The English Department members who signed a letter responding to my charges all teach writing and critical thinking, and several will be intimately involved in coordinating writing throughout the university. So how does their letter stack up as an example of good writing and sound thinking?
The signers merely assert that they “disavow what he [White] said,” regret my “inaccuracies,” and mention “false statements,” as well as “claims” not consistent with the good work they do. This, dear students, is no way to go about refuting an argument.
We need to know, but are never told what it is that the signers disavow. What inaccuracies appeared in my article? Which of my statements are false? For example, was I speaking falsely when I claimed that romanticism is not a genre?
Each and every one of the professors who signed the letter refused to support my motion that the department exam questions be grammatical and understandable. Did I miss something? How is that an example of the good work these professors claim to be doing? Or when they write that “White’s claims were grossly distorted,” who distorted my claims? Was it the editors of the Independent? I think not. The problem here is that-oops!-eleven English professors signed on to an error. The passive voice was used (were distorted) where a linking verb is what was needed (are distorted). The sentence should read, White’s claims are grossly distorted.
Actually, to be precise, the letter speaks of the “the thought, care, and hard work [the undersigned] put into our teaching.” There are many good teachers in the department. My article however was not primarily about teaching. So I ask, What thought went into composing and editing the nonsensical, ungrammatical MA exam questions I did quote? What care went into failing students unable to answer nonsense questions on our Masters Exam?
The letter speaks of my “disrespect to . . . students.” These are professors paid to interpret texts. So I ask, Where in my article is there any statement by me showing any disrespect towards students? There is a statement that our students are “stupid,” but-do I need to remind everyone? — that word appears in quotes and the letter clearly indicates that the disrespectful judgment was not made by me, but, as it turns out, by one of the signers of the letter accusing me of disrespecting students. Indeed the signers all show clear disrespect when they write that “letters [by our students past and present] repeat false statements.” First off, what false statements did the students unthinkingly repeat? And, oh, by the way, disrespect is an intransitive verb that takes the preposition for or towards, not to. That’s the second basic grammatical error left unchecked by eleven English professors who refuse to acknowledge or correct writing problems in the English department.
Actually there were a number of fine letters submitted. I offer my appreciation and thanks to those students. Moreover, it should be known that these students are not, as the response implies, gullible fools who know no better than to mimic one professor’s lies. The opinions expressed were their own. If the students repeated anything, it is the complaints I have heard from numerous others over the years–complaints that the signers have repeatedly failed to respect and regularly choose to dismiss.
As for my supposed “personal animosity,” it should be noted that no persons were mentioned in an article that dealt exclusively with professional incompetence and mismanagement. Even so, the problems I’ve detailed are so obvious to our students that those who have read my article have no difficulty identifying the professor who thinks they’re stupid or the ones whose assignments or questions they can’t understand: They can all be found among those who signed the letter accusing me of making inaccurate and false claims. They cannot be found among those tenure-track faculty and full and part time instructors in the department who did not sign the letter.
Let me offer yet one more example as to why I had to air my grievances in the Independent, which is, that I cannot expect to find within my department what the signers call “academic argument based on mutual respect”: When I presented my research regarding these problems at an English department meeting over a year ago, members actually walked out on the meeting. When another member presented her research regarding these same problems at another meeting one week ago, members again walked out of the meeting. One of the graduate committee members did remain in the meeting, and his “academic argument” was this: He contended that it is a good thing that exam questions appear, as he put it, “baffling.” Baffling questions, he claimed, force students to think. No, my dear colleagues, baffling questions force students to think they are stupid when the real fault lies with those who claim to be their teachers yet wind up composing and defending stupid questions.
The professor who tried to pass off this absurd notion as contributing to academic argument, those who remained in the meeting and did not challenge such goofiness parading as honest academic argument, as well as those who walked out on their colleagues, they all deserve no respect in this regard. Faculty who hold such views, who do not openly object to them or who remain careless when it comes to composing good, clear English sentences should not be permitted to continue managing a graduate program at this university.
Finally, the signers invite students to come and talk to them individually. I however encourage any and all students who have read the letters in the Independent or who have any information or opinions to write to the newspaper. If names are supplied the paper will withhold them on request. The students who do write will most likely be doing a service for the university by hopefully working to correct long-standing problems in what would otherwise be a rather fine department.