Crowley

Crowley, Sharon. Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998.

Because the history of Freshman Composition reproduces humanist values and subjectivities, stemming from its beginning at Harvard in the 19th century, it ought to be eliminated from the present university requirements.

This is Crowley's basic point in her book; she writes an extensive history of composition that begins with rhetoric (in ancient Greece) and the role that rhetoric played in pedagogy, all the way through to contemporary versions in universities nationwide. After a brief period in which rhetoric flourished in educational programs, it rapidly went out of vogue in favor of literature and grammar courses. One reason for this is the open admissions -- but, as Crowley points out, even at Harvard in 1890, teachers lamented that its "elite" students could not write. Since then, various universities have required a writing course as part of the general education program, and Crowley traces the various iterations of this English course. Freshman English turned from rhetoric to grammar to literature and back again -- now being a site of contention for all involved.

Yet another important thread in Crowley's book is the issue of professionalization and disciplinary status. Crowley shows how rhetoric and composition as a discipline gained strength, but this was only in the last three or four decades. Previously, those who taught composition had high teaching loads and the lowest status of any at the university -- similar to today's circumstances. Crowley points out, too, that throughout the history of Freshman English, the people who teach it have never been awarded the appropriate respect or material conditions.

She marshals all of this history (her narrative of the history, that is) to demonstrate why the Freshman English requirement needs to be abolished. Crowley argues that it has deleterious effects on all involved: students, teachers/faculty, university, admin., etc. That is, by keeping the requirement in place, it constructs students as lacking basic skills; keeps teachers/the course "in service" of the university; removes possibilities for its practitioners (instructors) to publish or participate in the discipline; and, finally, promotes the "universal subjectivity" of students. Though Crowley wants to abolish the requirement of an English/writing course, she stresses that introductory level courses ought to take its place -- but on an elective basis.

For me, the most striking thing about Crowley's book is that it demonstrates just how long debates in the field have been going on; even more striking than that, however, is the fact that even in the 19th century when Harvard instituted its English requirement, the professors lamented that students could not write! This fact made me think, hard, about the things I believe and say about my own students! (One early Harvard professor even remarked, according to Crowley, that his students didn't read!) So I guess the question remains: what do we do?

I'm not sure we need to eliminate the writing requirement; I believe that it should be in place, but reframed drastically. One of the things I didn't like about Crowley's book was that she seemed to generalize the state of composition/English courses. That is, she argued against requiring composition based on its history; however, she does not argue for changing the course or imagine what a "good" required course might look like. I'm not sure if this is her project, but it would seem to me that we might meet her halfway or at least concede that the old models do not work while imagining new possibilities as we rethink how our discipline has upheld certain traditions, standards, values, and subjectivities. I would argue that we do need to reenvision our writing requirement by looking at what "work" it does and the effects that work has, and then drawing from that to rewrite the course. Crowley argues that most colleges/universities do not require other basic courses, and I'm not sure this is true. I know that I, and my students, have certainly had to take a mess of stuff (math, business, science, history/social sciences, psych, language, etc) that had little to no bearing on the rest of our coursework.

So what's useful? Lots. Mostly the history of composition that she writes; with that, the related issues of how composition studies has imagined itself in response to English, the university, and literacy in general. For later work, I think I would just concentrate on the issues she raises across the historical trajectory.

Questions: What does it mean that the same issues (ie students don't read; they can't write) have been driving questions since the beginning of the universal writing/English requirement?

Do we need to shed our ties to this requirement in order to imagine new and better possibilities for the field?