Why even have a blog?

That’s a good question. I could make a very pragmatic case here: that this here WordPress blog is a heck of a lot easier to update and keep current than the old Composition web pages. It looks nicer too. While that is true, I think there is actually a programmatic reason for it as well.

You see, our little Composition-program-that-could consists of four tenured or tenure-track faculty. With only four tenured or tenure-track faculty, a perfectly reasonable question to ask would be: “who teaches all the classes?” That’s really the key question. Our little program, or area, or “interest group,” could not possibly cover the 140+ sections of ENG 021, 022, 023, and 025 our department teaches each year. That does not even include our Advanced Composition, upper-division, and graduate courses.

Most of our Composition courses are taught by faculty whose primary training is not in Composition. Some of those faculty may have had some course work and training in Composition, but Composition is not their primary area of study. In addition, depending upon the semester, many or most of our Composition courses are staffed by full-time, temporary faculty. Over the past several years, we have had at least two temporary faculty members who have degrees in Composition and Rhetoric. But overall the pattern holds: most of our Composition courses are not taught by people trained in Composition. What that means is that Kutztown is right up there with most other colleges and universities in this country. Sad, but true.

When I first came to Kutztown in 2002, one of the things that intrigued me was that Janice and Linda (then the two musketeers) were not interested in me “buying into” one version of Composition. Rather, they were interested in what I could bring to the program. When it comes down to it, we each have very different approaches to Composition. Yet, these differences do not cause tensions–rather, they form part of our local conversation about Composition. When we hired Amy in 2006, we extended that same principle–we are not interested in a cookie-cutter version of Composition. Amy has added another voice to a growing and dynamic conversation about writing, literacy, pedagogy, labor, program development, and everything else Comp.

If you haven’t noticed yet, I wind my way through my posts. I am neither any good at, nor have much desire to “get to the point.” Sure, I can do it when the situation requires. But I would much rather inhabit a different kind of space in my writing. And this is, after all, my writing. As you will certainly see, our other Compositionists will also add their voices, their writing here. And you, dear reader, will be privy to a slice of our conversations.

And that is the point of this blog (at least from my perspective). If I had to describe the character of our program, it would be as a conversation. Part of the reason for this is pragmatic: how could you “dictate” a particular approach to Composition to faculty who may not have training in Composition or who may or may not be here in a year or two? Furthermore, how do you maintain a program when some of the most dynamic and engaged Composition teachers are “temporary?” It is our differences that make for a dynamic conversation about Composition. In this light, all of our committees, weekly “Composition Conversations,” reading groups, and interest group meetings animate our program. So, instead of having one “statement” telling you “who we are,” I thought we could show you instead…