“On Guard”: Religious Identity in the Writing Center
written by Emma Klein and Tarang Saluja
In the chapter “On Guard!” from Out in the Center: Public Controversies and Private Struggles, Sami Korgan describes how religion is an aspect of identity which is less visible and also less discussed. In particular, Korgan writes about how they find themselves to be more guarded, cautious, and reticent about religion in comparison to other parts of their identity. This state of being “on guard,” as Korgan describes it, about their faith is in sharp contrast to how Korgan never felt like they had to hide their religion when it was a large part of their social relations and scaffolded many aspects of daily life. However, in the writing center, especially as a Christian at a Catholic university, Korgan describes uncomfortable experiences of students asking about faith. As Korgan describes how they felt alone in their faith, they meditate upon how some identities are welcomed in the writing center while others are negatively judged.
Korgan’s description of how faith-based identity is regarded in a different way than something like gender identity raises questions for how we think of identities which are both less visible and also less present in discourse. While the direction of what we focus on is never fixed, other identities which may fall into a similar category are disabilities, political affiliation (as Korgan mentioned), and class. One of the fears which Korgan articulates is the concern that “we are practicing what Harry Denny (2010) in his Facing the Center calls a “clubhouse mentality,” in which only certain types of thinkers fit in, leading to exclusionary practices among tutors (148),” and Korgan worries this is associated with the “hyperliberal environment outdo[ing] itself without realizing who it’s hurting (150).”
Korgan’s analysis should encourage us as WAs to ask ourselves who we exclude when we take the predominant ways of thinking at Swarthmore for granted. And yet, as much as our program may aspire to be welcoming of all individuals, with different identities and worldviews, this becomes more challenging in practice when WAs must interact with writers or other WAs who hold beliefs that may be perceived as harmful to them. For example, Korgan describes an outspoken conservative Christian at their school who the writing consultants did not want to join their program because they were uncomfortable with his beliefs. Navigating this tension is difficult and prompts greater reflection regarding how we understand our responsibilities as WAs individually and our program more broadly. One place to start is with personal boundaries as WAs in our conferences and with each other, another dimension of Korgan’s chapter.
Korgan discusses setting boundaries about their religion by not sharing how it is important to their identity, even lying to a writer by saying they did not know much about the Bible (149). This decision was influenced by worries about how their faith would be perceived, and Korgan implies that they would rather not repress this part of their identity. However, negotiating and setting boundaries in conferences and other WA-related-interactions can also be a form of care, and each of us can make the personal decision about what we have the capacity to address in our interactions with writers and other WAs. As a program, we can continue to do more collective thinking about our purpose and how to serve all members of the Swarthmore community because we work with both writing and writers, and the two cannot easily be separated.