Dr. Rachel D. Shaw
Offices: U410#8 (Warren) & HSS 5057 (History department)
Office Hours: and by appointment
rshaw @ ucsd.edu
858-534-3068 (Warren)
858-534-8941 (History department)
Both telephone and e-mail correspondence should be limited to work-related concerns.

Warren writing courses are intended to introduce students to the practice of argumentation and exploratory writing through the use of writing workshops. They are offered only for Pass/No Pass credit; instead of letter grades, each student will receive a written evaluation at the end of the quarter. The purpose of this is to encourage you to experiment with language, topics, and forms in a supportive intellectual environment. It is widely believed that in the absence of competition for grades, many students will feel free to take the kinds of intellectual risks that can make writing an integral part of their education and their lives.
In order for this to work, it is expected that students will make an active effort to participate respectfully and intelligently both as writers and within classroom and workshop settings. The list of requirements that follows is intended to make life easier for all of us; if you have questions about any of them, please feel free to ask for an explanation.

Students missing more than 2 days of class WILL NOT PASS. “Class” includes presentations and mid-quarter conferences.
Daily attendance will be taken, and it should be noted that TARDIES DO ADD UP. Tardies of more than 15 minutes will be counted as an absence.

Papers must be turned in on time, and in sufficient quantities for workshopping. (See note above about budgeting for copies.) Papers that are turned in late, or are sloppy, etc., make it hard for me and your peers to give your ideas the attention that they deserve. So…
In order that your ideas are met with the best response by your peers, your papers should stick to the following standards:

• Your name should appear in the upper-right-hand corner with the date, assignment, & revision number. Example:

Pat Doe
April 1, 1996
“Racial Formation” Summary (#3, draft 1)

• The paper must be stapled in the upper-left-hand corner. This includes copies. (Otherwise pages get lost.)

• Check (and correct) your grammar, style, etc. before you come to class, as the purpose of the workshops is to help you develop your ideas, not clean up typos. If you have concerns about this, please speak to me at any time.

• All papers must be typed, unless explicitly told otherwise. Text should be 12 point, in plain style (not bold or italic), right-justified, and double-spaced. Margins should be 1” on all sides, and no larger (or smaller).

• Each paper should have a title, but do not use separate title pages. Effective titles give the reader an idea as to the content and purpose of your arguments. (Ineffective: “Assignment 3”. Better: “Comparing “Racial Formation” and “Possessive Investment.”” Better yet: “Different Ways of Presenting Similar Ideas: A Comparison of the Arguments in “Racial Formation” and “A Possessive Investment in Whiteness.””)

• Use black ink, and change your ribbons or printer cartridges when they begin to fade.

• You must make sufficient copies for each workshop. Unless told otherwise, assume that you will need to make copies for (a) yourself, (b) your instructor (me), and (c) one copy each for the rest of the class. Sometimes we may work in smaller groups, but do not rely on this.

• Make sure that all your copies are ready well before class. Otherwise valuable class time is wasted.

• Double-sided printing and copying, if possible, is encouraged, as is the use of recycled paper.

DON”T lose the originals with my comments on them!

In addition, each student is expected to maintain their own portfolio. This is so that in case of disaster, at least one copy of your work will survive. For this reason, I recommend that you do not write over your first draft; save it as a new file before beginning work on the revision(s). Don’t forget to update the date/assignment info!
At the bare minimum, you should have at least one printed copy of each piece of your work, with or without comments, in your folder. This includes revisions. I strongly recommend making copies of comments, as this will help you keep track of your progress.

Again, you will have one week after each assignment is returned to read and copy any comments you received. After that time, the original paper with my comments needs to be returned to me (this is so I can write an accurate evaluation of your progress).

At the end of the quarter, I will check everyone’s portfolio, so please keep yours neat and up to date!

In-Class:

Introductions

Due:
Read:

Course Policies
“Rescuer, Persecutor, Victim” (in Reader, pp. 62-64),
“About Argumentation,”
“On Academic Arguments,”
“Examining an Argument” (Reader, pp. 42-49a; also in handout) and
“The Pronoun Problem” (Reader, pp. 52-60)

Write:

“About Argumentation” paper (#1, described below).

Bring:

Copies of assignment #1 to share with entire class.
Reader
A Writer’s Reference

In-Class:

Discuss “About Argumentation” and student papers.
Look at A Writer’s Reference, P6, pp. 267-73; Documentation, pp. 324-401.

Due:
Read:

“Language and Reality” (Reader, pp. 50-51)
“Racial Formation” (Reader, pp. 25-41)

Write:

“Language and Reality” paper (#2, described below).

Bring:

Copies of assignment #2 to share with entire class.
Reader

In-Class:

Discuss “Language and Reality” and student papers.
Discuss upcoming “Racial Formation” assignment.

Friday, January 21

Due:
Read:

Re-read “Racial Formation” (don’t skip this re-reading)

Write:

“Racial Formation” summary (#3, described below).

Bring:

Copies of assignment #3 to share with entire class. Keep for next class.
Reader
A Writer’s Reference.

In-Class:

Discuss “Racial Formation.”
All-class workshop of papers.
Exchange papers for written response.
Look at A Writer’s Reference, Evaluating Sources, pp. 70-74.

Write:

Response to another student’s “Racial Formation” paper (#4, described below).

Bring:

Copies of #4 for small group workshops.
Copies of student papers received last class.
Reader

In-Class:

Small group workshop of “Racial Formation” papers.
Exchange responses.

Read:

Lipsitz’s “Possessive Investment in Whiteness.”

Write:

Revision of “Racial Formation” summary (#3).

Bring:

2 copies of revision (#3).

In-Class:

Discuss “Possessive Investment in Whiteness.”
Discuss “Possessive Investment” assignment (#5).

Write:

Summary of “Possessive Investment” (#5)

Bring:

Copies of summary (#5) for entire class. Keep for next time.
Reader.

In-Class:

All-class workshop of “Possessive Investment”
Exchange papers for written response.

Write:

Response to another student’s “Possessive Investment” paper (#6).

Bring:

Copies of response (#6) for small group workshop.
Copies of others’ summaries received last class.
Folder, containing all work completed so far.
Reader.
A Writer’s Reference.

In-Class:

Small group workshop of papers.
Discussion of A Writer’s Reference, pp. 17-23.
Sign-up for conferences.

Read:

“New Biology versus Old Ideology.”

Write:

Revise “Racial Formation” / “Possessive Investment” compare/contrast paper (#7).

Bring:

Copies of #7 for entire class.
Reader.

In-Class:

Discuss “Racial Formation”/ “Possessive Investment” papers.
Begin discussion of “New Biology versus Old Ideology.”

Write:

Summary of “New Biology versus Old Ideology” (#8).

Bring:

Reader.
Copies of #8 for entire class.
A Writer’s Reference.

In-Class:

Workshop summaries.
Discuss A Writer’s Reference, pp. 193-97, 203-214.

Write:
First draft of “Racial Formation”/ “New Biology versus Old Ideology” compare/contrast paper. (#9)

Bring:

Copies of #9 for entire class.
Reader.

In-Class:

All-class workshop of papers.
Introduce Social Issue paper.

Write:

Continue work on #9. (second draft)

Bring:

Copies of #9, second draft, for small group workshop.
Reader.
A Writer’s Reference.

In-Class:

Workshop papers in small groups.
Discuss Social Issue paper.
Discuss A Writer’s Reference, pp. 97-100.

Write:

Proposal of Social Issue paper (#10).

Bring:

Copies of proposal (#10) for entire class.
Reader.

In-Class:

Discuss all student proposals for Social Issue paper.

Write:

Summary of simplified treatment for Social Issue paper. (#10)

Bring:

Copies of summary (#10) for entire class.
Reader
A Writer’s Reference.

In-Class:

Workshop summaries.
Discuss A Writer’s Reference, 325-401.

Write:

First draft of Social Issue paper (#10).

Bring:

Copies of first draft (#10) for entire class.

In-Class:

All-class workshop of papers.
Exchange Social Issue papers for written response.

Write:

Response to another student’s Social Issue paper (#11).

Bring:

Copies of #11 for small group workshop.
Copies of Social Issue papers received last class.

In-Class:

Small group workshops of Social Issue papers.
Exchange written responses to Social Issue papers.

Write:

Revise Social Issue paper (#10, second draft).

Bring:

Copies of second draft, #10 for small group workshop. Keep for next class.
A Writer’s Reference.

In-Class:

Discuss editing procedures for “polished drafts”
Handbook review.
Edit drafts in groups.

Bring:

Complete folder with all work and drafts and comments from instructor.
Copies of Social Issue papers from last class.

In-Class:

Discuss/share Social Issue papers.
Write in-class responses.

#1) “About Argumentation”
Think about the ways argumentation is described in “About Argumentation,” and about how this is different from what you already knew about arguments. Write a short essay describing important features of complex academic arguments that, according to the essay, need to be taken into account.
1 draft. 1 page.

#2) “Language and Reality”
Some aspects of “Language and Reality” are useful for analyzing and developing arguments. Write a short essay explaining what you think some of those important aspects might be.
1 draft. 1 page.

#3) “Racial Formation” summary
First, identify the primary claims made and list the grounds used in Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s “Racial Formation.” Then, in your paper, summarize the primary claims, and describe and categorize the kinds of grounds used to support the claims.
2 drafts. 2-3 pages each.

Note: the second draft should be a substantial revision. That is, the substance (contentand form) of the argument needs to be rethought; merely correcting grammar and typos is not enough.

#4) Response to another student’s paper.
Describe how the paper characterizes the argument in “Racial Formation” and make suggestions for revision.
1 draft. 1-2 pages.

#5) “A Possessive Investment in Whiteness” summary
First, identify the main claim in George Lipsitz’s “A Possessive Investment in Whiteness,” and list the grounds used. Then, in your paper, summarize the main claim, and describe and categorize the kinds of grounds used to support the claim.
1 draft. 2 pages.

#6) Response to another student’s paper.
Describe how the paper characterizes the argument in “A Possessive Investment in Whiteness.” Include suggestions on how the student could revise/use the summary in the upcoming compare/contrast paper.
1 draft. 1-2 pages.

#7) Compare/Contrast of “Racial Formation”/ “Possessive Investment in Whiteness”
Describe how “Racial Formation” and “Possessive Investment in Whiteness” lay out their arguments. Compare and contrast the rhetorical strategies each argument uses to make its case.
2 drafts. 4 pages each.

#8) “New Biology versus Old Ideology” summary
Write a short summary of the argument made in “New Biology versus Old Ideology.”
1 draft. 1-2 pages.

#9) Compare/Contrast of “Racial Formation”/ “New Biology versus Old Ideology”
Briefly summarize the arguments made in “Racial Formation” and “New Biology versus Old Ideology.” Then compare and contrast the layout of each argument. You should address how they respectively position their claims in relation to the claims of others, and how the rhetorical strategies employed help make the arguments more complex.
2 drafts. 4-5 pages each.

Note: the second draft should be a substantial revision. That is, the substance (content and form) of the argument needs to be rethought; merely correcting grammar and typos is not enough.

#10) Social Issue Paper
See below for prompt.
1 proposal (summarizing the argument you intend to make and how). 1-2 pages.
1 summary (of the particular “public source” you will be using). 2-3 pages.
2 drafts. 4-6 pages each.

Note: the second draft should be a substantial revision. That is, the substance (content and form) of the argument needs to be rethought; merely correcting grammar and typos is not enough.

#11) Response to another student’s Social Issue Paper.
Briefly summarize the argument made in the student paper. Discuss the strengths of the paper, what works, and what you learned. Give suggestions for revision.
1 draft. 2 pages.

SOCIAL ISSUE PAPER (#10)
(Assignment #10, 4-6 pages: proposal, summary, and 2 drafts).
According to Toulmin, every field of rational inquiry is based on a “constellation” of related warrants, not all of which can be easily articulated “in the form of explicit laws, rules, or principles.” These often informal assumptions, passed from teacher to apprentice in the habits and practices of their professional relationship, “reflect the general purposes and practical demands” of a given discipline. Because different fields have different goals and accepted procedures, it makes little sense to claim that one is better or more rational than another. An argument in sociology, for example, succeeds or fails according to the standards of sociology, and not according to the entirely different criteria of organic chemistry. As rational enterprises, of course, both sociology and chemistry share similar patterns of argumentation, but their specific intellectual domains rest on distinct assumptions.
Despite an understandable scholarly reluctance to generalize beyond their fields of expertise, researchers are sometimes tempted to extend explanatory models beyond their reasonable applicability. In “New Biology versus Old Biology” we saw the confusion that can result when the language and procedures of one field are arbitrarily imposed on the conceptual domain of another. Not the least of these muddles are unfounded claims about the “real” or more “basic” causes of complex phenomena. That photography, for example, depends on a photo-chemical reaction resulting from the selective absorption of photons in silver-halide crystals is undeniably a part of our understanding of the photographic process, but it is certainly no more basic or real than the meaning a photographic image can convey. To say that photography is just chemistry, or that human relations are just economics, or biology, or whatever, are unjustifiably reductive simplifications. As Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin put it:
It is relatively easy to describe the properties of atoms in the language of physics, of molecules in the language of chemistry, of cells in the language of biology. What is not so easy is to provide the translation rules to move from one language to another… But these organizing relationships mean that properties of matter relevant at one level are just inapplicable at other levels. Genes cannot be selfish or angry or spiteful or homosexual, as these are attributes of wholes much more complex than genes. Similarly, of course, it makes no sense to talk of human organisms showing base pairing or Van der Waal’s forces, which are attributes of the molecules and atoms of which humans are composed.
Many social issues are similarly confused when complex problems are reduced to a single apparently simple explanation. For example, it is often claimed that violence in schools can be explained because teachers are obviously failing to teach moral values, or that a drop in the crime-rate shows that the three-strikes laws are working. These spectacularly simple-minded approaches to complex social issues are often the subject of vitriolic debate in the editorial pages of newspapers or on radio talk-shows. Intelligent participation in these discussions must begin with a sober recognition of the nuanced and sometimes troubling dimensions of the problem. Intellectual honesty sometimes demands that we surrender treasured certainties and the comforting assumptions of unexamined privilege. This is not always easy, and not always pleasant, but the alternative is even more disturbing.
Assignment: From a public source (an article, an editorial, a TV documentary) identify a social issue you think has received particularly simple-minded treatment. First accurately and fairly summarize the treatment, and then discuss the complex dimensions of the problem that were over-simplified, or entirely omitted from the presentation of the issue.