next »

[t_folk]

I guess it was inevitable. In my first year on the tenure track, I'm already engaged in a heated debate with my collegues over the wording of course descriptions of our freshman comp II course. We have two camps; one side that wants to incorporate a literature-based (capital "L") approach to teaching argument and research and those of us who don't want to pigeon hole ourselves into such a class, rather develop a course description that keeps the door open on the kinds of texts we can use. While I'm not a comp/rhet scholar, I appreciate the concerns of my comp/rhet collegues and their want to not take a step backward by resurrecting the old literature-teaches-argument pedagogy. I think that the current scholarship supports their position, but it just so happens that the most senior members of the faculty are the ones fighting of this kind of approach. Well, one of them pissed me off today with a passive aggressive, empty rebuttal to a suggestion that I made. My suggestion was that since we are in a humanities division, we should word the description to suggest that texts from all areas of the humanities will be used as a basis to teach argument. I noted that what I knew of comp/rhet scholarship directs comp classes away from the literary survey approaches of a decade ago. Well, he spouted some complete BS that suggested that b/c of some of the more radical suggestions from comp/rhet scholars - namely that only those who are trained in comp/rhet should teach first year composition - we should ignore all of the current rhet/comp scholarship. Yes, it was that ridiculous. So, I called this person out on it and have now engaged myself (oh, the embarassment) on an e-mail tiff. I promised myself I would not ever do such a thing, but my fingers were quicker than my better judgement and now I feel I've screwed myself. Suggestions?

[prytania3]

We solve that problem by requiring both Composition 101 and Literature and Composition 102. If your college/uni/cc had both--that would solve the problem. Of course, changing core college requirements is a headache, and usually you have to get the whole college to go along with you, and it can get very political.

Meanwhile, I have conflicted thoughts on the matter. I agree with you 100% in terms of pedagogy; however, if students are only required to take one semester of composition, the understanding is that they are pretty good writers to begin with, in which case, they should be fine to jump write in with literature. If they really aren't, you should try to push through 2 comp courses.

OR

As far as the catalogue goes, you could say students will read fiction selections or topical essays/cultural studies. Or you could offer the course two ways: one fiction-based, the other with new c/r ideas. We actually have a basic reading class that operates like that and students can choose whether they want a class offering fiction or a class offering non-fiction.

[francie_]

I don't have a single suggestion for you.  I just want to say welcome back!

[prytania3]

Oh, one other thing, are they required to take an additional lit course? If so, I'd fight for the new methods.

As far as your position in the department, the older members are important if they are going to determine your tenure (or will they be retired or will it be done by a college-wide committee?).
You really do have to think politically for the first few years, though, so you need to be careful how hard you advocate unless you have some heavy faculty backing you up.

Sorry, but that's the way it works.

[avaya]

Ouch, I agree that it's not a good idea to get in heated arguments with the people deciding your tenure.  Certainly you can politely give your opinion but once only and then stay out of it.

[t_folk]

Sigh. I was afraid of as much ...

[elsie]

The key question is whether the department also offers a gen ed lit survey such as Masterpieces in American Literature, or something like that. If so, you might make the argument (if gen ed reform is currently on the university table and when is it ever not) that other departments might want to take one of English's gen ed courses away if they perceive that Comp II duplicates the lit course. That move can divert the turf protection toward the courses and away from the lit pedagogy for the comp course.

[prytania3]

So, I called this person out on it and have now engaged myself (oh, the embarassment) on an e-mail tiff. I promised myself I would not ever do such a thing, but my fingers were quicker than my better judgement and now I feel I've screwed myself. Suggestions?

I missed this email business. Get out of it! Now! Say something that sounds apologetic!

No written records!

[ms_collegiality]

I could be you so easily, but I have so far resisted.  About half the faculty in my department, who by the way have NO composition theory background, are very threatened by any discussion of the concept that composition theory might be 1) evolving from the way they were taught composition when they were undergraduates, 2) worth examining.  It seems that any discussion of composition theory immediately creates a wave of fear.  The comments made by these faculty are pathetic, disclosing a resistance to any possibility that they aren't teaching well while proclaiming that all new approaches are bunk.

I want to fight the good fight as we go through program review, but I just don't have the energy (or the tenure) to take on the old boys who up the emotional ante every time the subject is brought up.  So I keep my comments small and localized:  "Can we add the clause 'literature and other texts' here,"--that sort of thing, rather than taking on the whole theoretical debate.

I worry that in the long run you are going to be the loser by alienating a colleague.  Concede some points if you honestly can, be conciliatory where it doesn't make you feel like a hypocrite, and include your antagonist in the next round of doorway visits down the hall.  Let it go for now.  Pick it up a thread at a time later.

I hope that's useful advice.

[t_folk]

ms_collegiality,

Thank you. The point you make about feeling like a hypocrite is a lot of the reason that I'm so miffed. I know that I will have to concede to this person and those who feel as he does. I feel like I'm letting down my students and am betraying my convictions. To quote a student, "dude, this totally sucks." What really gets my goat is the way they tried to sneak it by us. We had a meeting a few weeks back and we agreed that an (one, singular) essay should be based in lit criticism - we all agreed that this would not be a problem as long as literature was not the basis for the whole class. However, when we were presented with the first draft of the description, there it is. No mention of anything other than literature. Granted, some of these folks argue that "literature" can be anything; however, my point is that outside of our discipline - students, parents, administrators and faculty from other divisions - when people hear "literature" they, for the most part, hear "L"iterature. Their response - no, you're wrong. We're just going to do it like this. So, as I said before, I'm sure I'll be asked to back down. Yet, the fiesty Irishman in me may be too stubborn.

[avaya]

So, as I said before, I'm sure I'll be asked to back down. Yet, the fiesty Irishman in me may be too stubborn.

The question is, does the fiesty Irishman want to keep his job?

Seriously, this is exactly the type of attitude that derails otherwise promising t-t faculty.  One incident will not keep you from tenure. But it sounds as though you are not really resolved to roll over.  My advice is ROLL OVER.  Show your belly.  Whatever.  You can't do any good if you're fired.

Thankfully, I have not had any serious conflicts in my department.  I have had one issue I thought we would go the wrong way on.  So I quietly spoke with people in a casual manner and people were agreeing with me in general.  When the issue came up, the tenured people talked about it and in the end made the decision I was hoping for.  I am fortunate but I would not have fallen on my sword for it.

[philoctetes]

I would agree with the other posters. Roll over double quick. Get yourself back in good with the senior set.

You can impose your views on the department later when you have tenure.  Then you may choose as your reward either being open to new ideas, or a whole new generation of young scholars can post on forums about how unreasonable Professor  t_folk is. Your choice.

[fiona]

I agree with those who say you should roll over if you want to keep your job.

Yes, it's a sell-out, but in the long run (well, in the long run, we're all dead) . . .well, in the longish run, it really does not matter enormously what's taught in comp classes. The universe does not rise and fall on that, but you could lose your lifetime career by fighting.

If it's worth losing your career, keep up the fight. But I wouldn't fall on my sword over a curricular matter.

See Ms. Mentor on "When Should You Grab a Sword?" ==
http://chronicle.com/jobs/2000/09/2000092901c.htm

[larryc]

In my first year on the tenure track, I'm already engaged in a heated debate with my collegues

Well, don't.  Ask your email friend out for coffee and apologize. Do it today.  And try to realize that you might not be correct, or as correct, as you think.  You are in your first semester at this institution.  Your colleagues know the culture, the students, and the traditions far better than you. 

[t_folk]

.  Your colleagues know the culture, the students, and the traditions far better than you. 

I would have to disagree. This is my alma mater in my hometown. The faculty that I'm having the most difficulty with are from different regions of the country and outside of the country.