This symposium offers three perspectives on how permanent non-tenure track faculty are positioned to effect change in English departments and writing programs, as well as some of the obstacles they face in doing so.

Contributors to this symposium recall and reflect on changes of mind they have experienced, noting the relationship of these to larger concerns of English studies as a profession.

David Bartholomae warns against a growing reliance on MAs as instructors in English departments. I suggest in response that one way to reconnect research and teaching is to invite PhDs from other disciplines to join us in teaching academic writing.

Maxine Hairston’s 1985 Chair’s Address is the first in an occasional series prompting us to reread and “re-vision” pivotal articles that have appeared in CCC. The full texts of those pieces will be available at CCC Online (http://inventio.us/ccc), and I invite you to reread those important texts online along with these new commentaries in print. For this inaugural appearance of “Re-Visions,” Joseph Harris and Susan McLeod comment on “Breaking Our Bonds and Reaffirming Our Connections,” excerpts of which appear below (originally published in the October 1985 issue of CCC [Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 272–282]).

Preview this article: COMMENT AND RESPONSE: A Comment on Joseph Harris's "Revision as a Critical Practice", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/66/5/collegeenglish2851-1.gif

Jasper Neel, Reclaiming Our Theoretical Heritage C. Jan Swearingen, and as a Coherent Intellectual Discipline Gary A. Olson, The Death of as an Intellectual Discipline Charles Bazerman, The Case for as a Major Discipline Susan Miller, Writing as a Mode of Inquiry Susan Wells, Claiming the Archive for and Composition Susan C. Jarratt, New Dispositions for Historical in Rhetoric Gary A. Olson, Ideological Critique in and Composition Tom Fox, Working Against the State Lynn Worsham, Coming to Terms Keith Gilyard, Holdin' It Down Steven Mailloux, From Segregated Schools to Dimpled Chads Thomas Kent, Paralogic Rhetoric Barbara Couture, Writing and Truth Victor J. Vitanza, Seeing in Third Sophistic Ways Sharon Crowley, Body in and Composition John Trimbur, Delivering the Message Cynthia L. Selfe and Richard J. Selfe, The Intelligent Work of Computers and Studies William A. Covino, The Eternal Return of Magic-Rhetoric

Rhetoric and Composition As Intellectual Work, edited by Gary A. Olson, reviewed by Joseph Harris; The Politics of Remediation: Institutional and Student Needs in Higher Education, by Mary Soliday, reviewed by Bruce Horner; The Testing Trap, by George Hillocks, Jr., reviewed by Joan A. Mullin; An African Athens: Rhetoric and the Shaping of Democracy in South Africa, by Philippe-Joseph Salazar, reviewed by John Trimbur; Writing and Revising the Disciplines, by Jonathan Monroe, reviewed by Carl G. Herndl.

Preview this article: Opinion: Revision as a Critical Practice, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/65/6/collegeenglish1305-1.gif

Preview this article: Responses to "New Faculty for a New University" and to "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/53/1/collegecompositionandcommunication1446-1.gif

I argue that we need to acknowledge how the material interests of part-time and adjunct teachers, graduate assistants, tenure-stream faculty, and administrators can come into conflict in composition in order to negotiate fairly among them. I then call on bosses and workers in composition to form a new class consciousness centered on the issue of good teaching for fair pay. I discuss how the culture of academic professionalism militates against such a consciousness, and I propose three ways to forge a more collective view of our work: involving faculty at all ranks in teaching the first-year course, devising alternatives to tenure as a form of job security, and pressing for more direct control over staffing and curricula.

Preview this article: CCCC and MLA Renew Discussions on Staffing Introductory Courses, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/51/4/collegecompositionandcommunication1402-1.gif

Foreword(s): Research and Teaching. 1. Growth. 2. Voice. 3. Process. 4. Error. 5. Community. Afterword(s): Contact and Negotiation. Notes. Works Cited.

Preview this article: A Teaching Subject: Composition since 1966, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/51/3/collegecompositionandcommunication1393-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/51/1/collegecompositioncommunication1368-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/50/4/collegecompositioncommunication1347-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/50/3/collegecompositionandcommunication1346-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/50/2/collegecompositionandcommunication1333-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/49/2/collegecompositionandcommunication3186-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/49/1/collegecompositionandcommunication3177-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor: In the Mix, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/4/collegecompositionandcommunication3161-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor: Location, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/3/collegecompositionandcommunication3151-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor: Changes in the Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/2/collegecompositionandcommunication3140-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: Reclaiming the Public Sphere, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/59/3/collegeenglish3626-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor: Virtual Citings, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/1/collegecompositionandcommunication3127-1.gif

Preview this article: CCC Guidelines for Writers, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/48/1/collegecompositionandcommunication3136-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor: The CCC Review Process, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/45/3/collegecompositionandcommunication8774-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor: CCC in the 90s, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/45/1/collegecompositioncommunication8795-1.gif

Preview this article: Review: The Course as Text/The Teacher as Critic, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/55/7/collegeenglish9276-1.gif

Preview this article: Symposium on "After Dartmouth", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/54/6/collegeenglish9367-1.gif

Preview this article: After Dartmouth: Growth and Conflict in English, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/53/6/collegeenglish9552-1.gif

When it was first published in 1989, Susan Miller s Rescuing the Subject: A Critical Introduction to Rhetoric the Writer established a landmark pedagogical approach to composition based the importance of the writer the act of writing in the history of rhetoric. Widely used as an introduction to rhetoric composition theory for graduate students, the volume was the first winner of the W. Ross Winterowd Award from JAC and is still one of the most frequently cited books in the field.This first paperback edition includes a new introductory chapter in which Miller addresses changes in the field since the first edition, outlines new research, surveys positions she no longer supports. A new foreword by Thomas P. Miller assesses the proven impact of Rescuing the Subject on the field of rhetoric composition.Situating modern composition theory in the historical context of rhetoric, Miller notes that throughout the eighteenth century, rhetoric referred to oral, not written, discourse. By contrast, her history of rhetoric contends oral written discourse were related from the beginning. Taking a thematic rather than chronological approach, she shows how actual acts of writing comment both rhetoric composition. Miller also asserts that contemporary composition study is the necessary cultural outcome of changing conditions for producing discourse, describing the history of rhetoric as the gradual unstable relocation of discourse in conventions that only written language can create. She maintains teachers historians of rhetoric must recognize that the contemporary writing they analyze teach demands their attention to a textual rhetoric that allows theorizing the writer as always symbolically a student of situated meanings.

Preview this article: The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/40/1/collegecompositionandcommunication11137-1.gif

The role of the reader in how the meaning of a text is formed has been a nearly obsessive concern of recent critical thought. Books and articles abound taking one stand or the other on the question of where meaning lies: in the text, in the reader, in the intentions of the author, in the intertext, in the practices of interpretive communities, and so on. For the most part, such talk tends to be seen as a kind of elegant diversion-the stuff of graduate seminars and doctoral thesessomewhat removed from the more practical tasks of teaching our students to read intelligently and to write with conviction. And certainly things seem to go on pretty much as they always have in most classes on literature-that is, texts get assigned to be read and papers to be written, students plow more or less dutifully through both, some haggling over meanings and grades takes place, and students and teachers alike go home at the end of the term, having done Shakespeare, or the Seventeenth Century, or the Modern Novel, or even Literary Theory. The writings of Jacques Derrida and Wolfgang Iser and Stanley Fish haven't changed that, and I doubt that any theory of reading ever will. But while theories of reader-response or deconstruction may seem to have had little effect on the practice of teaching literature, they do hold much in common with how many of us try to teach writing. The reasons for this are fairly plain. The meanings of most texts read in literature classes really are pretty stable-not because they hold some sort of intrinsic fixed messages, but simply because they are familiar texts that we, as a community of readers at the university, have long agreed on how to go about interpreting. This isn't the case, though, when we read student writing. Then we are faced with texts that are both new to us and whose meanings have often not yet been fixed even in the minds of their authors. In a freshman writing class the instability of meaning is a fact of life, not a point of critical debate. Nowhere else is the importance of a reader's expectations, of interpretive codes, shown more clearly. Where we look for analysis, our students often appeal to emotion; where we expect example, they call on popular sentiment, what everybody knows. The problem is not that our students are dumb, but that they're not yet members of the club-they don't know the sorts of things we as academics look for when we read. And so one way of looking at our task as teachers of writing is to see it as helping our students to confront the kinds of talk that go on at the university, to think about the values and assumptions that underlie such discourse. Joseph Harris teaches writing at Temple University.

Preview this article: The Plural Text / The Plural Self: Roland Barthes and William Coles, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/49/2/collegeenglish11495-1.gif

Preview this article: Comment and Response, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/48/7/collegeenglish11583-1.gif