Editor in chief: Laura Cadiz
Editorial Editors: Bret Jacobson, Laura Lucas
Newsroom: (541)346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
Thursday
March 30,2000
Volume 101, Issue 120
EriWakl
Requisite writing classes stifle student freedom for
educational exploration, while committing students to
a false sense of community
nret
Jacobson
anicking like an
^animal caught in
hunter’s steel
W trap with the as
sociated impulse
to chew off my own limbs on the
path to liberation, I look around
and realize why I put off taking
Writing 122 for so long: the
forced, artificial community
GTFs love to push. The writing
classes push a counterfeit sense
of community and should not be
required.
Community is a hackneyed
buzzword that has become pop
ular again of late. Besides
Hillary Clinton’s insightful pre
scription on how to raise chil
dren, the recent Supreme Court
case on student fees revolved
around the idea that universities
play the role of community
square so that all voices can be
heard on public matters. People
seek new ways to connect with
others like themselves on Inter
net chat rooms and America On
line’s Instant Messenger. These
types of interpersonal associa
tions are important and bring
people together in new and dy
namic ways.
But there’s a clear and impor
tant distinction between those
forms of gathering and the requi
site writing classes. The classes,
which attempt to hone composi
tion and analytical skills, derive
the basis for written assignments
through oral classroom dis
course among students of greatly
varying intellect, interest level,
knowledge base and reasoning
skills.
This is in contrast to more
chooser-friendly associations.
The type of public discourse en
dorsed by the Supreme Court al
lows the use of student fees to
fund student groups, allowing
participants to choose to be active
where their interests lie. When
one is drawn to a particular cause
or issue, they are more likely to be
informed and passionate and
ready to speak in the group.
Such is not the case with the
writing classes at the University.
The sad attempt at a commu
steps into the classroom — the
conversations usually settle to
the level of the least expressive
minds and most robust voices.
The variability in argumenta
tive ability also leads to an all
around insufficient quality of
class. The variable level of stu
dent skill makes sure that the
writing classes don’t adequately
suit the learning needs of the
majority of students. Besides
this fact, GTFs contrast widely
in their own abilities to relay
their inconsistent ideas on writ
ing. These variances offer proof
against the idea of a general skill
base expected of graduates.
The coerced community also
goes against the sentiment in
volved in the advent of on-line
degrees to be offered at this insti
tution. The on-line education al
lows students to formulate their
own ideas at their own pace and
moments of brilliance as op
posed to the on-site writing
classes that force those of dis
parate ability and interest into
the same room.
Some may argue that all other
classes require similar gather
ings of dissimilar people. That is
true inasmuch as no group of
people are completely alike.
Within the bounds of major re
quirements, almost every other
class is chosen by students to ad
vance their degree progress or
expand their perspective in a
way they desire. This freedom
ensures, to a higher degree, their
participation and input.
The University can maintain
the high level of public dis
course throughout campus by
relying on student interest
groups and class choices that
students are able to make for
themselves. Student activism
and self-motivated choices offer
better forums for important dis
cussions than demanding the
writing composition classes cur
rently required.
Bret Jacobson is editorial editor for the
Dregon Daily Emerald. His views do not
lecessarily represent those of the Emer
ald. He can be reached via e-mail at
3jacobso@gladstone.uoregon.edu.
XXXLjr IXCUllllO UlO Liadd
quality to mediocrity from the
start. Given the general sense of
politeness and the politically
correct notion that we’re all
equal — an idea proven
false every time one