Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future
The title shows the focused, targeted scope of this book. However, Inoue’s argument is contextualized within a broad spectrum of rhet/comp theory and integrations from other disciplines. It is a book about the racial politics that Inoue perceives in writing classrooms, but his examples are drawn exclusively from his own experiences. The introduction and first three chapters are rich in foundational scaffolding as Inoue posits that teaching writing is essentially a racist activity anchored in what he labels “white racial habitus.” Inoue references not only established rhet/comp scholars including Peter Elbow, Victor Villanueva, Kenneth Burke, Paulo Freire, and many others, but also Shakespeare, Antonio Gramsci, Michael Omi, Howard Winant, Sigmund Freud, and a diverse assortment of figures from interesting disciplines that he connects to his writing assessment ecologies. Whether or not we agree with his assertion about “white racial habitus” dominating the teaching of writing, we have to acknowledge that he makes a compelling case for the way racism can creep into writing classrooms, especially in decisions about assessment. A glossary of terms and names would have been extremely helpful. And there is no index. In a book like this one, where the author is building a case for a position that resists the status quo, having ready access to names and ideas he integrates would have made the reading experience much more accessible. While this would be a fine book to include in graduate classes, students would have to do quite a bit of supplementary, supporting reading to fully comprehend Inoue’s discussion. The list of References would be an excellent resource for graduate students exploring the pillars of rhetoric and composition studies.
Given Inoue’s starting premises that writing classrooms support racism, that writing assessment harms students, and that social justice and equity are not promoted in writing classrooms, I have to say that this is a very biased book. There is never a consideration that some classrooms, some writing instructors might in fact actually be promoting social justice and equity and fair assessment practices in their classrooms. This failure to acknowledge the good work being done by instructors in college classrooms all over the U.S. creates an obstacle to easy acceptance of Inoue’s fundamental claims about racism. To the extent that Inoue’s ideas are shaped by his own experiences as a child, we have to say the content of the book is “accurate” since his view of teaching and assessing writing is founded on the unfairness he felt he experienced socially and academically. Regardless of whether the book is unbiased or fair, it definitely engages you as a reader because you are constantly stopping to fully consider Inoue’s accusatory comments. Yes, his tone seems consistently accusatory and absolute with no consideration of other views. Take for example, his assertion in Chapter 4 that “[students] get no say in grading.” I suspect that most college writing instructors would vehemently disagree with that statement. Nonetheless, because of his passion in his fight for equity and grading justice, we are compelled to read carefully, attentively, and even respectfully. In other words, while the tone seems biased and terribly one-sided, he makes us think, he makes us want to change what we are doing to make sure we are creating antiracist writing classroom ecologies.
Inoue’s ideas about labor-based contract grading have been embraced by the rhet/comp community, so this foundational book will stay relevant as a platform for continued discussions. Since he is a prolific scholar, the “updates” and expansions are readily available in Inoue’s newer publications and presentations.
The introduction and chapters 1-3 are extremely dense not because they are badly written but because the amount of supporting information Inoue draws on is overwhelming and at times seems like deep background. Thus, the writing cannot be described as “lucid.” Some context is provided for terms and concepts, but full understanding, especially when he draws on ideas from far outside rhet/comp, calls for stopping in mid chapter to look up his references so as to fully comprehend his arguments. Of course, this enriches our individual knowledge of the issues, but it’s also frustrating to feel lost in Inoue’s discussion and to have to read and reread to ensure that no relevant point has been missed. And, since there is no index or glossary, previous references to the topics or individuals mentioned cannot be checked in the text.
This is a book centered on the idea that “white racial habitus” pervades and persists in writing classrooms. It is the starting assertion in the book and it is the core of every chapter. And from the opening pages, there is the expectation that after all the premises are laid out, there will be an illustration of what an antiracist writing assessment ecology looks like. While Chapter 4 (which is over 100 pages long) provides anecdotal evidence from Inoue’s classrooms, there is never a full syllabus to illuminate the framework for a class built on antiracist writing assessment ecologies.
This is a highly self-referential text with Inoue constantly citing his previous work (citations of his previous works take up a full page of the References). His citation of a vast assortment of other scholars is impressive, prompting readers to interrupt their reading to look up cited articles and books. Chapter 4 where he finally explains what a writing assessment ecology of writing might look like in a classroom is over 100 pages long, which is about one third of the content of the book. If this book were to be assigned in a class, it would be a good idea to start with Chapter 5, where Inoue clearly explains how he came to feel that his writing didn’t matter (based on how his teachers focused on errors in his writing). Inoue’s personal story informs his “white racial habitus” mindset about writing classrooms, and it offers important context for the Introduction and then Chapters 1-3. While there are level 1 subheadings in the chapters, level 2 and level 3 headings would have made this a much more modularly accessible text.
Chapter 5 should be the Introduction. The current Introduction and Chapters 1-3 offer a compelling argument about what Inoue perceives to be “white racial habitus” in writing classrooms. Compelling but not necessarily persuasive. Overall, there is clarity as the Introduction and Chapter 1-3 set up definitions, premises, and conclusions, and Chapters 4 provides some illustration of what Inoue considers an antiracist writing assessment ecology. A notable missing feature of this book is a full syllabus that would have enabled instructors and students to see how such a class could be set up. There should have been an Appendix C with a full, sample syllabus.
This is a straightforward, ordinary text. There are a few figures to enhance the discussion, including one example of student work that includes highlighting and an inset shaded box. The full PDF download from Open Textbook does not allow highlighting, and that, in my opinion, limits usability. The ebook chapter-by-chapter download allows highlighting and comments, but, if you like moving back and forth as you read perhaps to check earlier references to a topic or name and to reinforce understanding of ideas, you are limited to the single chapter you’ve downloaded.
This is arguable. Inoue clearly enjoys playing with language and there are some nuanced syntactic and semantic structures. A lot of sentences require repeated readings because of the interesting syntax, which occasionally drifts into questionable constructions, as if the sentence derailed at some point and was not ever revised.
I think that some white readers would find Inoue’s theory of “white racial habitus” offensive. He is unapologetic about his stance, asserting that writing classrooms are racist because they promote dominant discourses and ideologies. The chapters, however, do make us think about our own classrooms, critically and reflectively. Inoue’s “evidence” for his theory is his experience in teaching at Fresno State, and his examples integrate voices from Hmong, Latino, Asian, African-American, and white students. Additionally, he asserts that white students who are used to being “at the top of the grading pyramid” tend not to like the labor-based contract grading approach. So, there is notable racial insensitivity, but as Inoue points out repeatedly, there needs to be resistance to the hegemony that, in his opinion, pervades classrooms.
Every college writing instructor should read this book, slowly, reflectively, with an eye toward changing what we do in the classroom. It is far more a book about holistic pedagogy than a book about writing assessment. The explanation of how classrooms are ecological systems can truly make one think about what we do in our classroom. The discussion of the seven elements of classroom assessment ecologies—power, parts, purpose, people, processes, products, places—contextualizes pedagogy into an integrated whole. These principles are shown in lucid diagram form on p. 176 of the book, a diagram that perhaps should be featured earlier in the book as a reference point. Reading this book, even if you don’t buy into the labor-based contract approach, will change how you teach. In a graduate class, this book would be a great anchor text, but it would have to be balanced with other works that present comprehensive aspects of assessment and teaching and social justice. Nonetheless, this is a compelling, highly engaging book. I’ve read it several times and each time brings new discoveries, new ways of thinking about teaching.
This is a good book for a graduate class focused either on pedagogy or on social justice. It is too complex for most undergraduate classes; however, Chapter 5, which is narrative in tone and structure, can be used as a launching point for discussions of students' own experiences with racism or perceived unfair assessment of their writing.