and lit) is unproductive.  My
original estimation has changed.  The thread has proven very productive in
getting us to open some issues that have lay hidden since the Grand Unified
Theory of a while ago was abandoned.

One question Stuart raised (Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:34:53 -0400)
 >Why not argue that "multicultural" means (and it does)
 >more than just ethnicity, belief system, social class: it applies to
 >academics and disciplines too.
requires more than simple statement.  I think he has hit on an irony of human
nature.  I've heard faculty (I could say anyone including myself) argue
strongly for the understanding of and inclusion of all cultures in the
academy, and then in the same discussion turn around and argue that some
positions held by students in the classroom must be punished, prevented, or
expunged.  In other words there is a tolerance but often not for world views
that deny the primacy of the tolerator's political/social/academic viewpoint.

I believe that some of my fellows are simply angry that those of us who
practice differently and study different researchers may have a skill that
is more marketable than the one for which they've paid dearly.  Note I'm not
arguing that what I do IS more important--it's not, but it is VALUED higher
from the service perspective than is the traditional English focus.  Many of
my colleagues simply resent having to teach writing to first-year students
or to teach business/tech writing (and I don't only mean where I teach
today).  They resent it legitimately because they were not trained for it,
and what they were trained for is often not considered as necessary by deans
and such.  They fear the split of comp or writing instruction from English
because that area is often the one that keeps the department afloat.

In a department with 54 sections of writing instruction and only 16 of lit
(3 of which are publication workshops and difficult to categorize).  We
nontheless had a chair who received 6 hours release per semester plus a few
$1000 stipend to oversee the entire department but a comp coordinator with 3
hours release each semester and no stipend to oversee all of the comp
courses.  There is a fear that should writing instructors decide they need
their own department, the release time and stipends will simply move with
them and no longer be under the control of the current hierarchy.  This
could drastically restructure the current system, forcing the hiring of more
trained writing instructors and the freezing of the lit lines.  So I guess
my point is that while Stuart presents the logical solution to the conflict
in many English departments, worry about money and course assignments makes
it unlikely that the current hierarchy will allow for much change.  I keep
advocating though, and hoping.

 -- Robert Royar (RobertRoyar@Delphi.com) New York Institute of Technology

------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU