Rose's "The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University"

"When student writing is viewed in this particularistic, pseudo-scientific way, it gets defined in very limited terms as a narrow band of inadequate behavior separate from the vastly complex composing that

faculty members engage in for a living and delve into for work and for play. And such perception yields what it intends: a behavior that is stripped of its rich cognitive and rhetorical complexity. A behavior that, in fact, looks and feels basic, fundamental, atomistic. A behavior that certainly does not belong in the university" (346).

Rose hits the nail on the head here when discussing the remedial track system American schools seem to embrace. He gives an interesting historical background to the term and tells us why and how it came to be a part of education. This particular passage illustrates how viewing and labeling students who do not meet certain standards as "remedial" is not conducive to the students, the writing department, and the university as a whole. 

I found Rose's discussion enthralling for a number of reasons. First, I have never given much serious thought to the issue. He raised my awareness about this problem, which is much bigger than I had previously believed. (In fact, I did not know that "remedial" was a problem. I have never liked the term, but now I see why it is something that needs change). And he does so in a way that is optimistic and persuasive. I have to give credit to Rose because of his own background in the remedial track and for his positive attitude towards writing and his students.

I like how Rose defines writing as it should be perceived: "To view writing as a skill in the university context 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). And later, he poses great questions that we should all be asking ourselves as current or future educators: "But we must also rigorously examine our own teaching and see what model of language lies beneath it. What linguistic assumptions are cued when we face freshman writers? Are they compatible with the assumptions that are cued when we think about our own writing or the writing of those we read for pleasure? Do we too operate with the bifurcated mind that for too long characterized the teaching of "remedial" students and that is still reflected in the language of our institutions?" (357).

Rose is convincing in his argument that the remedial programming and language found in schools need to be adjusted. I appreciate his concern, which comes from a place he knows all too well, and enjoyed reading his article also simply because he is ballsy enough to critique his place of employment and academia in general.