“How to Play the Game”: Tutors’ Complicated Perspectives on Practicing Anti-racism

Faith Thompson
Salisbury University
fsears1@gulls.salisbury.edu

Abstract
I interviewed four current writing center tutors who self- identified as antiracist to answer the questions of: How do self-identified antiracist writing tutors at a university writing center define and practice antiracism? What factors limit these practices? After collection, I analyzed the data in three rounds, once inductively, and twice deductively, using a critical whiteness conceptual framework. Tutors suggested education on linguistic justice and code-switching, centering student voice, and disrupting power dynamics as key orientations in their self-identified antiracist practice. However, it was also found that tutors employed a White Educational Discourse throughout the interviews, often avoiding words and letting others off the hook, limiting the effectiveness of these orientations. Further, it was found that tutors often located antiracist practices in areas of the writing center ecosystem that were outside of their control, such as the purpose of the writing center. This study does not seek to criticize writing center tutors, but rather to provide insight into the effectiveness, opportunities, and limitations of antiracist praxis at writing centers. To conclude, I offer questions implicated in this study and directions for further research.

After the 2020 police murder of George Floyd, antiracist efforts at writing centers have seen a resurgent interest across the U.S. (Basta & Smith 63) mirroring other institutions. Antiracism is commonly defined as the active act of expressing ideas such as racial equality and supporting policies that reduce systemic racial inequity (Kendi 1). Many writing centers used this momentum to issue antiracist statements, host antiracist book clubs, and take up the cause of linguistic justice; however, antiracism was not a new concept at writing centers. Linguistic justice is “an antiracist approach to language and literacy education. It is about dismantling Anti Black Linguistic Racism and white linguistic hegemony and supremacy in classrooms and in the world” (Baker-Bell 7). Seminal rhetoric and composition scholar Villanueva is oft-cited as having popularized an antiracist movement in U.S. writing centers during his 2005 keynote address at the International Writing Centers Association (see Coenen, et. al., 2019; Condon, 2007; Denny 2010; Greenfield, 2011; Grimm, 2011; Inoue, 2016; Johnson, 2011; Kern, 2019; Ozaias & Godbee, 2011; Young, 2011). With that said, he was not the first scholar to engage in this work at the writing center, although it may not have been labeled as such (see Grimm, 1999).

Many writing centers were unable to “sustain critical and difficult discussions about race,” (Greenfield and Rowan, “Introduction” 2) and antiracist efforts became part of broader race-neutral equity and anti-oppression discussions (Condon 20; Inoue 94). Given that antiracist efforts at writing centers have lost momentum before, and the tendency for antiracism to be used as a buzzword (Spaulding, et. al. 4), there is a gap in research on how antiracism is actually practiced by writing center tutors from the tutors themselves. Recent literature has begun to delineate potential practices (See Camarillo, 2019 and Garcia, 2017), but tutor voice is largely absent, with only a few studies written or informed by tutors themselves. As tutors are the ones interacting with students and executing the mission of their writing centers daily, research with writing center tutors can provide insight into the practice of antiracism at writing centers that may help sustain current antiracist discourse. This study seeks to support the developing knowledge base of tutors’ internalization and actual practices of antiracism at writing centers.

The Function of Racism at Writing Centers

Although, “Writing centers could complain that Villanueva is shifting the burden of a long-standing social ill to the shoulders of those with the least institutional power,” (Grimm 78), Denny argues that writing centers are “culpable in the social forces around us and have an obligation to speak into, reflect on, and disrupt them when appropriate” (44). As such, the literature has established three major functions of racism in writing centers where it is appropriate for tutors to “speak into, reflect on, and disrupt.” First, student writing brought to the writing center can perpetuate racism and racist ideologies. Tutors can and should disrupt racist thinking in student writing by challenging students whose work makes racist claims or claims there is no racism (Coenen, et. al. 14; Condon 20; Greenfield and Rowan, “Beyond” 125; Suhr-Sytsma & Brown 21; Villanueva 4). Secondly, writing centers are often on the margins of campus as well, meaning students who use writing centers are seen as “outsiders” to university systems. Lockett describes writing centers as “Academic Ghettos,” that isolate and organize students of color into tangential or hidden spaces on campus (20). Additionally, the physical space and geography of writing centers often mimics white domestic spaces (Grimm 75; Haltiwanger-Morrison & Nanton), further isolating students of color who seek writing center support. Lastly, writing centers can function as a gate-keeper to academia where students come to be “fixed.” This study largely concerns this function of racism at writing centers.

Writing centers have traditionally been viewed as “fix-it” sites where professors send students, often students whose first language is not Standardized American English (SAE), to have their papers “corrected” grammatically (North 433). North (433) argued that writing centers are misunderstood as a place where papers get fixed and, instead, posited that writing centers “fix” writers. While this argument generated a shift towards writing process support over surface editing in writing center best practices, it has been critiqued in antiracist literature. For example, Grayson & Nayanara argue the idea of “fixing writers” reinforces deficit thinking about students in writing centers (172). Kern (45) notes this perspective leads tutors to teach students to write like they do, which likely means students will be taught to write in SAE, as does Johnson (222). Grimm argues that this perspective places the onus on the individual rather than the systemic expectation of SAE (88). Camarillo (70) made a case for writing centers to be seen as border processing centers through reinforcement of SAE. They argue that writing centers, especially at Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), are assimilating sites where students are regulated and told they either belong or do not belong at the university depending on their linguistic acculturation to SAE. They argue that SAE is not just a tool for academic success, but represents the erasure of students’ other linguistic tools and languages. The most significant criticism of North’s argument about “fixing” writers is how it reinforces the gate-keeping position of writing centers through the privileging of SAE (Basta and Smith 60; Cogie 229; Inoue 95; Young 66), both structurally and within tutoring sessions.

Antiracism at the Writing Center

While there is no silver bullet to dismantling racism in writing centers (Faison et. al. 6), the literature on SAE suggests linguistic justice may be a direction towards antiracist praxis. Writing centers, therefore, have the potential to disrupt the gate-keeping authority of SAE and university systems (Alvarez 88; Denny 45; Shelton & Howson 78). In 2019, Alvarez asked us “What can writing center administrators do to make sure all languages are accepted and respected in their writing centers?” (89). In answering this, scholars are divided on how best to address language discrimination practices at writing centers. Inoue (98) proposed an antiracist writing assessment ecology in which tutors do not rank or judge writing as “correct” or “incorrect” and try to provide multiple perspectives when giving feedback. Young (64) theorized code-meshing, a practice in which writers are encouraged to use non-standard Englishes and other languages in conjunction with SAE in academic writing. This theory opposes code-switching, where students utilize non-standard Englishes outside of school contexts and adhere to SAE in academic and written discourse, which has been criticized as a linguistic form of “separate but equal” (Kern 47). Denny (45) and Greenfield further this discussion by challenging the common notion that code-switching will mean success. Alvarez suggests that tutors learn about Students’ Right to Their Own Language to better serve multilingual students (88). Grayson & Nayanara (173), along with Lockett (27), argue writing centers should offer no grammatical editing services in response to language discrimination. However, Cirrilo-McCarthy, et. al. (64), argue that this approach further disenfranchises students of color, especially non-native English speakers. What is agreed upon across the literature is that antiracism must be practiced by tutors, not just taught theoretically in their training and professional development.

Despite this, much of the literature addresses directors’ intentions and reflections upon antiracist tutor training, with little attention given to how tutors actually operationalize such approaches. Further, tutor voice is largely absent from the body of work on antiracism at writing centers despite the possibility of tutors as theorists of race and racism (Garcia 41). Although some studies focus on tutor resistance to race talk and why that might be the case (see Kern 2019), existing literature on tutor’s perspectives show that tutors are internalizing concepts of antiracism and linguistic justice at writing centers. However, they may struggle with the actual implementation of such practices. For example, Coenen et. al., a group of writing center tutors who implemented a training program for tutors to support them in addressing race and racism within student writing, found that tutors were still unlikely to address race and when they did, responded with minimal effort and disruption (17). This is similar to Johnson’s finding that tutors were uncomfortable addressing race with students, and usually attempted to change student writing that addresses issues of race or ignored the content of student writing that addressed race to focus on grammar instead (221). Suhr-Sytsma found that tutors felt it “was not their place” to correct oppressive ideas in student writing, unless those ideas were unintentionally expressed (36). More recent literature shows more promise for challenging racism, such as Basta and Smith’s recollection of tutor’s reactions to a potential hire who demonstrated traditional “fix-it” mentality, emphasizing what they had learned about linguistic justice. Overall, literature that centers the tutor’s perspective rather than writing center directors’ perspectives is still underresearched.

Current Study’s Context

The research questions that guided this study are as follows: How do self-identified antiracist writing tutors at a university writing center define and practice antiracism? What factors limit these practices? To answer my research questions, IRB-approved data was collected at a university writing center in the southwestern region of the U.S. in the fall of 2021 with the consent of the writing center and its tutors.

Denny identifies a need to turn to HSIs and Historically Black Colleges and Universities when conducting writing center research (6). In particular, these institutions may provide insight on linguistic justice and antiracism due to their diverse demographics in which more students may identify as multilingual or dialect speakers. In this study, the university is a public post-secondary HSI in which 33.3% of students identify as Hispanic. Overall, 50.3% of the student body identifies as students of color with the rest identifying as white. In terms of faculty, 24.22% identify as people of color, with 9.23% identifying as Hispanic. For staff, 32.93% identify as people of color, and 18.49% as Hispanic.

The writing center has 29 employees. Out of these 29 employees, 25 are white-presenting during data collection, which does not represent the demographics of the student body. The writing center emphasizes their equity priorities, providing an actionable antiracist statement in addition to their mission statement, stating the role language plays in racism. Antiracist training efforts for tutors included a session on linguistic justice, SAE, and white supremacy during annual professional development and optional book clubs. They also established a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) oriented committee as part of their antiracist commitment. The DEI committee is a four-person committee. The committee had just finished reading Linguistic Justice by Amy Baker-Bell and was developing a linguistic justice statement to disperse amongst university professors at the time of this research. This statement, as well as one directed towards students, has since been published prominently on the writing center website.

Critical Whiteness Framework

I adopted a critical whiteness framework to identify limitations to the tutors’ antiracist definitions and practices within writing centers. Whiteness can be defined as “embodied racial power” (Bonilla-Silva 156) by which those identified as white receive systemic privileges by virtue of their whiteness and are upheld by structures and ideologies that sustain white racial power. Colorblindness, the belief that one can be race-neutral and not “see” race (Bonilla-Silva 2) and Mill’s Epistemology of Ignorance, meaning the false belief in whites’ racial ignorance (15), are commonly identified as key critiques of whiteness. These structures and ideologies lead people to internalize whiteness, a phenomenon studied by critical whiteness scholars. In this study, I understood internalized whiteness to be a limitation to the practice of antiracism as internalized whiteness is a function of systemic racism that exists within writing centers, writing center tutors, and all facets of societal life. Systemic racism occurs at all levels of writing center work, affecting professors, students, and consultants.

Positionality

I am a white, female identifying former graduate writing center tutor and researcher whose speech is typically heard as SAE. I did not work at the writing center where this study took place. Similar to the participants, my research and understanding of antiracism is limited by internalized whiteness. In this study, I interrogated how whiteness impacts the practices of tutors, but I am not critiquing the participating tutors nor do I aim to position myself as a “good antiracist white.'' This research is an offering to help tutors develop a more truly antiracist practice that aligns with their commitments and beliefs.

Methods

Although eight tutors were invited in total, only four female identifying writing center tutors participated in this study. All names used are pseudonyms. Three were white (Kay, Lily, and Sarahanne) and one was Black (Maria). Racial demographics of this study were representative of the writing center itself despite the limited sample size. Three tutors were part of the DEI committee (Lily, Maria, and Sarahanne), and three were peer (undergraduate) writing consultants (Kay, Lily, and Maria). Sarahanne was the only professional (graduate) writing consultant, and the leader of the DEI committee. As a requirement for participation, participants all self-identified as anti-racist practitioners regardless of membership within the DEI committee. At least one participant was from the southwest, and all but Sarahanne was a student at or alumni of the university where the writing center was located.

Participant recruitment was done through soliciting recommendations for new participants from past participants. Kay was selected after my personal conversations with them following antiracist professional development outside of our writing centers. Kay referred Lily and Maria, colleagues of theirs on the DEI committee. Maria referred Sarahanne.

I interviewed Kay, Lily, Maria, and Sarahanne separately using the same semi-structured protocol (see fig. 6 for a list of the guiding questions). The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and research memos were written after as part of early analysis. Interviews ranged from 35-60 minutes each. Additionally, Kay was observed in a writing session with a client for 45 minutes. The observation was not recorded, but I took detailed field notes and wrote a research memo afterwards to capture my initial reflections and further observations. All interviews and observations were conducted through Zoom. Recordings were then uploaded into transcription software Otter.Ai, and I reviewed the transcripts for errors. I coded the interview transcripts in three phases. The first phase was inductive descriptive coding. During the second phase, I used deductive concept coding drawn from Poe and Inoue’s Ecological Guide to Antiracist Writing Assessment (14) and for antiracist definitions and practices. This study views writing centers as microsystems within the broader ecosystems of universities and colleges. Using Poe & Inoue’s Ecological Guide to Antiracist Writing Assessment (14) to define the microsystem of writing centers, I looked at seven areas that antiracist practices at the writing center can show up: purpose, process, power, parts, people, places, and products. I used this framework to focus my study of antiracist practices at a writing center by locating the areas in which these practices might occur. An example of such coding is an instance when Kay explained what the antiracist statement issued by the writing center said, which was coded as “purpose.” This statement, which is an addition to the mission statement that guides the purpose of this writing center, is an example of when antiracism is being practiced within the purpose of the writing center (see Fig. 1 for more examples of antiracist practices in each area from the literature).

Lastly, in the third phase, I used deductive concept coding drawn from a critical whiteness framework described in the next section. In order to measure this internalized whiteness, I adapted Haviland’s White Educational Discourse framework (44). Haviland identified 15 ways that people discuss race, racism, and white supremacy in power- and race-evasive, colorblind terms. See fig. 2 for the definitions of eight forms of WED that align with colorblindness and the epistemology of ignorance: Avoiding Words, False Starts, Safe Self-Critique, Asserting Ignorance or Uncertainty, Letting Others off the Hook, Citing Authority, Changing the Topic, and Silence.

I employed eight of Haviland’s White Educational Discourse (WED) to code for instances where the internalized whiteness of tutors specifically limited their practice of antiracism. When coding, I did not just look for WED within the interview, but also within the practices and processes described. An example of this is when Sarahanne stated, “I really came about this the wrong way…” and expressed regret at not having been aware of linguistic prejudice and racism in the past. This was coded as “safe self-critique” because, while Sarahanne did offer a critique of themself, it was of their past self and laid the groundwork for their redemption in the present. This was also coded as people because it regards a specific individual. In the analysis, codes were later quantified by frequency (see fig. 3 and 4).

Sites of Antiracist Practice

Throughout the interview, participants discussed their beliefs about and practices of antiracism at the writing center 94 times in ways that identified with parts of the writing center ecosystem. Out of these, people, power, and process were the most prevalent (31%, 23%, and 17% respectively). The participants viewed the practice of antiracism largely through an interpersonal lens, identifying individual interactions (people and process), but also recognized the need for more systemic action (power). See Fig. 3 for the percentage of each part of writing center ecosystems that were discussed by participants.

Overall, tutors located potential antiracist practices in parts of the writing center ecosystem where they had little control. For example, Maria suggested that tutors’ races should be made available to clients beforehand, which is a “people” decision that she would not have control over. Only 17% of the 94 times tutors’ responses were coded as identifying with a part of the writing center ecosystem controllable by tutors (often the “process” of sessions). Repeatedly, tutors shared what they actually say to clients, and how they give feedback, which was labeled as process and understood to be controllable by tutors themselves. Interestingly, Maria, Lily, and Kay all positioned themselves as in control of the process as well, sharing that they support students in editing their work despite it being a practice that the writing center did not want tutors to use when giving feedback. References to self-education on antiracism by the tutors were not labeled as part of the writing center ecology; however, if the education was a result of training at the writing center or otherwise involved with the center itself, it was coded as parts (e.g. reading Linguistic Justice).

Tutors’ Antiracist Definitions and Practices

All of the participants identified linguistic justice as the core of practicing antiracism at writing centers and recognized that antiracism is an active process, not passive. For example, Sarahanne defined antiracism the writing center as:

actively…working towards, I would say, equity, where everyone’s language is not just accepted, but like…understood. I feel like that’s a big part of why there’s this injustice with languages, that they’re not all understood. And so, for the writing center, in regards to the language piece, I feel like that’s it, like we’re actively working towards it and educating ourselves as to what those different languages look like.

Here, Sarahanne identifies one of the active antiracist practices these tutors employed: educating others on linguistic justice and SAE.

Throughout the interviews, participants highlighted such linguistic justice education efforts. Kay spoke extensively about the public antiracist book club run by the center, and the DEI committee members explained that they had spent the most recent semester reading books on language discrimination and meeting with linguists in efforts to educate themselves. In extending education efforts outside of the writing center, tutors shared that one of the DEI committee’s goals is to develop an antiracist stance on SAE that can be distributed to university professors.

Educating students on code-switching and code-meshing as part of this practice came up several times in the interviews. Although the tutors identified SAE as a function of white supremacy in academia, most believed code-switching between SAE and students’ home languages was an important tool for the academic success of all students. However, only two of the tutors, Lily and Maria, reported educating students on code-switching and code-meshing. Sarahanne and Kay did not report including students in this discussion on code-switching, but both stated they did not feel it was appropriate to engage in conversations about racialized topics with the clients, as it was not likely to be the students’ priority when attending a session at the writing center (see Internalized Whiteness as a Limitation for Sarahanne’s explicit reasoning).

Interestingly, though Maria was the most adamantly opposed to using SAE (“SAE is bullshit”), they also framed the choice for students as one of success or not. Maria emphasized that students should have a choice in whether or not to code-switch, noting that they tell them:

Here's how to play the game. If you want to play the game and be successful, you're going to have to learn how to do these certain rules and work with them. But if you want to continue writing in your own stylistic language or dialect, then continue to do that. And I will help you with either of those. So it's support on, you know, telling people like, Hey, here's this tool, I'm going to give it to you so that you can have it and you can use it. But that doesn't make your writing any less important or personal.

By labeling code-switching as “playing the game,” they communicated to students that code-switching was the only way for academic success, and justified that by saying it “doesn’t make your writing any less important or personal.” Maria further stated that while they discuss this with students, it is important that they do not use client writing as their “battlefield” against SAE.

Lily, however, took a more critical stance on code-switching:

I, frankly, think it's a cop out, but they're like, oh, but that's not like, I'm teaching them to write this way. Because they'll need it out in the real world. You know, they'll need to know how to write and speak like this in order to get jobs. And it's like, Well, let's think a few steps beyond that. If it's racist here, maybe it's also racist out there.

In this quote, Lily is responding to the same justification for code-switching that Maria used: that speakers of non-standard Englishes need to use SAE in school because it is the language of success. Lily identified this as a “cop-out,” noting this argument has a limited veracity. For them, code-switching is racist and perpetuates language discrimination both in academic (“here”) and in the broader world (“out there”). This critical stance was not shared by the other tutors, and both Kay and Sarahanne identified their roles as supporting students in learning to code-switch regardless of whether or not they educate students on code-switching explicitly.

Interestingly, despite the context of the study occurring at an HSI, conversations around code-switching were rooted in Black Language rather than Chicano or Latino Englishes. For example, Maria explained her definition of antiracist praxis as looking like “when a client comes in and says ‘Hey, you know, I speak Black Language and I write in Black Language and my teacher doesn’t like it.” Further, she elaborated “SAE and the groups that I think it most affected, which is the Black community.” Despite this focus in their scenarios, Kay identified “many of our clients are people who don’t speak English as a first language,” not dialectical English speakers. This focus might be related to the recent reading of Linguistic Justice by the DEI committee.

Another antiracist practice all four tutors discussed was to support students in finding their own voice in writing and “building that confidence” (Maria) in them. Both Kay and Maria explicitly used the word “confidence” as something they strive to support students with. The tutors each spoke of students feeling they did not know where to start with writing or having been beaten down by professors who graded their writing harshly for style and grammar. For these tutors, a way to combat language discrimination was to validate students’ own voices and help them sustain it through writing, even while code-switching. For example, Maria mentioned that when supporting students with code-switching strategies, they reminded them that their writing is still personal and holds their identity.

Lastly, disrupting power dynamics between tutors and students was mentioned by all four interviewees as an intentional antiracist practice for working with students. Lily did not even refer to themselves as a tutor throughout the session, stating:

I think tutoring, I don't know, it has some connotations that I tend to...I like to use consultant, because that just seems a little bit more equitable to me, because I think tutor kind of has this air of like, I'm gonna, like, swoop in and like, fix all the like, errors in your paper or whatever. And I tend to think of it as much more of a-, I don't know, not a transactional relationship, but like, we're kind of, I like to think we're more on, like, equal footing with the client.

Lily specifically addressed and rejected mainstream writing center pedagogies, both the traditional view of “fix-it” centers and North’s popular pedagogy of “fixing writers.”

Meanwhile, Kay noted that students tend to view the writing center as “authorities” on writing, and explicitly discussed race when talking about disrupting power dynamics:

So trying to, sort of, dismantle that power structure in the session so that we're more equals is a really important thing to try and fight that white supremacy because you know I'm a white person, and I, I know that a lot of my education...I have to dismantle my own, you know, thought processes about writing and adjust that so that it's workable for my clients.

Throughout the interview, Kay discussed working with majority non-white clients, many of whom speak non-standard dialects of English or English as a second language. They viewed disrupting power dynamics not just as making tutoring sessions more equitable, but as a way to address the power dynamics of a white tutor and student of color.

Maria discussed disruption of power dynamics differently, explaining:

I identify as a Black woman, I don’t identify as a white woman. And it impacts everything I do in the writing center. It impacts the way I dress, the way I speak to clients, the way I speak to my coworkers, the way I assist my clients, the way I tell them about SAE.

Later, she gave more examples of her racial identity changing the way she and her clients showed up in writing center sessions:

I have had clients in the past that said, like, they open up the screen, because I used to be online, they open up the screen, and they’re like “Oh, my god, you’re Black!” and like, I’m like “yeah” and then like that student is automatically...we automatically connect. So I was with a student last semester, who showed up to the meeting with her hair completely done, right? So she spent a lot of time, she was a Black student, she spent a lot of time doing her hair. And as soon as I came on the chat and she was like, “Oh, you’re a Black woman.” I was like “I am.” She was like “I’m gonna put my bonnet back on.” I was like, okay, good, comfortable, you know? Do your thing. So yeah, it does affect my antiracism with my clients and the connections that I have with them and the outlook that clients have on the writing center.

As a tutor of color, Maria did not need to address the power dynamic between a white tutor and student of color; instead her presence was a disruption of racial power dynamics.

Limitations to Tutors’ Antiracist Practices

The tutors self-identified two major limitations to their practices of antiracism: professors and students. Professors were identified as the main source of language discrimination. In fact, the DEI committee’s vision for educational efforts largely consisted of conversations with individual professors and producing a stance on SAE to provide professors with. Maria even illustrated their definition of antiracism at the writing center with an example regarding faculty, stating with “So the racism in [a scenario] would be the teacher. I'm the antiracist, in that, helping that client.” The writing center tutors were well aware of their position within the campus ecology, and felt, based on their experiences as students and tutors, that many professors privileged SAE. Although they wanted to support students in code-meshing, they relied on teaching code-switching strategies to make student writing “more palatable for professors” (Kay). Although the participants did not place any blame on students, they also recognized students are “not there to…talk about” (Lily) racism, and they often just want to do what the professor asks so they can pass. Ultimately, professors’ expectations of SAE led the tutors to believe that SAE was necessary for students’ success.

Interviews also suggest that the writing center leadership was a limitation. Tutors were not involved in talking to professors or in broader antiracist efforts. While DEI committee members had more ability than non-members to educate their fellow tutors, the lead member of DEI committee, Sarahanne, said they had not “the opportunity to speak with any professors.” However, some of the tutors viewed this positively (e.g., Kay said “they really try to shield us”).

Internalized Whiteness as a Limitation

An additional limitation for employing antiracist practices were the tutors themselves. Although the tutors’ efforts were in good faith, at times, in the interviews, the tutors seemed to struggle with being explicit about race and antiracism and diminished the impacts of language discrimination. For example, they employed extreme terms such as white supremacy to describe SAE, but then justified their support of it and code-switching pedagogies in tutoring sessions within the same response. In the third round of coding and analysis, I looked for eight forms of Haviland’s WED to identify how these tutors themselves were limitations to their antiracist practices.

In total, tutors employed WED 56 times (see fig. 5). Not every strategy was used, but avoiding words and letting others off the hook were the most common. In fig. 5, I quantified the amount of times each tutor used a form of WED. Similar to the overall findings, Sarahanne and Kay most heavily employed the Avoiding Words strategy. Lily relied most on letting others off the hook, particularly the writing center administration. Maria, the only Black tutor, employed White Educational Discourse only two times; once avoiding words, and, once, letting others off the hook. This suggests that Maria was less willing than the white tutors who participated to excuse racism to maintain group harmony within the writing center staff. Sarahanne employed the second most WED despite being the lead member of the DEI committee.

Avoiding words, the most commonly utilized strategy, was employed so often that tutors avoided talking about race in general. Outside of explicit questions about demographics, tutors only spoke about race and racialized identity 11 times across all data collected. It was also a common theme to avoid talking about race with clients and outside the writing center, despite all tutors naming that antiracism must be active and continually practiced. For example, when explaining why they do not discuss SAE or code-switching with students, Sarahanne stated:

You know, race is such a subjective thing. And it's also just this, like, for me, it just comes off as like this buzzword, like immediately people are upset. You know, you say the word racism and like, there is no lackadaisical response to the word racism, even people who are like, I'm not racist, you know, it's not a big deal. Like they're still responding very emotionally to it. So I like focusing more on the individual instead of focusing on the fact that somebody has put them into this category of race with all of its assumptions and stereotypes. Yeah, I spend a lot more time saying, you, and sometimes I do say you and, like, the culture you're from, but I never really say race.

Here, Sarahanne goes to extreme lengths to avoid discussing race, even using coded language such as “the culture you’re from.” Despite being the leader of the DEI committee, and emphasizing the importance of antiracism, Sarahanne had the most resistance to practicing antiracism. In the interview, they also discussed how they began looking into the way race impacts writing center work because of a book that made them angry (and they are “still angry with it”), but did not explain what made them angry. The other tutors expressed similar perspectives that discussing race and racism made people too upset and so they avoided it. Kay discussed the leadership team “shielding” tutors from any negativity from professors, and Lily also explained that they talked about identity to avoid the “scary topic racism.”

The second most used strategy was letting others off the hook. The tutors all expressed a deep love for their positions as writing tutors and strong loyalty to their specific writing center. While they were able to address broader, systemic issues of language discrimination, they went to extreme lengths to avoid “offending” anyone (avoiding words) and to position themselves and their writing center as “good”. They also rationalized actions on the part of themselves and others that maintained the status quo rather than challenging them (letting others off the hook). Lily, in particular, seemed nervous that the writing center they worked at would learn what they had said, and they hinted that they did not think their writing center made antiracism enough of a priority only after receiving clarity that the center would not see their transcript. However, their response, once reassured, was still a false start, (“I have a lot of, we don't need to get into this right now,...”) showing that they were uncomfortable challenging the writing center and its administration in any capacity.

Conclusion

Writing centers seeking to actualize antiracist practices must start with tutors. They should move beyond the purely theoretical and reimagine writing center pedagogies. Tutors in this study attempted to bridge theory into practice, but, as demonstrated in fig. 3, tutors largely identified antiracist practices in power, purpose, and people; all components tutors cannot actively change (see fig. 1 for a definition of each of these parts of the writing center ecosystem). Only the process, here meaning the feedback tutors’ give, was in tutor control.

Within that small part of antiracism at writing centers that tutors control, they identified three key practices in their process and feedback: education on linguistic justice and code-switching, centering student voice, and disrupting power dynamics as key orientations in their self-identified antiracist practice. Although the small sample size limits generalizability, my findings suggest some commonalities that might form an antiracist pedagogy for writing centers. Writing center tutors and writing center training that seeks to center antiracism in their practice may want to consider including students in the discussion on code-switching, centering student voice in writing, and disrupting power dynamics between tutor and student in individual sessions.

Findings also indicate that tutors who want to practice antiracism are limited in their ability to do so not just by external factors such as professors but by their own internalized whiteness. Racial literacy training might be a way that writing centers can rupture internalized whiteness. Although the tutors had received training on antiracism, it was mostly educational (covering topics such as AAE, code-switching, and code-meshing) rather than self-reflective. Tutors may benefit from the opportunity to explore and impact their own racialized experiences. Doing so may allow them to embrace antiracist pedagogy more consistently and give them the knowledge and confidence to address and challenge white supremacy and language discrimination at their writing center. This limitation may result in a discrepancy between what tutors actually do, what they think they do, and what they believe in doing. Future research should draw on data beyond interviews to explore this.

This study sought to uncover writing center tutors’ definitions of antiracism and practices of it at the writing center. It works to fill the gap of tutor voices, especially at HSIs and including tutors of color. It was, however, limited by several factors. For one, the study only looked at four tutors with a small amount of data collected. These results, therefore, are not generalizable. Secondly, it is limited by its scope, with a narrow focus on the ways race and racism impact writing center work. An intersectional lens, considering other identities such as gender and sexuality, is warranted in future studies. Further, tutors are likely to experience racism, both linguistically and from clientele just as clients experience racism. This was not explored in this study, and should be a consideration for further research. Relatedly, distinctions should be explored differentiating between the impacts and functions of race, racism, and antiracism for tutors. Lastly, interviews only addressed the 3rd function of racism at the writing centers (see page 3 for discussion). Within that, data collected focused on dialectical linguistic justice for Black English speakers rather than linguistic justice for multilingual, particularly Spanish-speaking, students despite the context of this study.

The findings of this study indicate that much research is needed on the actual practices of antiracism by writing center tutors. This study suggests that there is a gap that exists between what was said and believed by tutors and their reported actions. This is something writing centers should attend to if they want to truly practice antiracism. Tutor trainings alone may not be enough if learned knowledge and skills are not put into practice. This research raises such questions as “how do tutors employ antiracism within their locus of control?” and “how can writing centers combat internalized whiteness when advocating for antiracist praxis?”. Although there is no checklist for antiracism, a heuristic for process practices that tutors may employ would strengthen the likelihood that antiracism transfers from theory and into practice at writing centers.

Works Cited

Alvarez, N. “On Letting the Brown Bodies Speak (and Write).” Out in the Center: Public Controversies and Private Struggles, edited by Harry Denny, et. al., University Press of Colorado, 2019, pp. 83-89.

Baker-Bell, A. Linguistic Justice: Black Language, Literacy, Identity, and Pedagogy. Routledge, 2020, p. 7.

Basta, Hidy and Smith, Alexandra. “(Re)envisioning the Writing Center: Pragmatic Steps for Dismantling White Language Supremacy.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, 2022, pp. 58-68. https://www.praxisuwc.com/191-basta-and-smith

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism Without Racists. Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.

Camarillo, Eric. “Dismantling Neutrality: Cultivating Antiracist Writing Center Ecologies.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, 2019, pp. 69–74.

Cirillo-McCarthy, Erica, et. al.. “‘We Don’t Do That Here:’ Calling Out Deficit Discourses in the Writing Center to Reframe Multilingual Graduate Support.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, 2016, pp. 62-70. http://www.praxisuwc.com/cirillomccarty-141

Coenen, Hillary, et. al.. “Talking Justice: The Role of Anti-Racism at the Writing Center.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, 2019, pp. 12–19. http://www.praxisuwc.com/162-coenen-et-al

Cogie, Jane. “Breaking the Silence on Racism Through Agency Within a Conflicted Field.” Writing Centers and the New Racism: A call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by Laura Greenfield and Karen Rowan, Utah State University Press, 2011, pp. 228-253.

Condon, Frankie. “Beyond the Known: Writing Centers and the Work of Anti-Racism.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 27, no. 2, 2007, pp. 19–38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40135914

Denny, Harry C. Facing the Center: Towards an Identity Politics of One-to-One Mentoring. Utah State University Press, 2010, pp. 1-56.

Garcia, Romeo. “Unmaking Gringo Centers.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, 2017, pp. 29-60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44252637

Grayson, Mara Lee., and Naynaha, Siskanna. “Collaboration at the Center: Anti-Racist Writing Program Architecture at California State University Dominguez Hills.” Writing Program Administration, vol. 44, no. 3, 2021, pp. 169-175. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA678980709&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=01964682&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=umd_umbc

Greenfield, Laura., and Rowan, Karen. “Beyond the ‘Week Twelve Approach.’” Writing Centers and the New Racism: A call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by Laura Greenfield and Karen Rowan, Utah State University Press, 2011, pp. 124-149.

Greenfield, L., and Rowan, K. Introduction. “A Call to Action.” Writing Centers and the New Racism: A call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by Laura Greenfield and Karen Rowan, Utah State University Press, 2011, pp. 1-14.

Grimm, N. M. “Retheorizing Writing Center Work to Transform a System of Advantage Based on Race.” Writing Centers and the New Racism: A call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by Laura Greenfield and Karen Rowan, Utah State University Press, 2011, pp.75-100.

Haltiwanger-Morrison, Talisha and Nanton, Talia. “Dear Writing Centers: Black Women Speaking Silence into Language and Action.” The Peer Review, vol. 3, no. 1, 2019. https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/redefining-welcome/dear-writing-centers-black-women-speaking-silence-into-language-and-action/

Haviland, Victoria S. “‘Things Get Glossed Over’: Rearticulating the Silencing Power of Whiteness in Education.” Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 59, no. 1, 2008, pp. 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107310751

Inoue, Asao. B. (2016). “Afterword: Narratives that determine writers and social justice writing center work.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, 2016, pp. 94–99. http://www.praxisuwc.com/inoue-141

Johnson, Michelle T. “Racial Literacy and the Writing Center.” Writing Centers and the New Racism: A call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by Laura Greenfield and Karen Rowan, Utah State University Press, 2011, pp. 212-227.

Kendi, Ibram. X. How to be an Antiracist. One World, 2019.

Kern, Douglas S. “Emotional performance and antiracism in the writing center.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, 2019, pp. 43–49. http://www.praxisuwc.com/162-kern

Latta, M. “Can’t Fix Anyone: Confronting Our Historical Love Affair with Deficit Thinking.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, vol. 44, no. 3, 2019, pp.17-24. https://www.wlnjournal.org/archives/v44/44.3-4.pdf

Lockett, Alexandria. “Why I call it the academic ghetto: A critical examination of race, place, and writing centers.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, 2019, pp. 20–33. http://www.praxisuwc.com/162-lockett

Mills, Charles. (2007). “White Ignorance.” Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, edited by Shannon Sullivan and Nancy Tuana, SUNY Press, 2007, pp. 13-38.

North, Stephen. M. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” College English, vol. 46, no. 5, 1984, pp. 433–446. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i216078

Ozias, Moira and Godbee, Beth. “Organizing for Antiracism in Writing Centers.” Writing Centers and the New Racism: A call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by L. Greenfield and K. Rowan, Utah State University Press, 2011, pp. 150-174.

Poe, Mya and Inoue, Asao B. “How to Stop Harming Students: An Ecological Guide to Antiracist Writing Assessment,” Composition Studies, vol. 48, no. 3, 2020, pp. 14-15. https://compositionstudiesjournal.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/poeinoue_full-3.pdf

Shelton, Cecilia and Howson, Emily. "Disrupting Authority: Writing Mentors and Code-Meshing Pedagogy.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, 2014, pp. 77-83. http://www.praxisuwc.com/shelton-howson-121

Spaulding, Elizabeth, et al. “Freedom Dreaming Antiracist Pedagogy Dreams.” Language Arts, vol. 99, no. 1, 2021, p. 8-18. https://library.ncte.org/journals/la/issues/v99-1/31406

Suhr-Sytsma, Mandy & Brown, Shan-Estelle. “Theory In/To Practice: Addressing the Everyday Language of Oppression in the Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 31, no. 2, 20011, pp. 13-49.

Villanueva, Victor. “Blind: Talking about the new racism.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, 2006, pp. 3-19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40135911

Young, Vershawn A. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Writing Centers and the New Racism: A call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by L. Greenfield and K. Rowan, Utah State University Press, 2011, pp. 61-72.