English 5011

In "Toward an Ethics of Teaching Writing in a Hazardous Context - The University," Michael Klein explains that "writing students and teachers alike need to come to terms with the myth that free speech is protected as a right that can be exercised without fear of retaliation" (103). Klein believes that modern writing students should be warned about the dangers of uncensored writing; they need to be told that their writing has the potential to harm themselves and others.

Many college writing students, such as Sara Moore, are naive when it comes to writing personal essays. They wrongly take for granted that anything they write is "safe," and will not negatively affect themselves or anyone else. In fact, many college writing students never even think about the effects of their writing - they simply pour out their feelings and opinions in order to better complete a writing assignment. Unfortunately, as Moore has learned, this type of writing can have severe consequences on a writer. Moore explains that "[she] thought that people with power, money, and influence only preyed on other people with power, money, and influence. What did they have to fear from a writing student?"(94-95). What she did not realize is that college writing students have a lot more power than they are actually aware of - writing, in itself, is power.

Moore's situation has led Klein to re-think his teaching strategies in the writing classroom. He states,

my teaching goals have remained relatively contant. I want written discourse to be available and meaningful to my students. I want them to make a personal commitment to their written expression, to write freely about their experiences, their visions of reality, their reading. Most of all, I want them to be empowered to participate in the construction of knowledge and the shaping of the world (98).

This statement, however, contradicts with what Klein now believes he must teach students in his writing classroom. Klein has come to the realization that what he wants from his students is not necessarily what they want, nor is it necessarily what is best for them. He states that "the notion of empowerment is problematized by the fact that it is more or less required by an agent of power, by the teacher, by me"(98). Thus, Klein seems to believe that he is just as much at fault for Sandy's controversial essay as she is, for he assigned her a writing assignment where, as he explains, "I pay students with grades to import and disclose discourses that are none of my business and in so doing force them to betray the private discourse communities of friends, families, workplaces, and various institutions"(100). Because of Moore's situation, Klein believes that he must alter his traditional teaching of writing to include a warning that "free speech is not a given for the speaker or the writer: it is more a process that begins in the knowledge that its use, its exercise, might bring harm to the user..."(103). A problem arises, however, when Klein says he believes that "at the same time, it seems ethically requisite that writing teachers encourage free speech among students and freely speak, ourselves, a discourse that celebrates its value" (103). How can instructors teach their students to censor their writing, while at the same time, teach them to write freely?

Should college students, as Klein suggests, be warned about the power of writing and its possible negative affects? I believe that students should be made aware that their writings are no longer private once they have been turned in to an instructor, even if an instructor assures them that he or she will not show or discuss the papers with anyone else. The problem is that students, warned of this danger, may begin to censor their papers, which could lead to writings that neither the student, nor the teacher is happy with. Klein says, "I will no doubt continue to encourage students to experiment with a variety of rhetorical contexts, but never again without warning and never again without vigilant protection of work in progress and of completed texts"(102). He adds, "Such protection would involve considering, with the student, the consequences of an actual reading by the intended audience. If such a reading would result in harm to the student, then I would need to suggest that any collaborative activity within the classroom be safeguarded"(102). I agree with Klein when he says that he will discuss possible external reactions to a student's paper with that student. Setting up more private teacher-student conferences may allow the student to weigh the possible consequences of his or her paper; however, how can Klein actually assure students "vigilant protection" of their papers? Sara Moore's paper caused her harm without any fault of Klein or the other class members. Furthermore, how can Klein or the student actually determine what constitutes a "controversial paper?" Moore says, "outcomes...are unpredictable, and I do not have control over the reactions of unexpected audiences"(104). Although Klein seems to think that he can protect student papers, he simply cannot know which papers will cause harm to the writers or the readers. Even Klein's students argue "that a text, once written, can easily be dislocated from its context, and that once it is dislocated it can become a kind of unguided missile, capable of exploding and doing damage wherever it lands"(99). I agree with Klein that teachers have a responsibility to warn their students about the consequences of writing, but how do teachers effectively do this without hindering the students' writing? Even Klein and Moore's writing of this essay seems hindered when Klein says, "But as I reread my part of the 'Coda,' I fear that it makes us seem paranoid. And this fear makes me want to gloss the gloss"(104). I am not sure that I, or Klein, have the answer to this. Since any writing can be taken out of context, no matter how much the teacher tries to safeguard it, no writing is truly safe from external readings.