Toward the end of the first part of The St’s Martin Sourcebook for Writing Tutors, Murphy and Sherwood wrote, in “On Becoming an Effective Tutor” that “we believe that assisting others is best achieved in an informed practice that blends experience, theory and reflection” (24). At this point, I kept asking myself “Am I ready to be a tutor?”; I flipped through the course syllable, wondering how far I have made it through this course, how much time left before I have to go into the real battle, to be on my own as a tutor at the writing center. That was scary, I admitted.

I reflected on my own qualifications: experience? Well, many people say I’ll be okay because I used to be an ESL learner myself, so I probably might be able to help other ESL learners since I have been struggling to learn English composition, just like them. Still, the thought of me as a writing consultant is scary because sometimes I find it hard to find the right words to communicate with others, especially native speakers of English. Also, having been spent some time observing tutorials at the Writing Center, I come to the conclusion that there is no fixed rule/theory about tutoring. Writing consultant needs to be flexible because all writers are unique in their own way so does all tutors. How about theory? Well, I browsed through the book again, trying to recall what I have learnt from those essay and in-class discussions. In North’s The Idea of a Writing Center, he argued that writing center is not a fix-it workshop. That is the center does more than just deal with English usage and punctuation. Lunsford called for collaborative environment in the writing center while Murphy compared tutors to psychotherapies and clients to those who come “hurt” and need to be addressed with “unconditional positive regard”. The latter ideology aroused quite a great deal of criticism from my classmates. The philosophy of Minimalist Tutoring, advocated by Brooks, is to avoid being proofreader/editor as much as possible. Nonetheless, what I found interesting the most is the one written by Anne Dipardo. In her essay—“Whispers of Coming and Going”: Lessons from Fannie, Dipardo analyzed tutorial sessions between a tutor, Morgan, and Fannie, a Native American student. I like this essay because it prompts me to be culturally sensitive because not many people share similar way of life with me, so I need to be cautious when tutoring.

This week readings are about censorship and student’s paper revision. The former one about censorship particularly intrigues me. The author, Steve Sherwood, discussed whether tutors should censor writer’s ideas that are perceived as “sexist or racist” statements or that endorse “particular political causes” or ideas that offend others. It is undecided which option tutors can do because censoring students would mean limiting their development and expression of ideas. Worse, by censoring, tutors are exercising “oppressive authority” over students. Nevertheless, without censorship on harmful ideas, tutors lose the chance of reforming ideas that are considers “hate speech”. According to Rodney A. Smolla, it is our obligation to act against “hate speech” which he described as “an abomination, a rape of human dignity” (qtq. in Sherwood, 134).

But what is that that we perceive as “a rape of human dignity”? Sherwood’s experience with the student who was probably using “sexist” ideas against women reminds me of some beliefs in my country. Actually, lots of men (and women) in my country share similar belief. However, culturally, it is not viewed as a discrimination against women; rather it is an honor for them. Perhaps, something we consider bad in our country does not mean the same in others (e.g female circumcision). Again, I’m not a supporter of any “sexist or racist” type of thing. What I want to say here is that, by trying to reform things we consider immoral or heretical, are we not trying to reform their cultural belief as well? According to Freed, “if we are intervening in student’s ideas and opinions because they offend our sensibilities or run afoul of our political agendas, then such intervention is probably not ethical and many amount to censorhip” (qtq. in Sherwood 133). I think the least we can do is to convince those writers to express their argument in a respectful manner. As Sherwood suggested, “in deciding whether to urge self-censorship, we must balance the harm students’ words might do, to themselves and their audiences, against our respect for their right to hold and express even the most aberrant of opinion” (136).