New Comm Ave

Freshman writing classes were first established as mandatory at Harvard University in 1900. They began as a way to standardize the writing of college students coming from varied socio-economic and academic backgrounds. Today, freshman writing serves an important function within the university as a way to acclimate freshmen to college courses. However, in the quest for standardized language, often those students who are ethnically, racially, sexually, or economically different find themselves sacrificing their cultural linguistic nuances in order to conform to Standard English, the language of the university and American society.

Educator Lynn Bloom admits that regardless of sensitivities on the part of students and teachers alike regarding academic minorities, there is little hope of removing a middle-class mentality from writing courses, for in order for such classes to be effective, they must subordinate technically deviant works, however well thought out, as unacceptable due to the usage of ethnic language.

The purpose of the writing class is to homogenize; however, students who were schooled in private institutions need change little to conform to university standards. Those who had less than exemplar secondary writing education have much more to learn. Says Bloom, "The middle-class pedagogical model...has remained normative and dominant from the emergence of composition as a college course... courses are saturated with middle-class values, no matter how sensitive we-and our students-are to race, gender, other current political issues... freshman composition in particular is an embodiment of middle-class morality" (657).

Freshman writing classes came about in 1900, the beginning of a new trend for Harvard and for other institutions as well. Although administrations still sought out the most qualified candidates for their colleges, they began broadening their admission policies and accepting those from different social strata than the stereotypical rich, cosmopolitan, erudite "college man" of the 19th century. Elite institutions like Harvard were now accepting sons of Civil War veterans from farms and rural towns. This openness continued to include World War I and II veterans, children of immigrants, inner-city students, and the current trend of multiculturalism which rules admissions offices today.

As Karen Spear writes, "So long as there was a fixed curriculum taught to a very homogeneous student body by a very homogeneous faculty, there was no literacy crisis. The concept of universal literacy made sense when the universe was relatively narrow. When new students came together with new forms of academic knowledge... the old agreements about what literacy meant...began to unravel" (321).

Freshman writing programs were born of a need to close the language gap between highly educated collegians and their comparatively mediocre linguistically counterparts. They were a way of standardizing the language proficiency of all freshmen so professors could know what to expect when grading papers.

Spear explains the stigma attached to freshman writing from its inception: "From its very beginning, freshman writing instruction was marginalized as a remedial activity...The beginning writing course was conceived to 'fix' students whose language practices signaled that they did not belong in the discourse communities they aspired to join..." (320). In its use of freshman writing as a way to homogenize the student population, the university began to cast freshman writing as a necessary evil of sorts, a course that no students wanted to take and no professors wanted to teach.

This has continued to present day. Peer evaluation is undoubtedly a proven tool to improve writing, as Lois Rubin points out: "Many believe that when students collaborate, as they do in peer critiquing, they are more actively involved in their learning. Since people are social beings and writing has a social function, sharing writing expresses its social nature and gives students a sense of audience. Further, since peers are ‘the most significant others' in the lives of young adults, peer critiques motivate students to improve their papers" (11).

However, current academic minorities are now marginalized by courses that utilize peer evaluation. A student from a wealthy private school with time and money to hire writing tutors and specialists must compare work with a student from an inner city public school which had to worry about laws like No Child Left Behind and had little extra funding for specialized writing programs. While mandatory writing class for all students is less degrading to below average writers, it does expose them to a more talented pool of peers to evaluate and be evaluated by.

Detractors of freshman writing programs regularly attack the teaching of writing as a skill. It is in this way that minority students are victimized by writing programs. Learning Mathematics or Biology is learning a skill. There is no emotional attachment involved. Skills are less important utilitarian tools that are used to build up to or convey real thought. If a professor's technique for finding radicals differs from the one a student knows, she simply changes her approach. Language however is a personal thing, a reflection of one's culture and family. Attacking a students way of communication or even simply treating it as substandard is terribly offensive to said student. "To view writing as a skill in the university context," Matt Rose argues, "reduces the possibility of perceiving it as a complex ability that is continually developing as one engages in new tasks with new materials for new audiences" (348). Treating writing as a skill is detrimental to minority students because it lessens the legitimacy of their anger over the marginalization of their languages. If writing is merely a skill, they are simply doing it "wrong," and the professor is showing them how to do it "right."

The debate rages on between those who believe in a standardized language and those in favor of Students' Right to Their Own Language (SRTOL). SRTOL is based upon the idea that language is a fluid entity with no real standards and should therefore not be treated as an exact science. Those favoring standardization, while acknowledging that there are many types of language and none is superior to any other, also see that American society calls for Standard Written English (SWE) in order to graduate, get a job, or even be considered well educated. Barbara Walvoord writes that although no language is right or wrong, "...one of the tasks of a good education is to make you aware of these facts about language.

Another task of education, however, is to prepare you to function effectively in the world where readers generally expect you to control Standard Written English. Thus, in this class, too, you must use SWE" (1). In 1974 the SRTOL resolution was passed by the Conference on College Composition and Communication, protecting the right of students to communicate as they wish. It states: "The claim that any one dialect is unacceptable amounts to an attempt of one social group to exert its dominance over another. Such a claim leads to false advice for speakers and writers, and immoral advice for humans. A nation proud of its diverse heritage and its cultural and racial variety will preserve its heritage of dialects" (SRTOL 1).

It is easy to see both sides of this conflict. Obviously no program or professor wants to denigrate a dialect or variation thereof favored by a student. It would be ideal if society respected all dialectical differences equally; however, society is far from ideal. It would be delinquent of professors to teach or treat as acceptable in colleges something that is completely unacceptable in the professional world. Non-SWE language may be acceptable in less formal circles, such as freshman writing class. It is completely unreasonable though to plan on using such language in any professional setting, where it is viewed as a reflection of poor education.

Freshman writing programs are not without use. A study done by Tracey Baker, a freshman composition professor, illustrates the incredible inadequacy of freshmen writers and the gargantuan gap between what their teacher expected of the students and what the students expected of themselves. "My expectations had been that students who had reached this stage in the curriculum would have had a better sense of how an effective essay is constructed and... that time spent working on assignments is not the critical factor... Thus, from the first day, my own expectations and those of my students were far apart" (13).

The true reasoning behind freshman composition is simply to prepare students to be students at a college. Freshman writing allows a university to give all of its students the same lessons at the same time. The subject matter may be English, but the lessons learned extend far beyond literacy. In a freshman writing class, students learn what is acceptable conversation with teachers and fellow students in a classroom setting. They learn university standards about punctuality and scheduling. There is a reason why freshman composition is strictly for freshman: so it can serve as a guide to college courses in general. Most courses that freshman take assume that they are capable college students. Freshman writing takes the time to explain the rules and regulations, and to orient students in the ways of the collegian. "One of the major though not necessarily acknowledged reasons that freshman composition is... required of all students is that it promulgates the middle-class values that are thought to be essential to the proper functioning of students in the academy... they also absorb... the whys and hows of good citizenship in their college world" (Bloom 670).

Freshman writing classes have long held an esteemed position in university life. All students take them so they have a bonding effect on the student body. They acclimate new students to college rules and regulations regarding academics. They also allow students to conform to the college.

However, in this standardization, these classes also clash with language tendencies and idiosyncrasies that are unique to certain dialects and languages. In many ways they threaten the growing trend of multiculturalism in colleges today.
In this way freshman writing classes are faced with the same paradox that universities have been facing for the length of their existence. How can a class or college improve an individual and help him grow into a better person while allowing him to maintain his individuality? Where is the line drawn between preparing a student for life as an American citizen and corrupting unique ethnic heritage? It is these very questions that both the university and the freshman writing class serve to answer.

• 2006 Spring
• Research