Peer Proofing Our Essays on Banning Offensive Language In Public Spaces

So, last Wednesday, my English Comp class was divided into groups of 4 students each and we were tasked with reading one another's essays and "proofing" them. We were asked to evaluate the essays based on 7 criteria the instructor posted on the board for us to review. Not too difficult, I should think. Then I read the first one.

All I can say is...Oy to the Vay! (insert face palm here) I was once again reminded in painful detail just how inadequately secondary educators are preparing students for successful college careers. The first essay was technically correct in appearance. It consisted of 5 paragraphs, the first of which was an intro, followed by 3 evidential, or supporting, paragraphs, followed by a concluding paragraph. Each paragraph consisted of the minimum standard 3 sentences. For all intents and purposes, the paper had the look of an essay.

Then there's the content. To begin with, the student never took a position. It is her belief that since there is no real way to prevent people from saying offensive things, we should all "just get over it." That's all I'm going to say about that essay.

The next poor child was under the impression that "free speech" is someone standing at a podium and speaking, for which the listener is not required to pay a fee to hear! AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!! Once I got my blood pressure back to a livable level, I wrote a few quick notes and passed her paper back. I couldn't really begin to give her advice on how to fix the technical aspects of her paper when she obviously slept thru the past 10 years of her education!

The last young lady in my group wrote an eloquent thesis on the importance of protecting the rights of all, including bigots and nut-jobs (or are those titles inter-changeable? lol) rights to express themselves. She went on to discuss how although freedom of speech gives one the right to express one's ideas, it does not mean one should haphazardly exercise that right. She discussed the moral obligation each one of us has in censoring our own selves and impressed upon the importance of considering how our expressions may effect others.

I was thoroughly impressed that she was able to articulate her thoughts and backed them with a few references, although she failed to site them in her rough draft. I was able to leave a few notes for her on places where the technical aspects of her essay needed to be tended to, as well as leaving a few devil's advocate gems for her to think about when doing the final draft.

Then I received my own paper back from the team. Other than two spots where they noticed (as I had already discussed with the BFF) that the content wandered a bit off topic, they didn't have anything critical to say. They jotted down a few encouraging comments about how much they liked my essay and that was it. Well, except for one comment. I nearly fell over with laughter when I realized what she was trying to say. She was commenting on a line in my essay where I describe how campus restrictions on language would make for a "kinder, gentler learning environment" and my "peer" wrote down a suggested alternative as "could be 'more gentle learning environment'" - okay, I had to remind myself that anyone under 35 years of age would not be apt to get the George H. W. Bush reference there. So, there's that! lol

I will post up my essay as soon as I get the graded on back from the instructor and have had an opportunity to correct any major failures.

Thanks for listening!