I Resign: The Writing Center’s Mission is to Teach Writing, Not Ideology

Dear Professor Bromley, Ms. Liu-Rojas, and Ms. Snell,

I am writing to resign my position as a Writing Fellow. I wish that I felt I could continue in this role and am sorry to resign mid-year. As you know, writing is one of my passions and as you also know, that wasn’t always the case. It was my freshman seminar that convinced me I could write and that I enjoyed it. My professor, Dean Lozano, was instrumental in that process, and his Writing Fellow, Ben Brasch, was key as well. At the conclusion of the course, I decided to apply to become a Writing Fellow in the hope that I could inspire other writers the way I had been inspired. I was thrilled and honored to be selected to serve as a Fellow.

I had genuinely thought the purpose of the Writing Center was to teach writing. I hadn’t realized the writing instruction would be delivered with a side of ideology and that the ideology was not only mandatory but also more important than the actual teaching of writing. I’ve learned this over the past few months, which is the reason for my resignation.

First, Ms. Snell, the Writing Center Team Coordinator, asked me to meet with her. She accused me of being an obstacle preventing the Writing Center from being a “safe space.” This came in response to a news article I had written that detailed a series of no-whites-allowed “safe spaces” at the Claremont Colleges. Ms. Snell specifically mentioned my article, and noted she was concerned that my involvement with both the Writing Center and the Claremont Independent would lead students to associate the organizations with one another. Obviously, many other Writing Fellows contribute to campus publications. But as far as I’m aware, no one else has been told that’s a problem.

My next meeting was with Professor Bromley. She told me she was worried that I was not doing enough to make the Writing Center a space where students feel welcome. To rectify that, she canceled my appointments that night and asked me to read three packets about identity politics instead. One of the readings states that teaching English to non-native English speakers is an attack on free speech. Another criticizes “the hegemonic feminist theory produced by academic women, most of whom were white.” The third, titled “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy,” states that capitalism is racist. I read all three packets, as I had been told to do. I did not agree with the opinions presented in any of them, nor did I see any connection between these readings and my work at the Writing Center.

Ms. Snell then asked to meet with me again to talk about what I had read, and what role identity politics should play in the Writing Center’s mission. My peers have proposed their ideas for a new Writing Center mission statement, noting that we should aspire to “provide a space for students to work through their ideas with fellows trained in a writing pedagogy that considers how race, gender, sexuality, language, national-origin, and socioeconomic status influences and affects those ideas,” “educate ourselves so that we better understand oppression, liberation, and dynamics of difference and power as they manifest themselves in the Writing Center,” and “acknowledge and interrogate the ways in which the Writing Center, Pomona College, and academia itself perpetuate and have perpetuated injustice and oppression.” I told Ms. Snell that, in my opinion, the goal of the Writing Center should remain unchanged: to provide “students with a community of experienced readers and writers, offering free, one-on-one consultations at any stage of the writing process—from generating a thesis and structuring an argument to fine-tuning a draft.”

I guess that was the wrong answer, since the next day I was placed on probation and informed that I needed to meet with Professor Bromley and Ms. Liu-Rojas, the Writing Center’s administrative assistant, the following week. I was told the reason for my probation was that I had missed a mandatory meeting for Writing Fellows, but at my meeting with Professor Bromley and Ms. Liu-Rojas, we did not discuss that at all. Rather, we talked about my prior meeting with Ms. Snell. Apparently, “her feelings had been hurt” because of my “tone.” Professor Bromley and Ms. Liu-Rojas told me that if I did anything else they deemed wrong, I would be fired.

The following night, I worked my normal shift. I met with two students and I thought that both consultations had gone well. However, I soon received an email from Professor Bromley stating that the Writing Center had received an “anonymous complaint” from a student who had worked with me, that they were investigating the situation, and that my appointments would be canceled until further notice. Perhaps coincidentally, a quick Facebook search revealed that one of the students with whom I worked that night had dressed as “White Supremacy” for Halloween and appeared in photos with two other students who were dressed as “Steven Glick and his White Fragility,” yet she still chose to work with me as her tutor.

Based on these incidents, which have occurred over many months, it has become clear that the Writing Center is harassing me because of my political beliefs. This is unacceptable, just as harassment based on gender, race, religion or any other demographic or ideological construct is unacceptable. My probation is not related to any inadequacy of my work at the Writing Center. Rather, it is due to my political views, which differ greatly from those of the Writing Center leadership. Each time I have been asked to meet with Writing Center leadership, I am asked to talk about controversial political issues that are unrelated to my work at the Center. Soon after each meeting, I have been informed I’ve done something wrong on the job and need to be punished. I had hoped that President Oxtoby’s recent statement in support of free speech at Pomona College would be a game changer, allowing conservative, libertarian, and classically liberal students and faculty to share our honest opinions with our progressively liberal peers who seem to control the sanctioned conversation on campus. Unfortunately, I was naively optimistic. His words carry no meaning if they are ignored and countermanded by Pomona’s faculty and staff.

I wish I could continue to work at the Writing Center because I feel that it’s important for all students, whether black or white, on financial aid or not, conservative or liberal, to have a place to review and strengthen their writing. Unfortunately, the Writing Center no longer seems to be that place. Until the Writing Center can return to its apolitical mission and forsake its acceptance and appeasement of political harassment, I regret that I must resign my position as a Writing Fellow.

Sincerely,

Steven Glick

Editor-in-Chief, The Claremont Independent

101 thoughts on “I Resign: The Writing Center’s Mission is to Teach Writing, Not Ideology”

    1. Anyone who takes the time to read an article then takes time to post a comment if “I don’t care” should be publicly flogged. Your future failures at life will have to do though.

      1. Curtis says :”Anyone who takes the time to read an article then takes time to post a comment if “I don’t care” should be publicly flogged. ”

        Curtis, your comment, while praiseworthy, assumes that the person who posted that comment A) took the time to read the article, B) is literate enough to have read the article in the first place.

        I see no evidence indicating that either of these assumptions are true.

    2. Psychology teaches that if you ask who cares it means that you care. Who cares that you don’t care? You’re probably a brain dead Regressive Libtarded DemoncRAT anyway, which is why you don’t care.

    3. We should all care. Diversity of thought is just as important as diversity of skin tone. It is an adult mind which can understand two disparate viewpoints simultaneously. It is an adult spirit which can befriend individuals who don’t hold our same opinions.

  1. I’m not surprised to see an academic-affiliated institution like the writing center so infested with ideology. It’s the same ideology that makes the poorly-thought-out claim that objective competence is a racist and sexist construct because most canonized persons happen to be white men. I do not think competence should go underground and wait out the storm, so to speak, but that competence will always manifest itself in the best products (whether an article, book, symphony, etc.). In the meantime, let’s not invest too much stock in an office that foolishly purports to “teach, learn, and improve” what can only be picked up through practice. The writing center is nothing more than a glorified hub of literary peer-review. Ideology dressed up as compassion has as much place here as peer-to-peer proselytizing in the classroom.

  2. Wow. So it is okay to be racist against white people. There is now special vocabulary to dress it up. Hmmm. The clear harrassment this man went through is wrong. I am tired of people acting this way and excusing it to themselves, using the n word on themselves and their friends, but then acting surprised when other people use it or act racist towards them. If you want to ask racist then you forfeit the right to complain about others doing it to you. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    1. You should be ashamed of yourself for possessing a very anti-intellectual, Neo-Leninist position vis-a-vis freedom of speech and freedom of thought. If you’re a student at one of the Claremont Consortium colleges, then the Consortium needs to strengthen its admission standards , as post-secondary education is supposed to be the province of those who are dedicated to intellectual endeavours.

    2. Vanessa:

      Thank you very much for having the courage to stand up for Mister Glick. There are lots of other students at the College who desire to speak out but are afraid to do so. My own experiences with the now transnational P.C. Mob in 1992 causes my heart to feel extra sympathetic for Mister Glick.

      I attended Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. Wes has been in the grip of an inter-generational cabal of extremely base individuals who are just as oppressive, demeaning, coarse and, dare I express it in a public forum, anti-American, silly, pathetic, and retrograde as the throngs of Neo-L:eninists who have hurt Mr. Glick and others at the Claremont Consortium. I was attacked by my own academic advisor at Wes and declared persona non grata for writing an op-ed piece in Spring, 1992 for The Wesleyan Review about the dangerous ramifications of political correctness.

      How many decades will pass before our deeply flawed nation’s Constitution and its Bill of Rights will be not only be respected but cherished by our country’s legions of leftists in Academe who’ve been consumed by the poisonous, hateful virus known as resentment?

      Mr. Glick, please keep your chin up and stand tall and proud! A very, very good young man like you can never be kept down. Our deeply troubled nation needs many, many more intelligent and courageously principled persons like you to help restore her to greatness.

      I am,

      Respectfully yours,

      Mr. Peter Frost Hunt
      E-mail: phunt65@hotmail.com

  3. When I was in college, I was a writing tutor in a similar role. Suggested reading for us included techniques for students of differing writing abilities, concepts of structure, and approaches for different academic disciplines. That was it.

    It was all about expression.

    We didn’t have meetings on how to make the writing center “safer” and “more welcoming” to students of any background or particular political stripes.

    I was pretty liberal, but I kept my views to myself when it came to writing assistance. The Writing Center’s management seems to have forgotten that.

    1. Can we just stop calling them liberals? Please? They are not liberal. They are intolerant of opposing views and opinions. Please, let’s stop calling them liberal.

  4. Professor Bromley, Ms. Liu-Rojas, and Ms. Snell should be investigated, and if found guilty, punished or even fired for bias and harassment of a student. The same goes for the student wearing a costume targeting another student.

    1. Yes, Ms. Smells, I mean, Snell, et al, surely deserve at minimum to be censured, if not fired, by the Consortium. She and the other perps are excellent examples of exactly what teachers are not supposed to be. Teachers are supposed to be excellent role models for our country’s youngsters. Pfft, these individuals need to be brought in front of a committee and explain how their harassment, intolerance, and censuring of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of Mister Glick were appropriate.

  5. This, just confirms my own observations! Academia has been run over by an agenda, we do not subscribe to. Banning discent is very dangerous, history proved many times that those who suffocate truth end up paying with their own lives.

  6. Sounds like a time to make a title nine complaint. They have made you feel unsafe in your roll as a fellow due to your political beliefs. Its also a hostile work environment.

  7. “Perhaps coincidentally, a quick Facebook search revealed that one of the students with whom I worked that night had dressed as “White Supremacy” for Halloween and appeared in photos with two other students who were dressed as “Steven Glick and his White Fragility,” yet she still chose to work with me as her tutor.”

    Lol, what a bunch of psychopaths.

  8. Wait but like isn’t it a breech of the person’s privacy to dig around Facebook if they asked to remain anonymous. And just idk the other stuff like readings and mission statements (like, I bet everyone had to read and write them?), sounds like institutional stuff. Can you provide an example of when a staffer harassed you?

    1. Please read what he wrote again. Nobody “asked to remain anonymous.” Instead, Professor Bromley said she’d “received an “anonymous complaint”” about Glick. Glick assumed that the complaint had come from one of the two students he’d met with the previous night, and, given that he’d only met with two students, he probably easily found the person who’s apparently obsessed with him. I’m guessing the person who made the anonymous complaint thought they were being clever by taking the cowardly route of making an anonymous complaint, but apparently they weren’t clever enough to realize that making a complain the day after personally going to the writing center while having publicly available evidence of their vendetta against Glick would make them easy to find out.

  9. I am a parent of a student at Pomona and I can’t fathom that there are people like Professor Bromley, Ms. Liu-Rojas, and Ms. Snell teaching our children. You all have to understand that these people are bitter and sad and they will always be miserable human beings. They accuse you of being hateful, when they are the worst most discriminatory, hateful people in this great country. Keep your heads up those teachers are despicable human beings and you are the successful with a bright and happy future!

    1. Actually the three women you reference are not bitter, sad or miserable. It surprises me that you have made such a quick judgment of them based off of one person’s writing in a publication that is notorious for being liberal with the truth (yes this publication is quite conservative in most regards but oh so liberal with the truth). I never worked at the writing center under Ms. Snell, but Professor Bromley and Ms. Liu-Rojas are some of the hardest working and kindest people I met at Pomona. If your child has the privilege of interacting with them while at Pomona I am sure it will be to your child’s benefit.

      1. facts are facts. opinions are another animal. they are and did act in the manner that they did and did say and do the things that they are being held responsible for. that is a fact.

      2. So why would they kick out a student that was so dedicated to writing base on his political views. Each one of them should be fired! They are pitiful human beings. If they do not love this country they should get out! Our country has provided so many opportunities to such a diverse population of people coming here from countries all over the world. All those teachers want to do is complain and divide the country. Thank god my kid knows that they are imbeciles! I heard people like them do not like Jews. Punish success and reward failure!! Kids that are at that school for free need shut their mouthes and thank god that they got the opportunity.

      3. If her child has the “privilege” of interacting with those people, will he or she need to be careful not to express any unacceptable thoughts or ideologies? Doubts?

        Stuff like… “I wrote this thing… can you check it to make sure I haven’t committed any thought crimes? “

  10. Mr. Glick,
    Thank you for staying true to the motto “Upholding Truth and Excellence at the Claremont Colleges”. At least one person is.
    When radicalism pervades an institution employees must submit to the party line or face termination. Your principled stance is to be admired, though I suspect many of your colleagues are too fearful to publicly support you.

  11. See the bio on the lady prof who wrote the third article in the packet Glick mentions, the one on heterpatriarchal…etc., etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Smith_%28academic%29

    She is apparently dishonest about her family roots…like that Rachel Dolezal last summer who tried to “pass” as black.

    I’m beginning to think that every academic, without exception, is a lying hypocrite or worse. (I know that’s probably a slight exaggeration but there is an issue with a Pitzer prof who claims to be an environmentalist but who cut down healthy large Claremont City street trees on his property and also a hundred-year-old heritage olive tree that was protected by the city when his home was built a decade ago…so, a pox on all of ’em.)

    1. She was probably trying to buff-up her victim status so she’d have even more power to abuse white students that reject her deranged ideologies.

  12. Dear Master Steven Glick,

    I am writing to provide you feedback on your resignation letter. You have an impressive passion for writing, and I hope that my feedback can help you improve. When I was a Fellow, my favorite form of feedback was the reverse outline, and I will provide you with one here. The purpose of a reverse outline is two-fold: 1) to reveal the structure of a work, and therefore determine aspects of it that could be strengthened, and 2) to facilitate sentence- and paragraph-specific feedback.

    Let’s begin, Master Glick, with the reverse outline:

    “I am writing to resign…”

    – This paragraph is great! You do a wonderful job focusing on your narrow set of personal experiences, and you even do a bit of work here to make broad generalizations based on minimal evidence. An excellent way to forecast the rest of the letter!

    – Watch out for passive voice in your fourth sentence (“It was my freshman seminar that convinced me…”). Try this: “My freshman seminar convinced me I could write and that I enjoyed it.” See, isn’t that stronger phrasing? Now we know exactly what to blame.

    “I had genuinely thought…”

    – A solid thesis statement, though you could use some more specificity. What “ideology” are you referring to? Is it the ideology that contends that writing is an immensely personal activity that cannot be divorced from the people and circumstances that produce it, and that consultations should be conducted in a manner consistent with that principle? Your readers ought to know what it is you’re arguing against!

    – The final clause of the last sentence is a bit vague. What’s the reason for your resignation? Is it the ideology itself, or your process of learning about that ideology? We need to know what to thank.

    “First, Ms. Snell, the Writing Center…”

    – Repeated use of quotation marks for emphasis (“safe spaces”) often gets in the way of making the point those quotation marks imply. Do you believe the Writing Center should not be a safe space for members of marginalized communities? If so, say that!

    – Typo in the last sentence: “But as *a* far as I’m…” For me, the best tool for catching typos and phrasing errors is to read your work aloud. An added benefit is you get to hear the sound of your own voice.

    “My next meeting…”

    – Cite your sources! For reference, the second piece is bell hooks’ “Theory as Liberatory Practice,” and the third is by Andrea Smith. Not sure about the first piece.

    – I am sorry that you could not connect these readings to your work at the Writing Center. Let me help you out here: hooks’ point is that academic work is often a deeply troubling and exclusionary practice for many individuals (particularly women of color), though it has the potential to help liberate those same individuals (if only by helping them find their voice). Smith’s point is that historical forces (patriarchy, capitalism, white supremacy) variably affect members of different communities, but that in addressing the needs of those communities, one ought to recognize the common forces at play. Can you see the connection now, given that many of the Writing Center’s clients are members of marginalized communities? If not, don’t worry – no one can expect you to practice what you haven’t been taught. Did Professor Lozano and Mr. Brasch adequately prepare you for the rigors of college-level reading comprehension? This would be useful feedback for Pomona’s Writing Program.

    “Ms. Snell then asked…”

    – Regarding your peers’ new mission statement – quotations are good, but you’re letting them get in the way of analysis and argumentation. Right now, you’re arguing by implication. You ought to tell readers what you explicitly think of the principles proposed by your peers.

    – In what way is the newly proposed mission statement incompatible with the old one? If the new mission statement is adopted, will consultations no longer be free? If tutors understand oppression, liberation, and dynamics of difference and power, will they no longer work on papers at every stage in the writing process? Make clear the stark differences between the old and new statements!

    “I guess that was the wrong answer…”

    – Again, you’re arguing by implication. Is your claim that your “tone” and Ms. Snell’s “feelings” are not important? Or is your claim that your tone was not objectionable, and/or that Ms. Snell’s feelings were not, in fact, hurt?

    – Is “her feelings had been hurt” a cited quotation from that conversation? If so, who said it, and in what context? If Ms. Snell said that her feelings were hurt, did she actually speak in third person, past perfect? Or did you modify her quotation without making that clear? Citing sources for quoted text is a basic component of journalistic integrity. This might not be your fault. Does the Independent have adequate editorial oversight?

    “The following night, I worked…”

    – Are you sure you support the mission statement you cited above? That statement later reads, “Consultations are free and confidential.” Yet you provide information about one of your clients that makes her easily identifiable to her peers. If you think student clients should be tracked down on Facebook by their tutors, and should be put on blast for speaking out when they’re uncomfortable, say so! Don’t shy away from the implications of your argument.

    “Based on these incidents, which have…”

    – Be specific about the harassment, and the political beliefs for which you feel persecuted. It’s easy enough to see how you’d feel uncomfortable among people seeking to thoughtfully address the needs of others, but what in particular are they targeting? What political views have resulted in your harassment? What did you state in these meetings that led to your harassment?

    – When drafting this paragraph, were you wearing a tin foil hat, or an aluminum one? I’ve found that this sort of argumentation often benefits from metallic head protection. Take it or leave it. Just one of those process-oriented tips, like reading aloud.

    – It’s good practice to use closing remarks to broadly expand the scope of your argument, and this paragraph is a good opportunity to offer other potential “game changer[s].” Perhaps we ought to include white supremacists in the Office of Black Student Affairs, so that their political beliefs may be better represented. Let’s expand the staff of math TAs to include those diametrically opposed to helping people who struggle with math. Let’s hire doctors and nurses at student health who ignore one’s medical history when making a diagnosis. Why stop with Pomona College? We need more hospitals for healthy people, after all!

    “I wish I could continue…”

    – A decent closing statement, but your last sentence is rather unclear, for a few reasons. The use of “can return” is vague – are you saying that your dissent stands until the Center *actually* returns to its glory days, or until it *can* return to them? Is it your claim that the Center presently cannot return? Why not? “Until the Writing Center can return…” and “Until the Writing Center returns…” are very different sentences.

    – Additionally, the last sentence’s introductory clause modifies the primary subject/verb pair of the subsequent clause – i.e., “Until the Writing Center…” modifies “I regret…” Is it your regret or your resignation that’s dependent on the conditions established by the first clause? If the Writing Center staff decides to change based on your suggestions, they ought to know whether they’re alleviating your regret or revoking your resignation. That distinction could substantially affect their decision.

    I hope this letter has been of some assistance to you, Master Glick, and best of luck with revising and improving your writing!

    Sincerely,

    A Pomona Writing Fellow ‘15

    P.S. Regarding my use of “Master:” A key component of working with writers is meeting them on their terms. Given that your politics are those of a late-19th century aristocratic child, it seems only appropriate to address you as such. All the best, Master Glick, and happy writing!

    1. I hope you feel better about yourself now that you spent an unnecessary amount of time trying to passive-aggressively critique an article you disagree with. It’s especially funny to consider how much effort you put into this comment when Steven is just as unlikely to read your comment and take it seriously as you are to become a (slave) “master” .

      Quick history lesson: slave owners would not refer to themselves as “Master”, as this was a title that was given to young boys/men before they reached adulthood (see 3a http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master). But I guess that wouldn’t have made your point…

      1. I sure hope Master Glick reads this comment, just trying to help! I just think he could do a better job identifying his position and that of those he’s critiquing. Right now, both are identified only by implication.

        Thanks for the history lesson! I was referring to precisely that honorific, which was more commonly applied to members of the aristocracy than common-folk. Given that Master Glick is a vocal advocate for laissez-faire capitalism and liberal freedoms (free speech, etc.), it seems an appropriate comparison! No intent to bring up the slavery context… though it’s interesting that’s what came to your mind.

        1. Next time, I recommend you try to speak to Steven instead of posting a comment on his article. If you cannot convince Steven to change his political convictions in person, maybe you should use some of your intellect and analytical writing skills that you seem so proud of to question your own political beliefs. The Socratic method truly is a great exercise if you ever want to try it.

          Unfortunately, the word “Master” was never used in the context of the aristocracy in the 19th century (even Marx used the term “bourgeoisie” instead of “master”). I guess that historical “reference” was so inaccurate that I assumed that someone as educated as yourself would not include that in your comment.

          It’s interesting, however, that you seem to insinuate that capitalism is somehow an inferior and antiquated ideology, when the history of the 20th century provides us with plenty of examples of how it is far more progressive, equitable, and fair for all levels of society than socialism (East vs. West Germany, North vs. South Korea, USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.).

          1. Great idea — I’ll talk to Master Glick next time. If I can’t convince him to change his mind, then I clearly must be the one in the wrong!

            More to the point: Master Glick has clearly documented that a number of very smart, articulate people talked with him about his views. (This is about the only thing that’s clear from this article.) I make no claim that I am better qualified than them to do so. I just like reverse outlines.

            Regarding “master,” you’re right — it’s an honorific used for young boys, and was most widely used in that context in the late 19th century and early 20th. However, given its historical roots as a term denoting mastery/ownership (i.e., the master/slave context you suggest), it was primarily applied to members of the aristocracy. The OED’s pretty clear on that point: “applied, esp. by servants, to the sons of noble families or of the gentry.” (I’d link you but the OED’s behind a paywall — if you have access, see item 22 of the first master n/adj definition.)

            So: Master Glick’s ideological principles are aligned with those of the late-19th century aristocracy (for better or worse), and he’s behaving like a child. Hence, the honorific.

        2. Dear Sir,

          I have read with not a little interest your critique of Mr Glick’s litterae patentes above & it is with a great sense of regret that I must tell you now that I have found it to be most wanting in style & content. The solecisms found within are great in number & of such a peculiar nature as to lead the reader to the unfortunate conclusion that it was not written by a person of education or culture:- Indeed one is tempted to say that it is not even the stuff of a native speaker! Suffice it to say, it does not even meet the lower, more vulgar standards of good writing which have come to the fore as of late, to say nothing of the much higher standards that were expected of the learned & scholarly gentlemen of the Victorian era, standards which you yourself have declared worthy of emulation in the course of your responce to Mr Glick. In order to provide you with adequate example of this, I have taken the time to correct the opening lines of your aforementioned critique of Mr Glick’s letter, a copy of which I have taken care to provide in the post-scriptum below.

          Y. O. S.,

          Publius Africanus

          P. S.

          The aforementioned corrections are to be found immediately below:

          “Dear Master Steven Glick,”

          Dear Sir:

          “I am writing to provide you feedback on your resignation letter.”

          I am writing you this letter in order to provide you with certain advice, which I hope you might find to be useful, concerning your recently published open letter of resignation & the style found therein.

          “You have an impressive passion for writing, and I hope that my feedback can help you improve.”

          It is clear that you, Sir, are passionate in your literary undertakings & I, as fellow ‘fautor litterarum’, do earnestly desire to be of some service to you in your future endeavours to this end.

          “When I was a Fellow, my favorite form of feedback was the reverse outline, and I will provide you with one here.”

          For you see, Sir, that I too was once a Fellow at the very same Writing Centre where you yourself worked before the occurrence of recent unfortunate events described in your letter. During my time at that place, I learned many skills which I have found to be most useful. Of these, one in stands out above the rest as being particularly useful, and that is ‘The Reverse Outline’, which I, to the extent which my limited ability allows me*, shall attempt to introduce to you here.

          * Victorian style expects the inclusion of such self-effacing statements at opportune turns.

          “The purpose of a reverse outline is two-fold:”

          This particular device was designed with two purposes in mind:

          ” 1) to reveal the structure of a work, and therefore determine aspects of it that could be strengthened,”

          Firstly, it is meant to be means by which the latent structure of ones writing might become clearer & more apparent to the writer, thus providing the writer the opportunity of identifying the areas where work might be amended or otherwise improved.

          ” and 2) to facilitate sentence- and paragraph-specific feedback.”

          Secondly, it provides a way by which the paragraphs & indeed even the individual sentences of the work might themselves be reviewed & critiqued in a systematic & efficient* manner.

          *Be mindful of the fact that during much of the nineteenth century the term du jour was ‘efficiency. So it is always good to make use of the word or one of its derivatives when the opportunity so arises.

      2. FA: you haughtily dismiss Fellow 15’s comments by saying they won’t be read, and then, through your condescending “quick history lesson,” you suggest that the facts you present obliterate his/her comments.

        Oddly, the Fellow 15 did not mention “master” in a slavery context at all. Huh. You are either not reading carefully or you are deliberately misrepresenting what Fellow 15 has written. The former is an unfortunate circumstance that happens to the best of us; the latter speaks rather poorly of you.

        I’ll assume it’s the former. Otherwise, you’d just be another lazy thinker shrilly blatting that no one is listening to your opponent anyway, and then accusing them of arguing something they clearly are not. We call that a straw man argument in the industry.

        You obviously have a position on this. Argue it. I will be genuinely interested and welcoming of your views. But don’t foul the discussion with the schoolyard “sophistication” of your present comment.

        I look forward to your thoughts. Cheers.

      3. Nothing referenced or was meant to reference slaves. As the poster mentioned, it was a reference to the aristocracy’ habit of referring to male children (of the aristocracy) as Master.

    2. “hooks’ point is that academic work is often a deeply troubling and exclusionary practice”
      pfffft.
      A perfect example of how ridiculous academia has become.

          1. Enjoyment’s the last thing, huh? Guess I found everything else! Here I was thinking I had more to learn…

      1. PS That fell rather far down from the original comment. My comment was in response to the anonymous coward above, signing him or herself “Feedback from Fellow ’15.”

        I’m a professional writer and I learn every week from the guy who copyedits me. From the way Glick wrote, I believe students who came to the Writing Center had something to learn from him. That’s because much of good writing is good critical thinking — understanding how to formulate logical arguments and to put them down on a page so other people understand them.

        PS The late crime writer Elmore Leonard said, “If proper usage gets in the way, it may have to go.”

        1. So what’s Leonard got to say about unsubstantiated accusations of harassment, or about arguments made solely through implication, or about quotations presented without context or attribution?

          Master Glick may very well be able to make a cogent, logical argument. That’s not what he’s doing here.

          Let’s be clear about what’s happening: Master Glick accused three Pomona staff members of harassment. He didn’t broadly claim that he dislikes the way the Center is run. He didn’t declare that he resigned because he doesn’t like the Center’s “ideology.” He made a public, actionable claim about specific staffers. He did so without sufficiently substantiating that claim, and without providing anything approaching the sort of context that claim requires. At best, this is trash journalism. At worst, this is libel.

          If I’m an ******* and coward for critiquing his sentence structure (among other things), then perhaps the English language lacks epithets adequate for describing Master Glick’s behavior.

          1. He has a good case and should sue.

            I’m just reading this because it popped up in my news feed, but honestly, if I went to school here I would be embarrassed that staff is allowed to act so childish and petulant. FF’15’s posts defending the WC are shining examples of the type of bizarre passive-aggressive bullying that the author is talking about.

            I suspect that this type of childish narcissistic behavior was common among Writing Center staff but ignored and allowed to fester. If so, the author has good grounds for a harassment suit against all three of the WC staff and possibly also the two students that behaved maliciously on social media.

            What I love about this story is that the the over-the-top display of passive-aggressive bullying in the comments by FF’15 totally proves his case for him. 🙂 Good luck, Glick!

    3. RE: “– Watch out for passive voice in your fourth sentence (“It was my freshman seminar that convinced me…”). Try this: “My freshman seminar convinced me I could write and that I enjoyed it.” See, isn’t that stronger phrasing? Now we know exactly what to blame.”

      Actually, that’s not passive voice. It may be “stronger phrasing,” as you put it (and I’m not sold on that point), but it’s not passive voice.

      If you’re going to troll someone, make sure you don’t embarrass yourself in the process.

    4. So sorry that you have all this time on your hands. May I suggest the little blue pill and a blow up doll, perhaps you will find something to smile about?

    5. You, sir, are a thug. You argue by veiled character assassination. Your whole “19th century” shtick is tiresome and juvenile.

      I imagine you will graduate with a lot of student debt and a degree that earns you a entry level wage at a fast food establishment.

      Then you’ll whine about unfair The System is.

      Your sort never changes, you’re a victim and always will be. Someone with 19th century ideas who makes a good living is holding you back.

      Yes, this unvarnished attack on you…and you deserve it.

      Signed,
      A published author

    6. I’ve read quite a few responses to Mr. Glick’s resignation letter, but the one above truly shows how low the progressive students and faculty at the Writing Center have become. The so-called oppressed have become the oppressors. To think that an institution that claims to be educational in nature would allow this type of mob style activity to continue, proves that any funding I would offer to my alma mater would be used for purposes designed to suppress and intimidate alternate thought. At some point, the hatred toward Mr. Glick expressed in the comment will consume the author. In the past I would call that a shame, now I can only hope that it happens quick so that this stain on the college can be washed away and academia’s real mission to provoke thought and discussion returns. We’re watching the beginnings of an unraveling of the fabric of our higher educational institutions, and I can only hope that the race bating “Feedback From Fellow ’15” is the first to be removed.

  13. Mr. Glick clearly wants to be recognized as a martyr.

    Unfortunately, he is a hypocrite. He says the centre must be ideology-free (I agree) but then has quite clearly expressed his politics to the extent that the entire centre knows about them: his employers try to reign him in and pursue disciplinary actions against him, and the students are so aware of his obvious stances that they make fun of him with Halloween costumes. If he wants the Writing Centre to be ideology-free, then he can’t make it just progressive-ideology-free while he flaunts, flashes, and imposes his ideology on everyone else.

    Mr. Glick should go somewhere in the world that knows something of real martyrs and just not immature, self-indulgent ideologues. People truly critical of campus ideologies (and there are many rock-solid reasons to be critical) would do well not to point to Mr. Glick’s maudlin, self-pitying tears as an example of the problem. He has a problem of a quite different sort.

        1. Spell this: “you’re”

          Now spell this: “ad hominem.”

          Whatever the case, I am sympathetic to the issue, but it is evident that Mr Glick is not the hero you are looking for. There are people in situations that would be much better to turn to to address the problem.

          Cheers!

    1. Can you provide instances where Steven actually pushed his political beliefs as part of his work at the writing center (by, for example, coercing students to change their papers if they disagreed with his political views)?

      Otherwise, the fact that Steven writes for an independent publication (as much as you might like to believe otherwise, the CI is neither funded by nor affiliated to any political party) and has expressed his beliefs in a manner that does not incite violence, is an action protected by the Constitution and is in no way a justification for how people have treated him at Pomona.

      1. FA: you are right to call me up on my wording. I wrote that he shouldn’t whine about progressive ideology if he “flaunts, flashes, or imposes” his own ideology. “Imposes” was a misstep on my part: there is no indication in his self-aggrandizing letter of resignation that he actually imposed his beliefs on others. (It’s also a misstep that screws up the alliterative thrust of my phrasing, malheursemente). But you have to admit, he quite clearly branded himself publicly in terms of his ideology, so much so that virtually everyone with whom and for whom he worked knew his political stance. That’s just plain weird. A colleague might know. A boss? Maybe. Perhaps a sympathetic client? Ok. But everyone, from top to bottom? I would suggest that Mr. Glick is not being straight with you. He’s setting himself up as a martyr for your cause, but his story just doesn’t add up. (To be clear, I don’t know the man. I’m just going by his letter, which, it should be noted, he decided to publish as a record of his martyrdom before the big bad ideological monster that he would clearly be part of if the dynamic were reversed).

        Just as an aside, you say that Mr. Glick’s rights are defended in the constitution so long as he does not incite violence. Amen. But it should be noted that although they don’t necessary incite violence, sexism, homophobism, and racism, among other -isms, are not enshrined in the constitution, though admittedly they are in North Korea and with groups like ISIS.

        1. I’ve heard this more than once lately… you can have the freedom to think, say or write, anything just so long as you keep it a secret, you don’t “flaunt” it. But assigned reading, mandatory reading, is absolutely “flaunting” ideology. No one is quiet and keeping their approved ideologies on the down low.

          Why the amazing double standard?

      1. Mr. Sullivan. It’s you again. I’m going to assume that you are not just a fourteen-year-old boy who finds pleasure in spouting off offensive idiocies. Instead, I will remind you that I wrote that there is a legitimate issue with the way ideology is handled on campus, but that Mr. Glick is a very poor representative of that issue. Your response (again, assuming it was not just joking around) was to tell me (twice) to leave the country. Such intolerance of difference of opinion, which has a long, sorry history, is precisely the point of the article. I’m surprised you would have missed that.

        I would also like to draw your attention to the disturbingly low threshold you have for excluding and/or eliminating people from society. I didn’t say kill him and his next of kin. I didn’t say that he ought to be imprisoned. I said there were textual problems in his argument. As an American, you should give some thought to the notion that your sensibilities are alarmingly close to those of the Taliban, Imperial Japan, Inquisitional Spain, 1970s Uganda, ISIS…. Just what sort of America are trying to create?

        Anyway, it’s late, your mommy is telling you to get off the computer, and it’s time to go to bed. Text me if you get a moment after tomorrow’s geography class.

        1. @Gabriel please share with us how the inane professors reading assignments are valid to the Writing Center’s mission to help students become better writers (since they failed when they were on HS)

          Please enlighten us with your vast knowledge!!

    2. The center must be ideology free, yes. But that doesn’t mean that those who work in the center must forswear all ideology; it only means that they must keep their ideology bottled up while performing their duties. It seems clear that his supervisors did not do this.

  14. This loony bin’s leaders should be forced to watch this past season of South Park.
    What a stupid, insane, evil institution.
    Thank God I was never exposed to its wacked out twisted lunacy.

  15. I for one am proud of you Mr. Glick. Stick to your convictions. The world has become an ugly and topsy turvy place where right is wrong and wrong is right. I wish you all the luck in the world.

  16. Mr. Glick,

    You’re in the right, namely, you have a right to speak your mind and present a counter argument. Both sides should be heard. But you’re surround by a culture of Neo-McCarthyites, fascists, and ideological bigots. “Safe Space” is just another phrase for “A Zone Where My Bigotry Won’t Be Questioned.”

    A bigot is someone intolerant, and they seem quite unable to tolerate your views, although they didn’t force you out. Unfortunately, you stepped down.

    As to these three “educators,” Bromley, Liu-Rojas, and Snell, they seem to only care about superficial diversity. Do they want diversity or more people to think like them?

    Perhaps you should have stayed on, kept up the argument, blogged & written about it, and continued to expose their bigotry, if indeed that’s what it is. That would have been a story.

    Good luck,

    Caleb

  17. Perhaps the Socialist Academics should assign a fellow well versed as a Black Racist with a full knowledge of the Ebonics vocabulary and the ignorance associated with it to oversee this class. Employers are in great need of college grads with the writing skills matching those of the illegal.

  18. Modern academia has destroyed universities. It must be very difficult to study any actual subject without having these democrat totalitarian fascist oligarchs mislead you and teach you nonsense that has nothing to do with your degree.

  19. I only know Steve Glick a little bit through conventions and sideways meetings through friends. But as an editor, and a big reader, I know how important writing is to him, and I know a little bit about his politics, because he’s been public about them. I don’t like the way the situation sounds, and it would not be the first time that a university was accused of going to far to try and be “fair” to everyone, while being unfair to those with rightist beliefs. I wish Steve had been more explicit about how they asked him about his political views. Even still, a discussion about his behavior not being ok should have focused on that. I can’t imagine any reason to discuss politics or any other topic.
    I think investigating the situation is a good idea, as it sounds poorly done at worst, unprofessional at best.

  20. Thanks for sharing this. As the parent of a high school senior, I can affirm that no child of mine will spend a cent of my money at a university with this kind of bias. Bromley, Liu-Rojas, and Snell have just driven away another student. Good luck on your enrollment.

  21. Thanks for sharing your debacle with us writers and others. Very unfortunate the leaders of your group have turned a simple writing instruction and assistance group into a political indoctrination center.

  22. There is a saying, or is it from an old song, but it goes like this.

    “To live outside the law you must be honest”. That saying is a rebel’s yell, a statement of defiance.

    Let places like this writing center cater to the mentally ill and emotional cripples. Young people who need safe spaces are not worth anyone’s time. Let them simmer and burn in the **** of their own making. The only answer is to turn our backs on them.

    We have a right of freedom of association and it would be wise to exercise that right outside the control of the Professor Bromleys, Ms. Liu-Rojas, and Ms. Snells of this world. If you don’t play their game, they don’t have a game. Association with these kinds of neo fascists enables them. Once you realize that simple truth you are free to do as you please.

    Anyone can start a writing center off campus and staff it with people who believe in the freedom of ideas. Underground papers can be produced and printed for peanuts today. There are so many ways to combat academic tyranny, outside their domain and without their consent. If you are smart enough to go to an elite school then prove it, work the problem and stop complaining.

  23. In the 60s liberals fought for freedom on campuses, now they fight to suppress it. Glick should get some kind of special award for dealing with these three stooges. Keep up the good fight.

    What’s the status on the administrative investigation into this situation? I’m not holding my breath!

  24. I would love to see Mr. Glick set up a “go fund me” site and file suit against these three individuals and Pomona College for these actions. The financial support for Mr. Glick would be overwhelming and the outcome would likely force Pomona to clean up this mess and ensure it doesn’t happen so blatantly again.

    I’d like to be the first donor.

    Those who can do. Those who can’t teach.

  25. After reading this article (and many others in The Claremont Independent), I am debating wether I should apply to Pomona. Initially, the college looked great, although I’ve had some doubts about wether I should go to Pomona or PMC. However, I am now unsure of if I want to be a student at either. I feel that I, as a libertarian, will have some trouble.
    At the same time, I can’t find anywhere that looks better…

  26. After reading this article (and many others in The Claremont Independent), I am debating wether I should apply to Pomona. Initially, the college looked great, although I’ve had some doubts about wether I should go to Pomona or CMC. However, I am now unsure of if I want to be a student at either. I feel that I, as a libertarian, will have some trouble.
    At the same time, I can’t find anywhere that looks better…

    1. Zach, Pomona and CMC are great schools where you’ll find many students, staff, and professors who share your libertarian leanings. Don’t surrender to the shrill voices and look elsewhere. Help drive change from within. Pomona alum and father.

  27. After reading this article (and many others in The Claremont Independent), I am debating wether I should apply to Pomona. Initially, the college looked great, although I’ve had some doubts about wether I should go to Pomona or CMC. However, I am now unsure of if I want to be a student at either. I feel that I, as a libertarian, will have some trouble.
    At the same time, I can’t find anywhere that looks better…

  28. After reading this article (and many others in The Claremont Independent), I am debating wether I should apply to Pomona. Initially, the college looked great, although I’ve had some doubts about wether I should go to Pomona or CMC. However, I am now unsure of if I want to be a student at either. I feel that I, as a libertarian, will have some trouble.
    At the same time, I can’t find anywhere that looks better…

  29. After reading this article (and many others in The Claremont Independent), I am debating wether I should apply to Pomona. Initially, the college looked great, although I’ve had some doubts about wether I should go to Pomona or CMC. However, I am now unsure of if I want to be a student at either. I feel that I, as a libertarian, will have some trouble.
    At the same time, I can’t find anywhere that looks better…

  30. This is where the country is headed. Since people like the leadership at the Pomona Writing Center or unable to win in the theater of ideas and debate, the best way to win the argument is through intimidation and bullying. We are quickly headed down the path of only one acceptable way of thinking, speaking, and behaving, and if you don’t think, speak, and behave like they want then who knows what they will come up with. Do the term “re-education camps” ring a bell with anyone?

  31. A few points:

    1. Holding you accountable to the curricular goals of the program is not called “harassment.” That is called holding you accountable to carry out the job you were hired to do. All jobs are like that. In the adult world you don’t get to write your own job description.
    2. Your university has chosen to find ways to address the facts of systematic social inequality, social facts supported by decades of scientific evidence. Therefore, is it your position:
    a) that inequality does not exist? If so, can you present a body of evidence refuting the inequality in rates of incarceration, income, home ownership, access to education, access to loans, etc.?
    b) that inequality does exist and you oppose acknowledging those facts because you enjoy the advantages you enjoy as a white male?
    c) that inequality does exist but you oppose having to engage with these facts because they make you uncomfortable?
    d) that inequality does exist but learning to critique inequality is somehow incompatible and cannot be productively incorporated into writing pedagogy? If so, what body of pedagogical research can you cite in support of this position?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *