Issue 7.1

Fall 2008

Basic Writing in America: The History of Nine College Programs 

Nicole Pepinster Greene and Patricia J. McAlexander, Eds. 

Reviewed by Deborah M Sánchez

From the perspective of a graduate student and novice researcher, Basic Writing in America: The History of Nine College Programs, edited by Nicole Pepinster Greene and Patricia J. McAlexander, provides a useful historical mapping of the varied and nuanced approaches to basic writing (BW) in nine different programs across the United States. While the histories share some common trends, such as the loss or reduction of BW programs due to rising neoliberalism during the Reagan era, the varied ways in which lesser-known programs subverted and continue to subvert attacks on BW and open access demonstrate the possibilities that exist. In the preface, the editors point to two recurring themes in the book: “the threatened elimination of basic writing programs in America’s universities and four-year colleges” versus “the students’ need for such programs” (x). In the introduction, the editors revisit the above exigencies in the discussion of the book’s purpose, which is to provide the histories and accomplishments of lesser-known BW programs in order to defend against ahistorical affronts and to challenge more recent attempts to eliminate access at universities and four-year colleges. The first six chapters discuss the challenges programs face because of the move toward eliminating open access, while the last three chapters highlight positive examples of programs that are thriving. The rest of this review will highlight some of the challenges and accomplishments of a few of the programs featured in the collection and provide relevant implications from these histories for other newcomers to the field.  

Chapter 1, “Sunrise, Sunset: Basic Writing at CUNY’s City College,” written by George Otte, discusses probably the most well-known history of a basic writing program, that of the College of the City of New York (CCNY). The chapter traces the history of the field beginning with the start of open admissions in the late 1960s and ending with the dismantling of BW at all four-year campuses in the CUNY system. The implication from Mina Shaughnessy’s work as teacher, researcher, BW program director, and associate dean of the City University (that basic writing and access to higher education is a moral and civil right) echoes throughout all of the chapters and is still paramount today, especially amidst the increasing rhetoric of exclusion present in many higher education settings.

Chapter 3, “Basic Writing, Desegregation, and Open Admissions in Southwest Louisiana,” written by Nicole Pepinster Greene, traces the history of the BW program at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL). The program began in 1953, largely as a result of demands made by French-speaking students of color who filed a lawsuit against the university and won. Therefore, in 1954, the university became desegregated and a “full open admissions policy” (73) was put into effect. The rest of the chapter traces the struggle by mostly black and white students from working-class families from local Acadiana communities to gain access to a four-year degree. Unfortunately, the move toward selective admissions in 1999 and a reduction in the BW program—a battle won by the elitists—resulted in a drop in African American enrollment at ULL and a return to exclusionary practices based on language, race, and class. This last fact, a move toward elite entry, is unfortunately becoming a trend in a higher education and a structural issue that other novice scholars might keep at the forefront of their research agendas. 

While Chapter 3 highlights the negative trend toward exclusion, Chapter 6, “Community College to Urban University,” traces the commitment to diversity and inclusion at Boise State University (BSU)—an accomplishment due in large part to its dedication to the local community. Boise Junior College, as it was called during the years 1932-1964, was an open-access community college that served a diverse population. Through the decades and a few name changes, BSU faced struggles similar to many programs outlined in the collection, including the battle between diversity and commitment to the community versus excellence and elitism. Despite the tremendous growth of the university, BSU stayed committed to a philosophy of inclusion. In fact, in 1999 when many institutions were closing their doors to underprepared students, the description of the BW course in BSU’s catalog reflects a philosophy of inclusion and one more in line with a view of students as making the literacy transition rather than a view of students as deficient or incapable of academic success. Despite BSU’s commitment to inclusion, a recent proposal to create a separate community college which would house the BW program threatens BSU’s legacy of commitment to inclusion, diversity, and excellence. BSU’s history is significant because it inherently opposes the above move to create a separate community college away from the main campus. BSU’s commitment to diversity and inclusion apparent in the population of immigrants, students of color, and children of farm workers present in its BW program would undermine this commitment. 

Chapter 8, “The Writing Workshop,” by Mindy Wright, traces the history of Ohio State University’s (OSU) BW program and the discursive changes throughout the decades since its inception. The discursive changes coincided with research that emerged from the BW field, including Andrea Lunsford’s dissertation in 1977. The move toward new definitions of basic writers gave teachers and scholars new ways of thinking and talking about students which countered deficiency models. Despite conservative attacks on open-admissions programs during the 1980s, the language of curricular documents concerning Writing Workshop asserted an opposition to the view that students who were underprepared were also cognitively deficient. One example of such language is as follows: “all first-year writers bring a series of strengths and weaknesses to any kind of writing project”(Writing Workshop “Proposal” 1 as quoted in Wright, 214). Currently, OSU’s Writing Workshop continues to work within and against the growing elitism in higher education. The language used to describe BW as college-level work subverts Ohio’s attempt to defund and eliminate “remedial” or “developmental” courses from its campuses. Changing the language to reflect more inclusive perspectives on the writing and literacy work done in BW programs may be a way to subvert institutional mandates that call for an end to these programs. 

In Chapter 5, “Basic Writing at Cal State Fullerton: The Ongoing Battle to Abolish ‘Remediation,’” Mary Kay Crouch writes against the current attempts to eliminate BW. She argues that while California State University’s Board of Trustees and faculty assert their commitment to “access and diversity” (141), they are at the same time working to limit the BW program that has historically served students from marginalized backgrounds. In regards to the above contradiction, Crouch argues that “we can’t have it both ways” (142). Similar contradictions abound at the University of Cincinnati (UC) where The Diversity Task Force, in a document called “Report of The President’s UC|21 Diversity Task Force,” writes that “UC|21 articulates…our deep connection to our urban home, Cincinnati” (10), its commitment to “excellence and diversity” (10), and cites as an accomplishment that “UC ranks fourth among Ohio’s 14 public universities in African American enrollment” (10). The presence of African American students who make up much of the diversity on campus are overrepresented in UC’s quasi-open access program, the Center for Access and Transition (CAT). In fact, in 2006, 45.2 %--almost half of all incoming African American students—enrolled in the CAT (Diversity Task Force Report, 8).  However, UC’s move toward “elite entry” (UC 21: The President’s Report Card to the Board of Trustees,  4) coupled with the Ohio Senate’s decision (Senate Bill 311) to eliminate funding to developmental education at universities and four-year colleges works to undermine the above goal of diversity. 

Although I was not able to give equal coverage to all of the historiesprovided in Basic Writing in America: The History of Nine College Programsbecause of space constraints, one implication that emerged is the argument against the current trend toward the marketization of public universities (Fairclough,1993), and the trend toward elitism. The above trends eclipse the legacy of diversity and inclusion passed on to us by students, Mina Shaughnessy, and other key teachers/scholars in the field. 

Works Cited

Fairclough, Norman. “Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public 

Discourse: The Universities.” Discourse and Society 4 (1993): 133-168.

Diversity Task Force Report

http://www.uc.edu/diversitytaskforce/documents/appendix_I.pdf, 1-15

UC 21: The President’s Report Card to the Board of Trustees,http://www.uc.edu/reportcard/Sept07/2007reportcard.pdf, 1-9