Rereading/Rewriting Race

Southern Connecticut State University

COURSE DESCRIPTION

The objective of English 100 is to develop your abilities as a critical reader and writer of academic arguments. Course content will focus on creating academic arguments in the fields of literary and cultural studies with specific emphasis on comparing contexts for the cultural construction of race. We will explore how and why race has come to be a defining aspect of identity in present moment in the U.S. As well as investigating how race has been thus constructed, we will explore the consequences of living in a racialized body and nation for specific groups and individuals. The course texts offer different representations and theories of race and racialization. In the writing assignments, you will be asked to analyze not only the functions, implications, and impacts of these theories of race as discussed in the academic arguments we will consider, but also the applicability of these theories for understanding lived material reality as well as the cultural texts that help shape it. You will also be asked to analyze the construction of race and other social issues central to different cultural texts you choose. One of the premises of this course is that language matters, that the words we use to communicate with each other play a crucial role in how we perform our identities into being, and how we experience each other and ourselves. In this class, you will have the opportunity to explore how and why your words matter through class discussions, writing assignments, and writing workshops.

OBJECTIVES

• To become familiar with the domain of academic argumentation, its rules, and its conventions.
• To become an active participant in academic discourse by spending time and effort in critically reading and writing academic argumentation in a contemporary field of study, in this case, ethnic studies.
• To develop strategies for critical reading and writing by practicing skimming and scanning texts, annotating texts, close readings, writing summaries of academic arguments (focusing on claims, aims, stakes, grounds, and warrants), writing abstracts and writing plans for academic arguments to be written, small- and large-group workshopping of texts-in-progress, evaluating peer work, and revising and evaluating own work.

REQUIRED TEXTS (in course reader)

• “Introduction to Academic Discourse”
• “Academic Argumentation Introduction”
• “Recitatif”
• “Writing in Process: Argument”
• “The Possessive Investment in Whiteness”
• “Reading Reginald Denny: The Politics of Whiteness in the Late Twentieth Century”
• “The Hidden Face of Racism”
• “A Tragic Vision of Black Problems”
• “Toxic Racism”
• “We Always Stood on Our Own Two Feet: Self-Reliance and the American Family
• “Reading, Thinking, Writing: The Critical Connection”

EVALUATION

• Short prompts 20%
• Peer responses 10%
• Attendance 10%
• Participation 10%
• Final Portfolio 50%

ASSIGNMENTS

Portfolio: At the end of the course, you will submit a portfolio of your work. You will include Prompt 9and Prompt 15. Along with final drafts, I will expect to see all pre-writing, early drafts, revisions, and peer workshopping materials. Your portfolio should also include revisions of your 3 best academic argumentation summaries and 2 peer reviews completed for another student. Finally, you should include an argumentative introduction to your portfolio discussing your progress as a writer/thinker/learner and using the enclosed materials as grounds for your claims. Throughout the semester, be sure to keep copies of everything you write and all of your commented-on drafts. This will make assembling your portfolio easier.

Papers: Papers are not to be handed in late without a prior agreement with the instructor; if they are, their grades will be reduced by one letter grade per day. Additionally, all papers must be turned in to receive a passing grade in the course. Papers must be stapled. Be sure to put your name, section number, professor’s name, and the page number single spaced on each page of every paper you write. All assignments, including drafts, must be typed and double-spaced. Only in-class work will be accepted handwritten. All assignments must be submitted on 8.5 x 11 paper. Use Times New Roman, 12-point font. No title page is needed.

Revisions: The first draft you write in response to a prompt is expected to be only the beginning in your thinking and writing about the issue. You are expected to follow workshopping suggestions given by the instructor and fellow students, as well as your own developing ideas, in subsequent revisions of your work. Your successful completion of this course will depend on the seriousness with which you undertake the writing and revising of your work and the work of your colleagues. At least 2 of your long papers must be significantly revised for inclusion in the portfolio.

Proofreading: While the focus of this course is analyzing and constructing arguments, you are also responsible for proofreading your drafts carefully to eliminate grammatical and stylistic errors. Although the instructor may make some suggestions for grammatical or stylistic changes, comments will primarily focus on the strength of your analyses and arguments.

Academic Integrity: Any work you submit must be your own; in addition, any words, ideas, or data that you borrow from other people and include in your work must be properly documented. Failure to do either of these is plagiarism. The university and the academic community in general severely penalizes plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty. Please make yourself aware of what constitutes plagiarism. And please become familiar with the conventions of MLA documentation. You are responsible for citing all sources in the MLA parenthetical format and for including a Works Cited page for essays treating more than one text or treating a text that is not shared by all members of the class. See http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html for information on MLA documentation.

Archive of Cultural Texts: In the second half of the semester, you will be required to share with your colleagues a short summary and analysis of additional cultural texts that participate in oversimplifying race or another important social issue. These summaries and analyses will be assembled into a shared class archive from which the primary texts for the final assignment will be chosen by each class member.

Conferences: Twice during the semester we will have one-on-one conferences in place of class meetings to discuss your writing. These conferences last approximately 15-20 minutes each and are required. Failure to attend your scheduled conference time will constitute an unexcused absence. Failure to bring required materials to class will constitute a missed assignment.

WRITING PROMPTS

Archive: Week 11, 13, and 14 you will be responsible for locating, describing, and sharing with your colleagues one text that represents the common, oversimplified thinking on an important social issue. Your summary and analysis of this text, along with those of your colleagues, will be assembled into an archive from which you and your colleagues will draw for the final project. This archive will be the reference point for many class discussions and it will be from this archive (of both yours and your colleagues’ texts) that you will select the piece on which you will focus in the final project. For each piece to be archived you should 1) briefly summarize the piece, 2) briefly demonstrate where/how the piece oversimplifies an important social issue, and 3) briefly outline how your intervention would enrich/complicate this text’s discussion . Be as specific as possible in both your summary and analysis, and be sure to stretch yourself in your selection of texts. Surprise and impress us with the range of your social knowledge. Remember to bring enough copies of your archive for the instructor and your colleagues. ½ page

Prompt 1: write a short in-class writing describing your experiences with writing and discussing any opportunities you have had to write about race. What emotions do you associate with either? Why?

Prompt 2: think about and jot notes on what a summary is; where have you seen or created summaries

Prompt 3: Identify the sources of frustration in reading Toni Morrison’s story, “Recitatif.” Make some grounded claims about the connections between your experience of frustration as a reader of this text and what Morrison is arguing about race with her story. Cite page numbers. 1 page

Prompt 4, Draft 1: Summarize Morrison’s story, including a 1-paragraph introduction, 1 paragraph on plot and characters, and 1 paragraph on themes. 1-2 pages

Prompt 4, Draft 2: Revision.

Prompt 5, Part A: Outline the primary claims, aims, stakes, and categories of grounds you find in Chavez’s argument.

Prompt 5, Part B. D 1: Briefly summarize Chavez’s argument. Remember to include her claim(s), aims, stakes, and the categories of supporting grounds she uses. 2 pages

Prompt 5, Part B. D 2: Revision.

Prompt 6, Part A: Outline Lipsitz’s aims, stakes, claims, and categories of grounds.

Prompt 6, Part B, D1: Briefly summarize Lipsitz’s argument. Remember to include his claim(s), aims, stakes, and the categories of supporting grounds he uses. 2 pages

Prompt 6, Part B, D2: Revision

Prompt 7, Part A: Outline Sánchez’s aims, stakes, claims, and categories of grounds.

Prompt 7, Part B, D1: Briefly summarize Sánchez’s argument. Remember to include his claim(s), aims, stakes, and the categories of supporting grounds he uses. 2 pages

Prompt 7, Part B, D2: Revision

Prompt 8, Part A: Outline Taylor’s aims, stakes, claims, and categories of grounds.

Prompt 8, Part B: Briefly summarize Taylor’s argument. Remember to include his claim(s), aims, stakes, and the categories of supporting grounds he uses. 2 pages

Prompt 9, Part A: Briefly brainstorm the ways Lipsitz challenges Chavez’s argument and the ways Sánchez and Taylor enrich Lipsitz’s in turn. 1 page

Prompt 9, Part B: Write a proposal for a paper tracing the interventions of Lipsitz into arguments like Chavez and Sánchez and Taylor into Lipsitz’s.

Prompt 9, Part C, D1: In his article, George Lipsitz complicates the kind of argument represented by Chavez and then Sánchez and Taylor add richness and complexity to his argument. Summarize Lipsitz’s argument in response to what he understands is oversimplified in thinking like Chavez’s and then summarize how Sánchez and Taylor enriches Lipsitz’s claims by re-evaluating his grounds. How are these strategies the same or different? 4-5 pages

Prompt 9, Part C, D2: Revision of essay including Williams and Lipsitz’s “Toxic Racism.” 5-6 pages

Prompt 10: Worksheet on Williams and Lipsitz

Prompt 11: Summarize the argument of your partner. Describing your criteria for evaluation and revision recommendations, evaluate your partner’s essay and provided detailed recommendations for revision. 2 pages

Prompt 12, D1: Briefly summarize Coontz’s argument. Remember to include her claim(s), aims, stakes, and the categories of supporting grounds she uses. Be specific about what commonly oversimplified notion of an important social problem she is complicating. 2 pages

Prompt 12, D2: Revision

Prompt 13, Part A: Proposal for final project. Bring copies for the whole class. Include1 summary of your article, 1 paragraph introduction to your argument (include aims, stakes, claims, and primary categories of grounds), and a plan of paper. 1-1 ½ pages

Prompt 13, Part B: Research plan. Outline the primary questions you need to research to complicate and enrich the argument you are addressing. Brainstorm possible sources of grounds you could use to support your claims. 1 page

Prompt 13, Part C, D1: From the class archive of social issues articles, select one you find to be especially oversimplified. Accurately and fairly summarize the treatment of the issue in this article. Include a discussion of their primary claims and grounds, as well as evidence in the form of quotes, paraphrasing, etc. Then, indicate how you could strengthen or expand their argument by including elements they missed, by correcting misconceptions, etc. Use Lipsitz, Taylor, Sánchez, and/or Omi and Winant as models for such generous scholarship. Be sure to ground your discussion with both quotes and paraphrasing from the original text and by grounding your argument from at least 3 outside sources (1 scholar/theorist, 1 piece of historical/legal data, and 1 piece of statistical/demographic/economic data). (6-7 pages)

Prompt 13, Part C, D2: Revision

Prompt 14: Summarize the argument of your partner. Describing your criteria for evaluation and revision recommendations, evaluate your partner’s essay and provided detailed recommendations for revision. 2 pages

Prompt 15: Final in-class writing making an argument for a portfolio grade, introducing your portfolio, and describing the progress of your writing this semester.