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.

• Warren Writing 10A Reader, available at Cal Copy, 3211 Holiday Court ,Village La Jolla Drive, 452-9949. This is near Cost Plus. I recommend getting a copy as soon as possible, as you will need it next week, and they sell out quickly.

• A Writer’s Reference, 4th edition, by Diana Hacker, available in Groundworks, in the Old Student Center, not far from “The Hump” (the place where the drummers hang out) and the Grove coffee shop. This will help you with any grammar or style questions you might have in this class and in others. (In this course we will focus on developing and exploring ideas, rather than correcting typos.)

• You are also required to provide multiple COPIES of your writing for workshop purposes, and should budget accordingly. I “guess-timated” that this will cost at least $15, but my degree’s not in math, so it may be more… (especially if the copy center decides to raise its prices).
• 2 letter-size manila folders, with your name on the tab at the top.

• 1 Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope (so I can mail you your end-of-year evaluation).

The program requires that each student write at least 8,000 words each quarter, or about 30 pages. This includes revisions, which may be assigned even if not noted specifically on this syllabus. If all assignments meet the minimum page requirements, this should not be a problem.
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:

• All papers must be typed, unless explicitly told otherwise.
• Text should be 12 point, right-justified, and double-spaced.
• Margins should be 1” on all sides, and no larger (or smaller).
• Your name should appear in the upper-right-hand corner with the date, assignment, & revision number. Example:

Pat Doe
April 1, 1996
Assignment Z, #4

• The paper must be stapled in the upper-left-hand corner. (Otherwise pages get lost.)
• Each paper should have a title, but do not use separate title pages. Effective titles will give the reader some idea as to the content and purpose of your essays.
• Use black ink, and change your ribbons or printer cartridges when they begin to fade.
• Double-sided printing and copying, if possible, is encouraged.
• Use of recycled paper is also encouraged.
• Check 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.

• Copies made for workshop purposes may be single- or double-sided, but they must be legible.
• You must make sufficient copies for each workshop. Unless told otherwise, assume that you will need to make copies for yourself, your instructor (me), and the rest of the class. That’s 14-16 copies, depending on class size. Sometimes we may work in smaller groups, but do not rely on this.
• Make sure that all your copies are ready well before class.

It is department policy that I keep a portfolio of each student’s work. This portfolio will be filed in the Warren Writing Office at the end of the quarter, and will serve as a permanent record of your work.
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. 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.
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). To help you keep track of when papers were turned in (and, hence, when they need to be returned), I will note the date you hand them in on the first page for you.
At the end of the quarter, I will check everyone’s portfolio, so please keep yours neat and up to date!

In-Class:

Introductions

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:

2 copies of assignment #1
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.

Read:

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

Write:

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

Bring:

2 copies of assignment #2
Reader
In-Class:
Discuss “Language and Reality”
Discuss upcoming “Racial Formation” assignment.

Wednesday, October 13

Read:

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

Write:

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

Bring:

16 copies of assignment #3. 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.

In-Class:

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

Write:

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

Bring:

7 copies of #4.
Copies of student papers received last class.
Reader

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:

16 copies of summary (#5). 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:

7 copies of response (#6).
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.

Bring first draft of “Racial Formation”/ “Possessive Investment” compare/contrast paper (#7) to the conference. (2 copies).

Read:

“New Biology versus Old Ideology.”

Write:

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

Bring:

16 copies of #7.
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.
16 copies of #8.
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:

16 copies of #9.
Reader.

In-Class:

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

Write:

Continue work on #9. (second draft)

Bring:

7 copies of #9, second draft.
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:

16 copies of proposal (#10).
Reader.

In-Class:

Discuss all student proposals for Social Issue paper.

Write:

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

Bring:

16 copies of summary (#10).
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:

16 copies of first draft (#10).

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:

7 copies of #11.
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:

7 copies of second draft, #10.
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.

#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 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.
2-3 pages. 2 drafts.

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

#8) “New Biology versus Old Ideology” summary
Write a short summary of the argument made in “New Biology versus Old Ideology.”
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.
4-5 pages. 2 drafts.

#10) Social Issue Paper
See below for prompt.
4-6 pages. Proposal, summary, and 2 drafts.

#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.
2 pages.

SOCIAL ISSUE PAPER
(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.
4-6 pages.