It's aQuestion ofFaith: Discourses of Fundamentalism ... - JAC Online

Discoursesof Fundementalism 345
forcontestandinterrogation,Luke'sresponsessetinto sharpreliefmy investmentin
having the texts read in the ways that I desired, and I felt especiallyvulnerable in
responding to histexts. I didn't want to be accusedofbeingpoliticallybiasedinthe
waysthat most ofthe students, includingLuke, feltteachersofthiscoursewere. At
the same time, likeJody Swilky, I believethat teachers' responses should invite
students "to analyze conflicting ideologies, sothey might begin to attain critical
understandingofwhy they holdcertaincommitmentsandwhy they resistalternative
waysofthinking" ("ResistingDifference"28).Thus,IwantedLuketo complicatethe
waysthat hewasreadingthesetextsor at leastrecognizethat hisreadingsarepartial
and situatedthrough the lensofhisfundamentalist assumptions. In respondingto
histexts, then, most of my comments tended to be inthe form of questions, asking
formore explicationor explanationofhisresponses.For instance,when Lukewrote
that the writer of "Lot's Wife"wastakingatwentieth-century approach to abiblical
story, I wrote, "Yes,I think you're right. Why do you think this writer took this
approach?"In responseto Luke's paperon "ParaTeresa"that Teresa'sactionswere
anattempt to deny"thefatethatwasinevitabIe,"Iwrote "Whatfateareyou describing
asinevitable?"Next to his statement that the aimsof the two girlswere the same,I
wrote "How wouldyou describetheseaims?"andinmy endcommentsIasked,"What
doyou think abouttheconclusionwhen shesaysI respectyou andI callyou my sister?
How doessheviewhersuccessinrelationto the other girl?"Ithought thesequestions
might prove helpful to Luke asherevisedhispapersfor hisportfolio. Iwaswrong.
Luke includedhispapersto both "ParaTeresa"and"Lot'sWife"inhisportfolio
but hisonly revisionswerein spellingandcommausage.Surprisedthat Luke hadn't
revised,especiallywhen he had saidin classthat hewanted an "A" in the course, I
attributed hislackofrevisionto the other priorities in hislife.As agymnast, hehad
aheetictournament schedule,andhewasalsoworkingon thecollaborativepaperdue
atthe end0 ftheterm. However,Luke'sinterviewwith Mindyoffersperhapsanother
reason why he did not reviseany of his responsepapers. In assessingthe ways that
I respondedto histexts,Lukesaysthat my margincomments arebiasedbecausethey
reflectmy own positions:
She's supposed to be this unbiased grader. You present your viewpoints and the grade, not
grade for the content of ideas, but for grammar and punctuation and development of ideas.
That kind of thing. And, you know, I don't think she did that. She did that but she tended to
giveyou hints and stuff in the margins that got you thinking-more alongwhat she wanted to
hear. (3-16-93).
Luke's viewthat textsshould beevaluatedsolelyon grammar andpunctuation and
not on the content ofideasis,ofcourse,commonly shared.The dichotomy between
form andcontent iswell-establishedincurrent traditionalapproachesto writing, and
itiscertainlyaviewwithwhichmostofmy studentsagreed.Eventhough wediscussed
the relationship between form andcontent inthe textsthat we readthroughout the
term, Luke's prior assumptionsthat studenttextsshouldbereadandevaluatedsolely
in terms of superficial features remained strong. But Luke's comments suggest
another possiblereasonwhy hechosenotto revisehisresponsepapers.Luke'snotion