Composition: History & Theory: 1940 - 1949
College English, Volume 2, No. 6: March, 1941
Description
CONTENTS
I Teach Negro Literature (Nick Aaron Ford, 530-541): The author of this article structures his “essay” in narrative form. He is an African American instructor, a well-educated man, who takes a trip to visit black educators in the South (noting their “utter bewilderment” through “raised eyebrows and furtive glances” at his course of study) and is shocked at how little they know about African American literature and how the school system essentially prevents them from learning and/or teaching black authors in the classroom (530). He begins his essay with the question: “Could it be possible that Negro youths could pass through high school and college under the guidance of their own teachers and emerge with degrees without knowing anything of the literary achievements of their race?” (531). He sadly realizes that, YES this is the case, based on his own personal experience. A high school principal in his circle asks him what the validity is of teaching a course solely in Negro literature when they are American authors and should be taught with American literature—accusing the author of “introducing a new type of segregation” (532). Upon further examination of the school’s texts, however, it is revealed that not one author in the American lit text is African American even though they were, according the author, 10% of the population at the time and should deserve, by his logic at least 10% of the pages in textbooks taught in schools. This article is brilliantly written because Ford uses the narrative structure in order to slip in 1. an outline of his course in fiction, nonfiction, and poetry from Negro authors, including Dunbar, DuBois, and Hurston; 2. a history of Negro literature in the United states from Phillis Wheatley to Langston Hughes; & 3. the value of teaching students Negro literature. Ford’s reasons for teaching Negro literature and literature written by whites about Negroes in schools are equally brilliant. He writes: “The purpose is threefold: (1) to assist students to become acquainted with a considerable amount of literature about Negros by Negro and white authors, (2) to assist students to gain a clear understanding of the problems underlying the present status of race relations in America, and (3) to assist students to gain proper technique of adjusting themselves successfully to a biracial environment” (533). Ford also addresses common criticisms of black literature by explaining why dialect and rhythm do not make the work of certain black authors inferior to white authors. Even though he sets this essay up to be an encouragement for black educators to teach Negro literature, Ford makes a bold move by claiming that white students should also read the work of Negro authors in order to, as he writes, “gain the respect for our race that we want them to possess” (540). Considering the time period, it is surprising to see an article like this in College English, much less listed as the 2nd article in the table of contents. Language in the Junior College (R.I. Johnson and H. McCammon, 584-592): This article stresses the function of language as communication and the need to move beyond just reading and writing in the classroom. The phrase “basic training” kept popping up in regards to what students should be taught in general education courses in order to meet “adult post-college experiences” (585). The article then goes on to outline a very bizarre, almost ritualistic training in communications in the English program at Stephens College. This program emphasizes the use of language training, speech pathologists of sorts, and counselors. The burden of learning is placed squarely on the student with a series of proficiency tests administrated by instructors. [Those interested in researching the turn toward the scientific approach to writing in college composition courses would probably jump with eerie joy at the contents of this article.] The Reform of Freshman English (Andrew J. Green, 593-602): This article is another one from this issue that just amazed. Andrew Green, riffing off the removal of Freshman English from Columbia as well as an earlier essay from James Campbell which called for the abolition of the Freshman English course because it was seen as “needless” or not fulfilling it’s function, goes to bat for Freshman Composition courses, outlines why they are useful, and explains how they should be taught (593). Of the problem of Freshman English, Campbell writes: “The central issue appears to be that it is not a subject-matter course and that a rhetoric divorced from subject matter is a false rhetoric” (593). Campbell counteracts that rhetoric is inherent in the FE course because students must know what they are writing about, should have a reasonable claim to make, and should be able to appeal to an audience in their work (593). Campbell then goes on to talk about each of these three points in turn and how they can be effectively taught in a FE course. Although these ideas may not be new to us, Campbell’s rhetorical style is refreshing for the time period (especially when paired with some of the articles about English Literature in the same journal). Here are his thoughts on thesis statements if you want to see an example of his style: “The thesis must not be an obvious or a generally recognized truth, but one which requires development to bring out its full import. If the truth is generally recognized—if the thesis presents no new emphasis, no novel shade of meaning, no fresh and significant application—a paper “developing” it must necessarily be without basic function. That the world is round—or that treatment of cancer by radium, when possible, is preferable to surgery—has already been established and does not need to be explained again. A basic and collegiate rhetoric insists that a paper must have a real function, that it must be more than an exercise in handwriting, sentence and paragraph structure, and the tiresome repetition of stale material. Obviously, to require that the thesis be true is to require the student to think.” [597-598] News and Notes: NCTE College Meeting (607-617): This article outlines the 2nd meeting between NCTE and MLA. There was an emphasis on training graduate students to be better teachers. The general education movement was mentioned in passing (w/o context). A balance of humane and vocational studies was called for (611). Some scholars thought the development of the radio would make spoken poetry popular, a new medium for a new generation (612).
ADDITIONAL TITLES: Matthew Arnold’s “Study of Poetry” (Harlan W. Hamilton), Toward Significance in the Novel (N. Elizabeth Monroe), Are We Downhearted? (Ernest Bernbaum) A note about what would happen to higher education if the Nazis won the war., The English Institute (Rudolf Kirk), Historical Studies And The Humanities (Frederic R. White), Good College Reading (Neal Cross) A brief essay on how good reading material can get “good readings” from students., Current English Forum A funny little article about correct usages (a historical event, or an historical event?). One can easily imagine instructors feverishly flipping to this section to add another grammatical rule to their arsenal.
CONNECTIONS AND REFLECTIONS (Rebecca B.)
In this journal, one can see CTR being challenged by social rhetoric (ala Berlin’s “The Influence of Progressive Education: 1920-1940” in Rhetoric and Reality) as well as the influence of communications courses and the general education movement (“The Communications Emphasis: 1940-1960” Rhetoric and Reality). Green seems to be advocating a revival of rhetoric in Freshman Composition courses. Reading Chapter 7-8 in Spring’s The American School From the Puritans to No Child Left Behind (7th ed.) is helpful to get some background on the development of African American schools, the fear of desegregation, and the formation of the NAACP.
Date of Upload
3/13/09