It seems like the longer I look at this question, the question of what English 101 is to the academic institution and Western as a whole, the more fractured my response towards it becomes. I feel my own desires and ideas squaring off against the issues that Crowley raises, and, If I am honest, I am not sure how even to feel anymore. At the outset, I envisioned English 101 as providing the further building blocks of a positive academic experience or career, which, I feel was true for me, for the most part. Although, upon further inspection, this idea becomes less stable, even in my own case. I took English 101 as a requirement during Running Start while still in high school, and, while I can remember really enjoying the literature and poetry that we covered, I will admit that the courses that ultimately cemented my love for literature and composition came later in my college experience. The courses I took in fiction writing or British literature, for example, were ultimately the places where I honed and gathered the tools I would need to continue towards a career in academia, be that research or composition.

The issues presented by Crowley make it hard to not feel a bit cynical towards the whole endeavor, i.e., that English 101 functions as a course somewhat designed to boost numbers of enrollment, and, for lack of a better word, indoctrinate all students to the idea of “correct” English or the leftist academic ideals often espoused in American university classrooms. As our curriculum encourages, or focuses, on the multiplicity of voices and experiences among incoming students, I hope that it does a more meaningful move, in that, it motivates students to write about their own views and encourages them to explore their own ideals. I believe it is important to keep that idea in the forefront, regardless. The more diverse and unique stories we hear, the better we are as an institution, a people, and as a society on the whole.

I understand the drive, from that position then, that Crowley presents to move towards English 101 being removed as a required course. I think that it is important, as she mentions, to consider not only the work that the class is supposed to accomplish, but the way in which the instructors who dedicate their lives to it are treated. It seems like a shame to make less room for graduate assistantships and creative writing professors on the whole, but, if that is what it takes to ensure that the faculty and the student are treated ethically and fairly, then, why not make that move? It can be easy to conflate the removal of English 101 as a requirement with the removal of the reliance on the power of the written word on the whole, and, while I think it is easy to see it that way, a knee-jerk reaction, I don’t think that it is accurate, or, a fair concern. Perhaps by encouraging a more dedicated and specific set of courses in creative writing (rather than the homogenous goals of required English 101), we can facilitate a larger proliferation of varied and diverse writings. This, in turn, supports the critics and theorists, the literature studies professionals, and the students who really desire to make a name for themselves in the publishing and teaching of creative writing. I sincerely hope that there is a way to balance these disparate needs, as the idea of creative writing and literature being weakened because of institutional and educational issues or differences is truly alarming, and, I think, if it continues in that direction, is detrimental to our world as a whole.