 |
 |
Glad you started this strand, Richard. It's an issue that those of us involved in writing centers go round and round on. Should tutors be obligated to take an audience approach, or an evidence approach, or some other "neutral" rhetorical responce to a paper that is morally repugnant to them, or are they ethically justified (maybe even obligated) to refuse to contribute to the power of the argument? Considering this tension in the peer situation always opens up my own anxiety. I handled a situation in a comp class very badly last year. The issue was no where near as dangerous as those mentioned here. The student was politically extremely conservative, which did not bother me, and operating out of an unexamined position of extreme class privilege, which did bother me. I encouraged him to bring his view into class discussions (was I "using" him?) and I approached his writing from a strictly rhetorical stance--"you need evidence" etc blah blah blah. I know, however, that he believed his grade of C+ was because I disagreed with his views not because he was not presenting them skillfully enough. And I wonder, looking back, whether my judgments were colored by my gut reaction to his class attitudes, which we never talked about. This makes me wonder whether it would be more useful to put the audience question not in terms of "your audience" but in terms of "I" - am offended by your views. Has anyone done that? What happens? I like the way you approach the issue from the perspective of language as *action*, Catherine. Jean Sanborn Colby College Waterville, ME [log in to unmask]