In Hooks’ Rebel’s Dilemma one can almost feel her pain.  A pain caused by her culture, her family, her profession, her academia, and her own writing.  The struggle to alleviate this pain becomes then a central focus, a mission to search for who she really is.  In the process of understanding the author’s dilemma, it is easy to recall last week’s class conversations on students’ academic writing and the lack of tolerance from some faculty members to accept the use of popular or text language on school papers.  Hook states that there have been times when she has had to be a rebel with a cause that calls for the breaking of the rules and standing against the imposed silences (2).  More students, I believe, should be come brave as Hooks was, in order to challenge the limiting rules of academic writing.  I do not propose that students should not learn academic writing.  I propose that after they do, if they find other ways of expressing what they want to say, they should not be penalized for being who they are or for conscientiously choosing to say that “It was a hellaf a party” instead of saying that the party was terrific.  In addition, Hooks also exposes another idea that I believe should be considered as we think of our writing and our students’ writings.  A useful intervention, critical discussion “that both defines what the imposed stereotypes are and offers both strategies of resistance and alternative way to construct self and identity” (3)  should take place in universities as it relates to academic writing.  If this intervention took place, I think three wonderful things would happen.  First, instructors would be able to realize that it really is not a big deal if a student uses “I” in a paper, and that maybe, just maybe, the use of I would move us into a less dependency on the “expert” authors that we read and would finally give us some room to express our own ideas and be more critical of the ideas that those experts present to us.  Second, critical discussion of imposed stereotypes in academic writing would lead to separate reality from idealism, and this would perhaps create a more realistic connection between teachers and students and their teaching and learning goals.  Third, a presentation of alternative ways of expression that are acceptable for both instructors and students would be very beneficial too because a working consensus in a classroom sometimes is more important than using the appropriate transition word or punctuation mark.  Finally, if there must be a reason to re-evaluate this fascination for academic writing and the condemnation for any other type of writing that replaces it, that should be the very same idea that Hooks shares in regards to institutions of higher learning, which “reward us and then demand that we stop being outlaws–that we stop stepping out of the edge” (2).  Students should not feel “imprisoned” in the institution that is supposed to be teaching him how to be free.

As I read some of the postings that have started to hit the blog, I am reassured on the call for change that we as students and future instructors see as needed.  Some of us clearly identify with Hooks’ call for social change.  Others become very responsive and perceptive of the difficulties that ESL students must face when trying to learn and use English as a second language.  For me, being that I have personally faced these struggles, it’s easy to see the importance of noticing when a students uses “its” instead of “it’s” by mistake or because they don’t know.  If it’s an mistake that keeps showing, that student needs help.  If it’s a typo, wouldn’t it be more beneficial for that student to receive a comment on content and argument construction versus a deduction for poor use of mechanics?

It all boils down to priorities.  (oh, is “boils down” too slang?… so what?)