Tutoring Controversial Topics in the Age of Social Injustice

II Jonathan Donabo II

 

I am a queer, Mexican-American male. Years ago, stating my identity in such a direct way might have created a bit of discomfort because being openly gay was considered a bit more unusual than it is now; or it might have been an excellent way to start a personal statement—provide a display of bravery and a sense of shock-value. Truth is, we have seen a lot of progress for queer people and people of color in the United States. As a kid, I watched adults debate on whether or not I should have the right to marry in the future; “Yes on 8” and “No on 8” signs were plastered everywhere I went, it was seemingly inescapable.

It is the year 2017, and I now have the right to marry whomever I please; but the year 2017 has presented itself with a plethora of new issues. The United States is currently, as it has been in the past, very divided—racially, politically, and morally. The first sentence of this essay is no longer unusual or might not create the same sense of discomfort. Rather, the current social discourse makes the statement loaded with a narrative history that cries disenfranchisement, and at present, it may yell, “I am being oppressed by my government’s system and its leadership perpetuates the oppression.” To some people who may be outside of the realm of understanding this, it creates a different form of discomfort—one that is filled with questions as to why a person of my background might feel this way. Controversy and its parameters are constantly shifting, and so the “causal” and “temporal” begin to define human actions, controversy, and sentiment (Rogers).

So, what happens when a tutorial challenges you? You, the writer, who knows about your narrative history, and embraces a culture that is historically oppressed? You, the writer, who is scared to put your wallet in your backpack for fear of having to pull out an indiscernible dark object if pulled over by the police for a traffic violation? Is it You, the writer, who loves being a tutor for people of diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and color?

Before the tutorial that this essay will focus on, I had just finished informing my coworkers in the break room about how a club from our school invited an alt-right provocateur to speak at our campus. I had already decided I was not attending campus that day. I expressed to them that this event made me very afraid because the speaker would draw attention from alt-right and white supremacist groups (anyone was allowed to attend, so long as they purchased a ticket), and it would also draw a heavy police presence to make sure “nothing goes wrong”.

After my break, I tutored a white female whose assignment was to write about a “controversial” topic. She chose to argue for, “Why police should not be disrespected.” Now, the tutorial that will be presented was not offensive to others, or me but it was of a topic that was difficult to discuss. Police force, historically, has been used to oppress minorities and people of color in the United States. The tutee did not say anything that upset me, and there was not this huge argument or revelation of what is politically correct. Rather, it pushed me to consider arguments that might oppose some of my political beliefs; it was a way for me to gain insight into a perspective other than the one I share. It also challenged me to find new ways to tutor and discuss topics that I may not feel comfortable tutoring and discussing with people I am not fully acquainted with.

The tutee came in to receive help finishing her brainstorm for her assignment. I did not have a body of writing to work with. I had to help my tutee come up with arguments for her thesis, “Why police should not be disrespected.” I asked her to write down four arguments that supported her thesis and one counter argument (this was what the prompt required). Immediately after, I found her thesis a bit troubling: the inverse of her argument would be that cops should be disrespected, which would mean that if at any point her supporting reasons for her argument were to be disagreed with, the reader would fall under the guilt of her thesis. Her counter argument would have to consist of something that argues that cops, human beings, should be disrespected. Though I can be fearful of cops sometimes, I do not believe they should be disrespected. After she wrote down her arguments, I backtracked a little. I asked something along the lines of “What do you mean by ‘disrespect’?” She continued to state, in a very broad way, “that the media and certain people disrespect cops”. She did not really clarify her thesis for me, but stated it in a way that translated to me as, “people of color disrespect cops.”

I felt uneasy in this moment. Immediately I had flashes of stories in the media of white cops killing unarmed black men. I thought, “Does she consider reporting on police brutality disrespect? Is she afraid to go more in-depth into her thesis because I am a person of color, and I belong to a group that is portrayed as a victim of injustice through the media?” Throughout the whole session, the topic of people of color being victim to police brutality did not surface in our conversation. We danced around the topic without entertaining it. I imagined that we both made assumptions about each other; I assumed that because she was white, she couldn’t understand what was “outside” of her realm of her “lived experience,” and that she assumed that because I am a person of color, I could not understand why cops may benefit society (Grimm, Barron, 314).

When looking at some of her supporting arguments, one stood out, “Why police can benefit society.” I asked her if she could brainstorm some supporting reasons, and she elaborated by saying that they can protect us from ourselves, such as, in instances where people get pulled over for texting and driving; cops may prevent people from getting in accidents—harming themselves and others. I asked her if her supporting statement “Why police can benefit society” could possibly represent her argument better than her original thesis. She said yes, and changed her thesis. Though I used her own words, I can’t help but feel that I changed her argument or thoughts to fit what I was comfortable with. She thanked me and expressed that she was glad to have someone help her clarify her argument; but I was, and am riddled, with what she believed was considered “disrespect.” I cannot help but wonder whether she changed her focus because she felt awkward or if I might have changed her argument because of my beliefs.

After working on her thesis, I found myself raising counter-arguments to help her with her rhetorical strategies; making sure that the premise and claims to her arguments followed a sound structure. Two arguments stood out to me, “They’re just doing their job” and “They’re just following the rules.” I explained to her that, to me, the premise of her first argument insists that, if certain actions are done within the realm of a “job”, they are justified. I continued to elaborate by saying, “If this argument were to be applied to a drug dealer, would you still agree with the statement?” She agreed that the argument lacked specificity, and changed her claim to “the majority of cops do not aim to harm people.” I used a similar argument to counter her claim, “They’re just following the rules.” I explained that I perceived that her statement justified an action if it were within the rules of a given society. I then asked, “What if the laws were evil?” I assured her that I wasn’t arguing that the United States’ laws were evil, but that the opposition to her argument can possibly suggest that. I asked, “What if this claim were used to justify tyrannical governments?” She provided a response similar to that of her first one. While catering to her needs in making her claims more specific, I was able to help her make her arguments become more appropriate for academia, and her arguments, consequently, contained a logical premise.

Michael Pemberton states that tutors who might be faced with content they don’t agree with personally, “might challenge assumptions, question sources, raise counter-arguments, dispute conclusions, and demand additional evidence.” My experience with the tutee, may be a paradigm of some of the factors in Pemberton’s claim. I do not know if I allowed her to stay completely true to her own voice, but I am not sure if what I did was wrong. Was I just disputing her thesis with her own words? Or did I help her clarify her argument to make it fit what she meant and what was more rhetorically acceptable in academia?

I felt that our ostensible tiptoeing around the history of oppression in the United States would only dilute her argument. Should I drop the social-justice bomb? It would make her argument stronger if she addresses this in her counter-argument paragraph. I did not know if my beliefs would change her voice, or create discomfort and anger her. When brainstorming with my writing center administrator, she asked me to picture a hypothetical situation in which her essay was directly offensive to people of color. She then asked me “Would your approach be different?” I was stifled. Would it be appropriate to drop it then? Or should I simply pass the baton to another tutor that might feel less offended by the material? My obligations would start to conflict. I have an obligation to myself, and my culture, to protect my integrity by addressing the oppression of minorities as unjust and I have an obligation to my position as a tutor that requires me to help students write.

David Rothgery quotes Patricia Bizzell’s resolution to this issue:

We have not yet taken the next, crucially important step in our rhetorical turn. We have not yet acknowledged that if no unimpeachable authority and transcendent truth exist, this does not mean that no respectable authority and no usable truth exist. (Rothgery 242)

David Rothgery further advances this theory, “She [Patricia Bizzell] implies that teachers must proceed by these ‘usable’ truths and center pedagogical discussions not so much on how one piece of discourse can be made less value-laden, but rather on how all discourse is value-laden and therefore political.” In the case of my tutorial, my efforts were a “necessary directionality” that encouraged the tutee to use more “usable truths” in her writing, rather than “transcendent truths” (Rothgery 243). If I were faced with a tutee’s apparently racist paper, there would, again, have to be a “necessary directionality” to let the tutee know that racist discourse is not morally acceptable in the “situational” [contemporary society] (David Rothgery 243). Additionally, erasing the narrative of oppression would only perpetuate the system that constantly begets oppression; though, I didn’t acknowledge social justice in my tutorial, I did implement a directive tutoring style that encouraged the tutee to consider her words and their larger implications. I imagine, and am hopeful that the tutee was able to see that her discourse was “political” and “value-laden,” consequently, making her insistent on shifting her focus and wording to be more accurate, specific, and usable.

A lot of writing center discourse promotes the idea that an approach that allows the preservation of a writer’s voice must be essential to teaching and tutoring. This can become problematic when a writer may present a paper that is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, or etc. In this instance, the writer must be exposed to “usable truths” that are morally acceptable in society. Additionally, the idea of having “usable truths” can be helpful in pedagogy and writing center studies; especially when the paper might not be offensive, but implicates a premise that may possess a fundamental error. Though difficult, sometimes discomfort can open new pathways for learning. I would like to say that you will never face a racist or offensive paper, or that you would never feel discomfort with a tutorial’s topic, but, we live in a reality where I can’t say that. It is in instances like this where our knowledge is most important, instances where helping people become understanding of others’ differences is urged and put at the forefront of our work.

.

 

Works Cited

Barron, Nancy and Nancy Grimm. “Addressing Racial Diversity in a Writing Center:

Stories and Lessons from Two Beginners.” The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for

Writing Tutors. Ed. Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood.

New York:Bedford/St.Martin, 2011. 302-325

 

Pemberton, Michael A. “The Ethics of Content: Rhetorical Issues in Writing Center

Conferences.” Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 23, no. 8, 1999, pp. 10–12.

 

Rogers, M. L. “Liberalism, Narrative, and Identity: A Pragmatic Defense of Racial

Solidarity.” Theory & Event, vol. 6 no. 2, 2002. Project MUSEdoi:10.1353/tae.2002.0020

 

Rothgery, David. “‘So What Do We Do Now?” Necessary Directionality as the Writing

Teacher’s Response to Racist, Sexist, Homophobic Papers.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 44, no. 2, 1993, pp. 241–247. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/358842.