Mark Bauerlein posted this critique of the field of composition–a critique he bases on a cursory examination of the 2006 program for the Conference on College Composition and Communication.

I posted this response to the article itself:

I heartily second the comments above, and would also remind Bauerlein that the discipline of rhetoric has its roots not (at least not primarily) in the teaching of grammar (historically a separate discipline), but in the teaching of argumentation, persuasion, and critical skills that prepare students to participate in what the Greeks called the agora and what we now variously call the public sphere, democratic politics, or civil society. It is because many of us ground our scholarship in this tradition that we take on topics such as race, gender, sexuality, class, and current events—topics which shape the public sphere in which we encourage our students to participate through their writing. Good writing involves understanding the ideas, concepts, and ideologies that shape contemporary arguments about these and other issues, the audiences that advance these arguments, and possible strategies for engaging in these debates—not just in the proper use of semi-colons.

I would only add that the field of rhet/comp would be a very dreary one indeed if it were confined to the kinds of issues Bauerlein seems to suggest for us–what he calls “basic writing.” I assume he means that we should be teaching only the mechanics of writing, not the content of writing. If this is true, then we end up with the same content/style split that we’ve been battling against for ages. *SIGH*