What to say?

Yesterday was our weekly Writers Workshop in Comp 1. The week's assignment was to write a rebuttal argument to an article the students had already chosen, read, and analyzed. One student read an article called "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage" by Theodore Olson.

Here's what that student submitted as a "rebuttal essay" for workshop:

In the article of “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” written by Theodore Olson when he wrote “The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners” is not true. There is lots of reason why we should deny gay marriage. What if we past the new law of gay marriage and other people with different types of relationship wants to past laws for other cases like group marriage, marriage under 18 years of age, or between a man and boy marriage. I just think that it is not a normal thing to do. I am a “traditional” person and I like to keep most of the things we do the same especially when it comes to marriage. Marriage should always be just between a man and women. What if we past the gay marriage law and in the future most of our population is either gay or lesbian, who is going to continue giving birth to new generations? I know you might be thinking of adopting a child if you have a same-sex partner, but what if the child grows up to just knowing about mainly gay relationships? A child needs to get love from parents, a mother and father, not two mothers or two fathers.

That's it: one paragraph. Most of the other students in workshop said they wanted to see an essay with an intro/body/conclusion. (Yay! They got it!).

One student praised the content by saying and writing, "Content is excellent. I agree 100%. Except the main reason I agree is because I am a CHRISTIAN." I had to give a little lecture about what's acceptable for academic arguments: we use logic and reason in academic arguments; issues of taste and faith are not arguable. Most students seemed to get that.

The student listened to all the feedback and went home to revise the essay. Here's the title of her/his new essay: "Reasons to Deny Gay Marriage." The "essay" has five paragraphs but no logic or evidence.

These sentences appear in the intro: "What if we passed the new law of gay marriage and people with different types of relationship wants to pass laws for other cases like group marriage, marriage under 18 years of age, or between and adult and child marriage? These will change the whole ideal of marriage."

Here's the entire conclusion: "What if we passed the gay marriage law and in the future most of our population is either gay or lesbian, who is going to give birth to new generations? This is a "traditional value", two individual giving birth to new generation. you might think of adopting a child if you have a same-sex partner, but what if the child grows up just knowing mainly about gay relationships? This would probably lead the child to a different path from society. There is always a good reason to deny gay marriage."

(Is it ironic that this student has already disclosed that s/he is divorced?)

Had

For the last few years, I've been noticing that my non-native English speakers, especially the Hmong students, are using the auxiliary verb "had" much more than necessary. It's weird. I wish someone would do a study on it.


Here's the sample paragraph I just read that's making me think about this phenomena:

Since last Wednesday we had gotten another chance to rewrite our paper after the feedback we gave the featured writers that day on their essays. I had read over my paper a few times and added a few details that we had heard during workshop. I had even taken some of my feedback into consideration and included those points into my paper. Since then, I added my opinion where it was needed. I had also added some more details of the writer's techniques she used to write her article. I had explained more on how the author portrayed logos and pathos and went more in depth on those topics.

The problem, of course, is that in this narrative of her/his writing process, the timeframe is hard to figure out. What happened when? The "had"s are supposed to indicate action that happened before the past-tense action. Right away, beginning with "Since last Wednesday," the student indicates a time period. The "had gotten" messes up the idea we had going because of the word "since."


I guess English is hard, but listening to Josh talk about Polish verbs, I'm not sure it's any harder than other languages. I wish I knew what was going on here.


Update: The student is a native English speaker! In fact, she's a very privileged suburban teen. 

What to do?

I have all of my writing students blog about our college's common book. This year, our book is Zeitoun. Most students like the book, which is written with straight-forward, simple, detail-rich prose.


One FYComp student wrote the following post. Sure, the blog is the place for casual, less-formally expressed discussion. And it's clear that this student's first language is not English, which is okay. But there are issues here make me wonder how s/he got into first-year composition:

Loving it The dark night finally arrived. working for five hours staight, Zumtoum uses bukets to catching the water that leaking from the roof, stuffing the broken windows with pillow, and move anything he could to the upstair, God, he must exhusted. I do like the author back and forth to discribs the Zumtoum and Kathy's conversations, so I know what is exactly they are thinking and felling. The story just grabs me into it; I can ever piture evey part of seduation like watching the movie, which is a great movie. The author's words can grab the readers mind, and I believe that is why the book is so succeful. I can't wait to read rest of it.

Do I dare?

I like this piece, but would it be safe to give my students? I don't know if they'd get the humor (is it satire? parody?), but maybe'd be okay if they thought it was real? (Don't know the source -- my cousin sent it in an email.)

Dear American,

For the last few weeks I’ve been under constant attack.  My opponents would have you believe that if I’m elected, you’ll be stripped of your Social Security benefits and will be scrounging for food in dumpsters with all the desperation of a feral cat.

Of course, that’s true.  But what they don’t tell you is what I’d replace Social Security with: an amazing new program I like to call PerryCare™.

Under PerryCare™, you’ll receive all the food, clothing and shelter you need, and it won’t cost a dime in taxes.  How if that possible?  Simple: you’ll be praying for all those things.

As a PerryCare™ recipient, each week you’ll receive in your email box a PerryCare™ PrayerMail™, giving you an easy-to-recite prayer for the bread, milk, cat food or whatever else you need to survive.  It’s like a Groupon from God.

PerryCare™ is more than a replacement for that infernal Ponzi scheme that has bamboozled Americans with regular monthly checks for 75 years.  It is part of my larger plan to return prayer to its rightful place in American life.  I get down on my knees every night and I promise you, if I am elected your President, I will bring this entire country to its knees.

I expect that some of my opponents will laugh at my plan, especially that lawn gnome Ron Paul and Michele “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann.  Fine, let them laugh!  Laughter is the best medicine.  And if I am elected, there will be no other medicine.

That brings me to my PerryCare™ medical plan, which will replace Medicare once I consign that Ponzi scheme to the electric chair of history.  I don’t have enough time to go into the whole plan right now, but here it is in two words: single prayer.

Your next President,

Gov. Rick Perry