This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Hey all, glad to be back with you, sorry it took me so long, and sorry that this issue is going to be addressed in a more serious fashion, but I think that the issue should be addressed in manner appropriate with its’ humor.

The good news is that I am not going to be addressing the imminent conflict between the U.S. and Iraq; I shamefully admit that I am not as abreast with all of the current issues and relevant factors on this to take an informed position or statement. What I choose to address today is something that I am intimately aware of, the constraint which academe has upon the freedom of thought and expression.

What brought this to my mind is a class I am currently taking at BSU, know as CJA 489, or Senior Tutorial. In this class it is our task to (allegedly independently) research an issue within our field, and then present a paper to our class on the subject. The reason why I say our independence in this research is alleged is due to several different constraints which have been placed upon us by our instructors, or more aptly, our department. First are the guidelines for paper length (15 to 20 pages) and the minimum requirements for the sources we must have for this paper (20 peer-reviewed articles at a minimum), along with our designation onto how these papers can be designed, either literature review or position. However this is not a major point of contention for me as I realize that it is certainly necessary to have some guidelines in any academic endeavor wherein the participants (in this case the students in the class) are not necessarily very intrinsically motivated to accomplish their goals and are merely in it for the grade.

My main point of contention is this, the extreme oversight I have experienced in the composition of my paper, not only must it follow a carefully constructed guideline as far as my abstract and introduction are concerned, but I was required to meet with someone at the writing center (which I did today) whose suggestions for revision I am supposed to follow as a component of my grade for the course. This is where I have a problem. I am a senior, this is a senior level class, this is supposed to be tantamount to individual research, and yet not only am I being forced to undergo review by someone, which I would be okay with as I admit to making as many errors of syntax and grammar as the next person, but I have been directed to act upon her recommendations, as if she were more intimate with my topic and the points which I feel need to be expressed than I am.

As it is she recommended that I either drastically revise my paper, or change it from a position paper to one of literature revue. Her basis? The first half of my paper is devoted to an explanation of the history, theory, and contemporary practice of my topic (civil asset forfeiture) and the second half of my paper (in which I painstakingly point out the key fundamental flaws with this practice) is not expressed in a tone which is argumentative enough for her taste. For the sake of argument, let us forget that this paper is designed to be a professional work for submission to peers within my field of study and as such adopts a properly academic tone rather than ranting and raving like a zealot, let’s forget that in order to critique a current practice you must express an understanding of how it came about and exactly how it currently operates, and let’s forget that I know far better than this reviewer exactly what should and should not be included in this paper as I was the one who researched it to excruciating detail. Let’s forget all that. I still have a major problem with this…. does anyone else see it? It is this: This is my work, my paper, my presentation, my thoughts, and my argument. Therefore why should I defer to her on any point which I disagree on substance? If I feel that the proper way to best express my point is one way and she feels it is another, why must I automatically assume that hers is the correct stylistic form? The simple answer is that I don’t, won’t, and shouldn’t, and have sent my instructor an email objecting on these grounds.

This may seem like I am simply ranting and raving because I am mad with the comments which were made by this reviewer (who lacked both an intimate knowledge of my subject matter and the guidelines I was directed to follow by my instructor) but let me assure you that the fact that I am angry aside (for I am angry) I still have key fundamental problems with this form of “independent research”. By the time I am a senior shouldn’t it be assumed that I am perfectly capable of editing my own written works on my own and designating which changes must be made and where and how? Why is it that our academic institutions, which profess to be pillars of “higher learning” must marginalize our intellectual product and analogously force us to squeeze a round peg into a square hole? Why have I seen an influx of multiple choice testing and a decline in essay and argument? I think it is because the ridged structure of higher education is becoming more robotic and mechanical, trying to maximize their product through homogenization rather than diversity. Agree, disagree? Let me know.

THE EMAIL I SENT TO MY INSTRUCTOR

I have a few questions for you concerning my Senior Tutorial paper, and the
WACRATS program. First of all I was hoping to clarify whether or not I
should include the Bible and the Constitution on my citation page (the
writing center told me not to). Second I was wondering if you could direct
me to a source which could let me know how I should, according to department
guidelines, cite sections of the U.S. Criminal Code and House Resolutions.

As for the WACRATS programs I would like to know to what degree I should
defer my own judgment to that of the WACRAT I met with? It seems to me that
in some cases I am better acquainted with what you are expecting from us in
our papers that she is. For example, she tried to correct the format of my
title page, which is exactly as you assigned it to be and has been approved
by you. Another example is my introduction which followed the funnel method
and was approved by you, which she suggested I change entirely. There are
other additional differences between what the WACRAT suggested to us and
what we are directed to do according to the department website, but I won’t
get into these unless you ask me to.

Finally, the WACRAT has suggested that I either drastically revise my paper
in order to make it an effective position paper, or change it to a
literature review paper which would require minor changes. Obviously you
can’t know the strength or weakness of my current format without reading my
paper, but I will tell you the basic structure which it has at present:
Historical roots of Asset forfeiture (1 page), Asset Forfeiture in modern
times (1 page), Development and evolution of asset forfeiture in U.S.
including current legislation (3 pages), Brief description (for purposes of
differentiation) of types of asset forfeiture (1 page, description and
examination of theory and practice of Civil Asset forfeiture in particular
(1 page), Information on how a civil asset forfeiture is contested (1 page),
criticisms and inconsistencies inherent in civil asset forfeiture (9 pages),
examination of modern reform attempts (1 page), and finally a concluding
paragraph. I felt that this was a proper format to construct for an opinion
paper which was to be heavily grounded in research, please let me know what
you think.

I felt that in order to directly address asset forfeiture it was important
to lay out a background explaining how it came about, how it has been used,
and how it is currently used before I examined what was wrong with it. The
WACRAT disagreed and seemed to think that I should have devoted my entire
paper to arguing against the practice without explaining the history,
theory, and/or context. As you can probably tell I disagree with her
analysis as far as it concerns the general construction of my paper and as
such I was hoping you could let me know how much it would affect my grade if
I keep my the structure of my paper much as a I have it, and focus on errors
and corrections of grammar and syntax. I appreciate your response in this
matter and would be glad to come and talk to you about it at your
convenience.

RESPONSE FROM MY INSTRUCTOR

I recieved my professors response to my email and will copy and paste it here. I was very pleased with his response.

“Sorry that the WACRATS experience seems frustrating to you. It’s been kind of
hit and miss with them. Some students have told me they have really helped, but
others, as yourself are confused by the conflicting messages between them and
me.

Remember, I never see what the WACRAT has done to your paper. So you can use
your discretion to determine what is good advice from the WACRAT and what is
not. I would leave your intro as is, as I felt it was good. I would also use
JCJE formatting despite what the WACRAT may have told you. For sources that are
not specifically addressed in JCJE formatting, make up you own rule for
formatting and stick with it.

In terms of the content of your paper, I think it makes sense to start off with
background and context of asset forfeiture—but you’ll need to get to the
position rather quickly—say by the first five pages or so.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have other concerns.”

I’m sorry if this post was boring or irrelevant to any of you, but I was feeling rather strongly about it and wanted to let people know.