Sample Comments

The following sets of teacher comments are taken from a book I co-authored with Ronald F. Lunsford, Twelve Readers Reading: Responding to College Student Writing (Hampton 1995), a study of the ways that well-recognized compositionists respond to student writing. Below you'll find a hypothetical classroom context, including an assignment calling for a summary-response essay, a New York Times column advocating that we consider legalizing recreational drugs like marijuana and cocaine, a sample student paper that responds to this column, and then seven sets of sample teacher comments: three sets of marginal comments with short end notes (by Anne Gere, Edward White, and Jane Peterson); three separate letters to the student writer, without marginal comments (by Peter Elbow, Ben McClelland, and Patti Stock); and a tape-recorded response by Chris Anson. As in the book project, the sample comments here are designed to invite reflection on the prinicples, methods, and goals of teacher response.

This particular student, Nancy, sees herself as a "good writer." As she has told you a few times already (both verbally and in her course journal), she "has always gotten A's in English." Evidently, she is confused, or even put off, by your view of writing and, particularly, your assessment of her work thus far in the course. She has been somewhat resistant to changing her style and process of writing, and has not been very responsive to your comments on the four previous course papers.

THE ASSIGNMENT
Select from a journal, magazine, or newspaper, a recent article on an issue you are interested in, one that presents a view you disagree with or that you find some problem with. In an essay intended for the same publication, write a response to the article. You may respond to the article as a whole or to parts of it. Your task is not to review the article for its own sake but to express your views on what this writer has to say. Your final draft should identify the author, title, and publication information somewhere in the opening, define the topic or issue you are responding to and summarize what the author says about it, and then present your response.

We'll take this essay through two rough drafts before the final draft is due, two weeks from today. I will respond to both the first rough draft and the second rough draft.

Every elected official from President Reagan on down goes through the ritual of calling for stiffer enforcement of drug and trafficking laws. The laws get stricter, and more and more billions of dollars are spent on the police, courts, judges, jails, customs inspectors and informants. But the drugs keep coming, keep growing, leaking into this country through thousands of little holes. Traffic is funded by huge financial combines and small entrepreneurs. Drugs are carried by organized crime figures and ordinary people. The truth is, the stricter the enforcement, the more money there is in smuggling.

Legalization is not a new idea. But perhaps it is time to recognize that vigorous drug enforcement will not plug the holes. Perhaps it is time to think the unthinkable. What would happen if we legalized heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs? What if they were regulated like liquor and with the protections provided for over-the-counter drugs? Would we turn into a nation of spaced-out drug addicts?

Drugs have been a part of our society for some time. The first antidrug laws in the United States were passed in 1914. They were really anti-Chinese laws, because people on the West Coast were alarmed at the rise of opium dens among Chinese immigrants. Before that, there were plenty of opium addicts in the United States, but they were mostly white middle-class women who took laudanum (then available over the counter) because it was considered unacceptable for women to drink alcohol.

After the first laws were passed, and more drugs added to the forbidden list, the sale of heroin and other drugs shifted to the ghettos, where men desperate for money were willing to risk prison to make a sale. Middle-class addicts switched to alcohol. Today, one in 10 Americans is an alcohol addict. It is accepted. The number of addicts of heroin and other drugs is tiny compared with the number of alcoholics. But these drugs cause 10 times the amount of crime caused by alcohol.

What would happen if the other drugs were legal? Many experts believe there would be no increase in the number of drug addicts. They speak of an addictive personality and say that if such a person cannot easily obtain one drug he will become addicted to another. Many feel that the legalization of heroin and other drugs would mean that such addictive types would change from alcohol to other drugs. A 1972 Ford Foundation study showed that addiction to these other drugs is no more harmful than addiction to alcohol.

But what about crime? Overnight it would, be dealt a shattering blow. Legal heroin and cocaine sold in drugstores, only to people over 21, and protected by our pure food and drug laws, would sell at a very small fraction of its current street value. The adulterated and dangerous heroin concoctions available today for $20 from your friendly pusher would, in clean form with proper dosage on the package, sell for about 50 cents in a drugstore. There would be no need for crime.

With addicts no longer desperate for money to buy drugs, mugging and robbery in our major cities would be more than cut in half. The streets would be safer. There would be no more importers, sellers and buyers on the black market. It would become uneconomical. Huge crime rings would go out of business.

More than half the crime in America is drug related. But drugs themselves do not cause crime. Crime is caused by the laws against drugs and the need of addicts to steal money for their purchase. Overnight the cost of law enforcement, courts, judges, jails and convict rehabilitation would be cut in half. The savings in taxes would be mom than $50 billion a year.
We may not be ready for a radical step of this kind. Perhaps we are willing to spend $50 billion a year and suffer the unsafe streets to express our moral opposition to drugs. But we should at least examine the benefits of legalization. We should try to find out whether drug use would dramatically increase, what the tax savings would be. I do not suggest that we legalize drugs immediately. I ask only that we give it some thought.

From The New York Times circa 1984

Nancy-

You have done a good job of summarizing much of LeMoult's article. I think you have overlooked a couple of important points, however. Reread the section where he traces the history of drugs in this country, and look again at his distinction between drugs and alcohol.

I find your argument against legalizing drugs the most convincing when you compare the number of alcoholics with the number of drug addicts. Perhaps you can develop this idea further. In contrast, I find the statements that we all know drugs are wrong less than convincing. Just exactly why is legalizing drugs the easy way out? If danger is the issue, how do you respond to the idea that cars are dangerous? (Think about how many people are killed and maimed in automobile accidents every year.) In your next draft try to focus on developing more convincing arguments against legalized drugs.

When you have completed your next draft, try reading it aloud before you turn it in. I think you will find a number of places where your ears will help you express your ideas more effectively.

The paper is a good discovery draft that could become a good paper. As you revise, be sure you focus each ¶ on its central idea. I enjoy the energy of your style.

Nancy--
Your first draft is a good starting point-you clearly understand the structure expected (opening with source info, summarizing the article, responding with your view). Before beginning a second draft, I suggest you do a barebones outline on the article. (You're missing a couple of LeMoult's points) and then do one on your response (you seem to have at least two objections instead of one).

Seems like you've tried to build yourself a good framework and foundation-to build on for future drafts. You do an OK job of introducing the article. You don't give a full summary, but weren't asked to. And it strikes me that you move fairly quickly to one of your best arguments: alcohol. The widespread abuse is so undeniable.

My reactions. I don't disagree with your position, but somehow I find myself fighting you as I read. I'm trying to figure out why. I don't want to legalize drugs, but somehow I want to listen more to that writer. After all, he has a delicate thesis: not that we should do it but think about doing it. There's nothing wrong with you picking on part of his argument (legalizing) and ignoring the other part ("let's just think about it")-but the effect is somehow to make it seem as though you are having a closed mind and saying "Let's not even think about it." I guess I feel that the drug situation is so terrible that we have to let ourselves think about more things; I'm feeling stuck. So I think (self-centeredly) that the question for your next draft is this: what can you do to get a reader like me not to fight you so much? Try thinking about that; see what you can come up with.

I'd be happy to talk more about this in a conference.

Best,
Peter

What is it that you want me most to know about your position on LeMoult's article, "Legalize Drugs," Nancy? Try stating that point in a sentence or two. In order to understand your position on LeMoult's article then, just what do I need to know about his article? That is, what specific points do you need to summarize from his article and which ones may you disregard? I ask you to work out these two matters because, as I read your draft, I need a clearer sense of both. Before reading further in my comments, please jot down a list of items on them.

First, with regard to your position, did you say that you were against legalizing drugs because they were physically harmful and, therefore morally wrong? Those are the points that I gleaned from your last two paragraphs. However, you say, "We all know drugs are dangerous to the body and society without any explanation . . ." [my emphasis]. Given the nature of LeMoult's radical proposal (which I also have read), I think some further explanation is due us readers. Of course, you do give somewhat of one in the last paragraph, don't you? But your causal linking of illegal drugs and their relatively few addicts and legal alcohol and its relatively many addicts fails to convince me. But perhaps there is something that you could use to your advantage in the behavior of other sorts of addicts: smokers, gamblers, shoppers? What else could you say in favor of your position?

Second, with regard to what you summarize from LeMoult, what main point of his do you want to focus on? In a sentence, what is his major reason for suggesting that we consider legalizing drugs? At two points (paragraph 2 & 3) you indicate that it has to do with crime and the cost of enforcement of drug laws. Why do you include the points on the first antidrug laws and on women's use of laudanum when you don't refer to them later? Do they relate to your argument with LeMoult over legalizing drugs? Moreover, when you say, "LeMoult's points are good and true," to what specific points are you referring? Sometimes it's useful to make a concession to an opponent, but it must be qualified or limited to some specific point that does not detract from your main objection to the opponent's position.

If I were pressed to say what your argument with LeMoult came down to, I would say that you stacked some general point about the harm of drugs against his proposition that legalizing drugs would cut crime and law enforcement costs dramatically. Is that what you attempted? Look again at his data and his logic. Search for ways of composing a more effective argument by 1) calling his conclusions into question and 2) making your case more detailed and convincing.

I did not find Le Moult' s essay "short and sweet" as you did. I found it detailed and complex. I found his strategy for presenting his ideas sophisticated. He asked me as his reader to bring a lot of what I know about the world to his argument. Perhaps you and I found the argument so different because we have had different life experiences. Let me illustrate what I mean by offering you my reading [italicized and in brackets ] of the paragraph in Le Moult's essay from which you drew information for your essay.

Drugs have been part of our society for some time. [Okay, so why do you mention that?] The first antidrug laws in the United States were passed in 1914. [I didn't know that. I wonder what the significance of the date is.] They were really anti-Chinese laws, because people on the West Coast were alarmed at the rise of opium dens among Chinese immigrants. [Oh, so he's arguing that they were racist laws. Laws were passed because Chinese people were smoking opium. The Chinese people were different; therefore, insecure west coast Americans decided their habits were bad. I think I see where he is going with this. I guess that before the Chinese smoked opiwn in the United States there were no drug laws. Maybe they were racist laws, but isn't smoking opium something to stop before the custom spread in this country? I see in my mind's eye a vision of the emperor's wife in the film "The Last Emperor." Opium smoking is hideous.] Before that, there were plenty of opium addicts in the United States. [I didn't know that. What makes him say that? What are his facts?] but they were mostly white middle-class women who took laudanum (then available over the counter) [Ah, I didn't know laudanum was opium] because it was considered unacceptable for women to drink alcohol. [That is amazing. It was unacceptablefor them to drink alcohol, but it was okay for them to take opium. So, opium was acceptable when mostly-white middle-class women took it, but not when Chinese immigrants took it. Of course, he doesn't mention much about alcohol here, but his reference to it makes me think of prohibition and what happened then. Not only were people suffering from alcoholism, but they were also getting robbed and killed because of the lucrative business that criminals like Al Capone made of smuggling and selling liquor illegally. Le Moult's allusion makes me think of the failure of prohibition: it failed to stop drinking, and it fostered crime and corruption. I suppose he wanted these ideas to come to my mind when he alluded to alcohol.]

It would be good for me to learn how you read him. Let's schedule a conference to talk about your reading of Le Moult and your essay as well.

This is a really nicely chosen article-short and sweet, you said-but it's certainly, um, controversial enough and especially current with the crack scene today and Bill Bennett, our drug zsar and all the attention in the media. You know, this has been a controversy for, well, certainly since the sixties but I think it used to be more focused on marijuana so it's maybe even more controversial to talk about legalizing stuff like crack and heroin at such a conservative time.

Um . . . let me, let me make some suggestions here and ask some questions, I guess, so you can think this through as we, um, [work] over the next week or so. I think the real substance here is the evaluative section because the article is fairly straightforward so your summary seems to capture its gist pretty well for me. You might, you know, something that stood out for me a lot in the article was his point . . . [flipping through pages] . . . here at the end, at the very end, he says here, "I ask only that we give it some thought," and that's a rather clever way to end, you know, he's made a very controversial assertion and now, now he's sort of taking this very balanced position, let's give this some thought. So that if you come down really hard, it's, well, maybe he's forcing your hand, in a way, and if you show too much, um, energy or . . . too much anger, I guess, that you'll end up looking just the opposite-not balanced, not "giving it some thought." So you might think about that, and see if there's anything at all in his argument that seems, um, if not reasonable, at least interesting. Another thing I'd do here is to take each of your counterarguments and see if there's any exception to them, and, uh, try to take them and apply them to similar situations. Uh, let me be specific here. If, on page two, one of your main points is this issue of danger to one's health. What if you tried listing as many things you can think of that are legal that are also dangerous, like cigarettes, um, firearms, in a sense, um, certain kinds of recreational-all-terrain vehicles, over-the-counter drugs, and so on. Now what makes these sorts of things different from illegal drugs? You see, then when you find reasons why they're different, your points will seem more carefully thought out and developed. So the all-terrain business, for example, um, these can be safe with the right training and helmets and so on, while it's hard to imagine any doses of crack that could be considered perfectly OK on the human body and people's behavior. And that could be a point for the over-the-counter drugs, about what "abuse" means or how "harm" is defined. Also do a little check on the reasoning behind your statements. For example, I wondered about your last line, "drugs are wrong, therefore, should not be legal." It seems a little circular to me. Or a statement like the one before that, that his points are good and true but also wrong and false. Or maybe here, what you want to think about is whether some are effective and others are not. For example, is it an all-or-none situation? Could, if someone were checking into a rehab center could they get legally administered drugs and then be weaned from them somehow, so they wouldn't rip off convenience stores to get money for drugs?

Now, I think you've got a good start here, Nancy, and I'd, um, but it's clear that it's just a start, and there are some really good opportunities here to think through the issue and develop this into a strong paper. Um, you'll also, this is a preliminary draft, so you won't be worrying too much at this point about the grammatical and other surface matters, but when you've developed it further you'll, you're gonna want to be tough on yourself about all these little, you know, you shift tenses in the beginning, of paragraph two, and you'll want to check for consistency there, and little nagging problems like "and ect." which seems redundant, and spelling like "imagrants" and "laudanun," which has an -m, and commas. Oh, and also, one of the points of this assignments is to chart the changes in your thinking as we go through the process, so don't worry if you start out strongly and modify your position. You know, I wrote a semi-angry letter to one of my colleagues the other day on the computer and went to bed and the next day when I looked at it I'd changed my mind. And I think that's natural.

Ok, Nancy, see you on Friday.