[Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1109 - 1 msg

[Charles Nelson]

I asked specifically about the ABR itself (meaning the document)
somehow stifling teaching. As Bill wrote at the website, "In fact, I
daresay that in a different political climate, people on the political
left might look to such a document to support teaching methods and
curriculum not aligned with the status quo." It's rather obvious that
some dislike "David Horowitz and his ilk", but I cannot see anything
in the ABR that would stifle my teaching of first-year composition.
Can someone reply more specifically how it would stifle FYC teaching?

Charles Nelson

> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:12:19 -0400
> From: "Thelin,William" <wthelin@uakron.edu>
> To: <teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com>
> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
>
> Hello All:
>
> Pardon my delay in responding, but I was hoping someone else would jump
> in and post about Charles's query.  I will offer my interpretation but
> still look for other perspectives.
>
> The ABR did not suddenly appear on the scene.  It is part of an ongoing
> battle, now spearheaded by Horowitz but certainly transcending his
> input, to prevent universities and colleges from challenging the status
> quo.  This latter term in itself is vague, but for now, let's think of
> it in terms of a patriarchal, white (western), monotheist (mostly
> Judeo-Christian), heterosexist, capitalist society.  The  forces
> opposing the status quo--feminism, Marxism, multiculturalism, etc.--were
> not just looking for changes in curriculum content; advocates sought
> (and seek) structural changes.  Our reliance on hierarchy would be one
> example of a concept that would need to be altered if we seriously
> listened to advocates of change.  Another, which is clearly part of the
> ABR, is the idea of neutrality and objectivity.  The people and
> ideologies currently in power can rely on concepts like "fairness" and
> "compromise" because these concepts, unlike "revolution," keep the
> status quo in place.  Beyond this, though, is the sense that in
> acknowledging the validity of feminist, Marxist, multiculturalist,
> heterosexist, and (often not discussed) polytheistic ideas, our teaching
> must change.  To deny the place and purpose of women's studies and
> multiculturalism, which Horowitz has done (see the links I provided), is
> to deny the worthiness of changes to teaching.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
> [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of
> Charles Nelson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:31 PM
> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1
> #1107 - 2 msgs
>
> Bill, you wrote,
>
> > At the heart of the ABR is a pretty static
> > conception of teaching that I think needs to be challenged.  Maybe we
> > can get some posts on this issue????
>
> I didn't see anything in the ABR that indicated a "static conception
> of teaching." Perhaps you could expand on what aspects in the ABR
> itself indicate such a position.
>
> Charles Nelson
> _______________________________________________
> Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition
>
> To unsubscribe, please visit
> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update
> your information.
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition
>
>
> End of Teaching_Composition Digest
>


-- 
Charles Nelson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of ESL Writing
English Department
Kean University
Tel: (908) 737-0393
Fax: (908) 737-0375
charles.p.nelson@gmail.com
http://www.kean.edu/~cnelson