Mike Rose: The Language of Exclusion, Writing Instruction at the University

This article was written in 1985, but it’s astounding how it still rings true today. Rose comments on five ideas of writing and how the university and academia seem them as faults, and ultimately misunderstand these issues. Rose says that “until we seriously rethink it, we will misrepresent the nature of writing, misjudge our students’ problems, and miss any chance to effect a true curricular change that will situate writing firmly in the undergraduate curriculum” (342).  However, the same type of thinking about writing is still prevalent today. I would agree with Rose that the university’s biggest crime is trying to quantify writing: “Again writing is defined by abilities one can quantify and connect as opposed to the dynamism and organic vitality one associates with thought” (347). Hence, I agree that writing is a skill that develops over a lifetime. I also like how Rose cites the political issues involved with English instruction at the university, and in particular the business of remediation. With regard to literacy, Rose says we need to look at in broader, more relative terms. No, the students may not have the passion for language and literature that their professors have, but it does not mean that they don’t bring a wealth of other skills with them. Instead Rose says we need to “define our work as transitional or as initiatory, orienting or socializing to what David Bartholomae and Patricia Bizzell call the academic discourse community” (358). In my experience, beginning composition at the university was all of those things.