Nether world tutoring:

Encountering hot topics

by Judy Anson and Linda Chaffee-Kirby

BSU Writing Center

The Dilemma

Jane Doe sits across the table from you as you read the draft she brings with her today. The paper describes her first hunting experience with her brothers. Jane writes about her initial reluctance to participate in shooting at animals, but as the paper progresses, she details the pleasure she began to derive from killing. Jane vividly describes the sounds animals make when their bodies are pierced with bullets, the sight of their entrails flying through the air, their feet curling in death.

When you--as a university instructor--encounter student papers which border on being inappropriate for academic writing, you have the option to set boundaries regarding the parameters of such topics. Some professors prohibit certain topics, while others require students to clear potentially controversial subject matter prior to beginning the assignment. The staff at the BSU Writing Center encounters students whose writings fall into those questionable categories; however, our options in dealing with them differ from the professors' options, and we feel it is important for faculty to be aware of some of the approaches we use in the process.

While the Jane Doe scenario may be hypothetical, Writing Assistants (WAs) do, from time to time, encounter students who bring in papers with topics bordering on inappropriate, either in content or in treatment. As a Mentoring Team project, the two of us decided to conduct a survey among the staff regarding the ways we approach tutoring when we work with these students.

Using a survey developed by Wangeci JoAnne Karuri, we queried WAs regarding the ways they approach tutoring sessions when the topic of a paper borders on sexism, racism, or prejudices, such as homophobia. Karuri's survey appears in her article titled "Must We Always Grin and Bear It?" which appears in Writing Center Perspectives. She writes that "Ideas are like bread dough, and a writing center should help in the mixing and kneading process. Just as no amount of baking will compensate for relying on poor ingredients, no amount of technical and syntactic work will improve a paper based on shallow, ill-conceived ideas. Avoiding fundamental content of the papers will consistently result in half-baked products."

To administer Karuri's survey, we created several hypothetical scenarios and posed them to small groups of WAs. The survey was designed to determine whether offensive content in student writing affects the way we approach a tutoring session, whether we find ourselves shifting from a direct approach to an indirect approach, or whether we totally avoid content and simply deal with grammar and mechanics.

The Nude Model

One of our hypothetical scenarios involved a paper in which a man describes his first experience as a nude model; he graphically describes his feelings about the experience. They range from elation to inadequacy. The three female WAs responding to this scenario each believe they would rely on their own gut instincts and the client's nonverbal communication in determining their approaches to such a session. They felt confident in their ability to set proper boundaries in discussing the content of the paper. One tutor said, "I have to feel free to say, `this makes me feel uncomfortable' if that happens. But often, I don't object to content, although much of what I read is contrary to my beliefs." She went on to say that whether she uses a direct or an indirect approach depends on the circumstances, particularly whether she feels the client's intentions are sincere in exploring a topic out of self-discovery, or whether he has another agenda.

All three of these tutors also felt no hesitation in challenging ideas or assumptions expressed in a paper, even when they agreed with them. Playing the devil's advocate, they felt, makes for a stronger argument. This is also a way for a tutor to help clients explore their ideas in more depth, to be put in the position of having to defend or question their arguments. This is to be done, of course, in a collaborative way, not a dictatorial one, avoiding a situation in which the consultant appears to be making a personal attack on the writer.

Shock Value

Another scenario we presented to a group of WAs involves a student whose essay is three times as long as the instructor requested. It is a personal narrative seemingly written to shock the student's peer response group in English composition. When questioned about the underlying tone in the paper, she states that she intended it to be so. The tutors in this group felt they would not want to debate the subject matter so much as use an indirect approach to reflect a reader's perspective. Oftentimes, through exploratory questioning, we learn students seldom consider audience reaction. English Composition instructor Tudor Cushman says she uses the technique of saying to her students, "You know, I wear two hats: the hat of your instructor and the hat of your audience. Which do you want me to wear when I read this?" This works as a tool to make students aware that their papers will have varied audiences, because many of them enter their early university semesters as naive writers, and sometimes as naive thinkers. Not all students are aware that the treatment they give a particular topic in writing can either make or break their papers academically, especially if they fail to understand the cultural context of their topics.

Cushman recalls one of her students who used sophomoric, slang language in reference to women. She reminded the student that he had a choice in the way readers react to such language. "Do you want your readers to have to read your work with red flags up? If you don't, then be aware that you have a larger audience than your male peers."

Robin Miller uses subtle techniques when confronted with similar circumstances in the Writing Center. She casually comments, "Oh, I notice your teacher is a woman." One of her clients responded by asking Miller whether she thought the instructor would be offended. She answered by saying, "Well, I'm offended by it, so your teacher might be." This technique eliminated any tension which might be created by a confrontation. Miller didn't make assumptions about the writing, and the client wasn't accused of being sexist. In the process, a new awareness of audience reaction was created.

Prejudice

We used the issue of gays in the military for one group of WAs to discuss as a tutoring situation, suggesting that a male client's writing reflects homophobia. The client does not respond to suggestions about the controversial nature of his writing: he simply wants his paper "corrected." None of the tutors in this group felt they would be confrontational. Two WAs in this group said they would discuss the issue if it would help with the revising process, or if the paper might offend others. They said they would want to explore whether the writer intended the paper to be interpreted the way it feels. One thing that becomes evident when taking this approach is that we often discover that the student simply has not thoroughly completed the analysis process.

It is not unusual to discover that students who bring in papers which seemingly border on being controversial are unaware of potential audience interpretations and/or reactions. By guiding them through the analysis process, they have the opportunity to think through the implications of the draft we discuss, plus they leave with alternatives for revision.

More often than not, when we encounter papers bordering on inappropriate subject matter and/or treatment of their topics, the clients approach us wanting their papers edited for grammar, spelling, or punctuation. And often, if their writing does have overwhelming grammatical concerns, then it has other overwhelming concerns as well. Given those circumstances, the only language some students bring to a discussion about writing are just those--editing, spelling, punctuation. What we, as Writing Assistants, bring with us to such discussions is an understanding that the client may not have the vocabulary to express what they feel concern for in their writing, but the fact they come to the Writing Center says a great deal in and of itself.

The opportunity to facilitate the collaborative process is what draws students to the Writing Center to become WAs in the first place. Our training emphasizes development of individual writers in their ability to effectively express themselves, rather than individual beliefs, values, or ideas. As tutors, our job is to facilitate this process in as professional, detached, and responsible a way as possible. The role of the tutor in the Writing Center can be better seen as a balancing act, walking the tightrope of collaborator/coach in knowing where the fine lines of personal beliefs and professional writing are. Of the tutors involved in our survey, most said they would never ask another assistant to take over a session for them when the paper feels objectionable to the Writing Assistant's personal ideology, because doing so has the potential to cause the client to feel rejected.

Sexism

One final hypothetical scenario we presented at our staff meeting involved sexist overtones in a student paper. In this scenario, a student writes about women working alongside men in jobs once considered "men's work." The student equates physical strength with intelligence. Dallas Hightower commented that, while he would not "exactly" debate the issue with the client, he felt "the offensiveness of the issue cannot be ignored...[because] writing and thinking are intertwined." Hightower went on to say that "The [Writing Assistant], and for that matter, all thinking people, have a duty to educate the ignorant and prejudiced." Social, political or ideological differences, never cultural differences, tend to cause him to disagree with client writing, especially "when ideas aren't well-reasoned." One of the WA's functions under these conditions involves creating an awareness that the reasoning process needs to be expanded upon.

Jennifer Ledford responded to the same scenario as Hightower, and she recommended questioning the client about whether "stronger equals smarter." Ledford said she would "find out what he really means, and make sure borderline-offensive ideas are not couched in inadvertently offensive wording." When questioned about whether she would ask another WA to take over a conference dealing with an objectionable paper, Ledford advises that "If the client seemed to have a problem with me (as a woman, for example), I'd be eager to hand him off to someone who didn't offend him by their approach, their personality, or by just existing."

During our staff meeting discussion, Ledford pointed out that, if a client's paper demonstrates logical fallacies, then she has an obligation to question the client about their position in the paper. This is a good position to take. The balancing act, then, is in knowing when enough is enough, because we want to be careful not to homogenize client writing to the extent it reflects our ideology-- which collaboration has the potential to do. While we want to become mirrors, reflecting the essence of their writing back to clients, we cannot be authoritarian in insisting on watering down their ideas. What we are about is creating an awareness of the writing process.

Discussion

If we encounter papers that feel overtly controversial or seem borderline inappropriate, and we don't respond to our gut instincts, are we sanctioning the topics or the treatments of the topics, or both? If we simply ignore the subject matter and deal, say, with the mechanics and grammar, have we failed the client? Have we failed the instructor?

English instructor Christine Davis says she considers it a favor if Writing Center staff point such issues out to her students. She says we can do this simply by asking the client whether the topic has been cleared with the instructor. Davis doesn't feel this infringes upon her territory as an instructor at all. Of course, she says it depends on how it is done. Freshmen, Davis reminds us, aren't always aware of what is inappropriate when writing academic papers, such as using street slang; they simply need a different perspective. Davis does tell her students that certain topics are off base in her writing classes: religion and sexually oriented topics.

But, do we--Writing Assistants--have a right to avoid those controversial topics? Seemingly, there is no pat answer to that question. Certainly, we always have the option to end a session if we think a topic or discussion is intolerable for us. However, this seldom happens. What we do have is a right to delve into those ideas because writing is one way to explore ideas, thoughts, values, and perceptions. Therefore, by using directive questioning, we encourage exploration which can help our clients find ways to say what they actually mean to say, and perhaps to point out what we, as their audience, hear them say--versus how and what they think they are saying. In this way, the Writing Center becomes a talking center. The WA accomplishes this by helping the client explore their intentions behind the writing, to clarify misunderstood or misinterpreted language and concepts.

The process of facilitating or collaborating, therefore, directly involves the tutor in the development, not only in the writing of such papers, but in the development of the ideas of the writer behind the paper. This can appear to be an overwhelming responsibility on the part of the WA, but viewing it from another perspective, it can also be an opportunity for tutors to engage in exploring and developing their own perspectives. After all, tutoring is a collaborative effort, and playing the role of umpire and researcher in helping clients explore their own ideas in a clinical, detached way can not only strengthen a paper, but it can also provide an opportunity for two human beings to discuss topics and explore ideas, points of view, and value systems. The key to tolerance is understanding, and understanding comes from listening, sharing, and being willing to acknowledge--and respect--alternative perspectives.

---