|
|
|
Open Admissions, Controversies, and CUNY: Digging into Social History Through a First-Year Composition Course
Ting Man Tsao
LaGuardia Community College of the City University of New York
| IN 1999, the City University of New York (CUNY) abolished remedial programs in its four-year colleges and began to rely on standardized test scores as criteria both for exiting remediation and for admission to bachelor's programs. By doing that, the university has in effect eradicated its three-decade-old "open admissions" policy, argue CUNY watchers (Crain; Lavin; Reitano; cf. Beaky). This policy change has also sharpened the distinction between community colleges and senior colleges, and increased roadblocks on the education path from a two-year college to a bachelor's program within CUNY. Although senior colleges have become more selective by adopting the SAT as a crucial admission requirement, community colleges remain "open door" institutions in the system, continuing to admit all applicants who have a high school diploma or other equivalent credentials. However, students in community colleges are now required to demonstrate their competence in English and mathematics by obtaining certain minimum scores in national, state, or CUNY's standardized tests. In addition, those with 45 credits must take and pass the CUNY Proficiency Exam as "a community college exit exam and the gatekeeper to the junior year" (Reitano 98). So while admission to a four-year program (not necessarily the students' first choices) is guaranteed upon completion of an associate's program, community college students who fail to meet any of the above requirements may not graduate or transfer to any of the CUNY senior colleges. |
1
|
|
As a professor at LaGuardia Community College of CUNY, what worries me most about this large institutional shift is not only the narrowing of access to higher education for New York's diverse populations, but also the general ignorance and nonchalance among students about open admissions as a social policy that over the years has made a difference in the lives of countless people. The majority of my students have not heard about this policy. Many are not even aware that if it were not for the "open door" policy of CUNY's community colleges, they would not have the opportunity that they do to pursue their career or other dreams. Moreover, while most students at LaGuardia have higher educational goals than an associate's degree, not all realize that criteria both for graduation from the two-year college and for transfer to a bachelor's program within CUNY have become stringent. |
2
|
|
Important as the changing admissions policies are to them, students should not be blamed for their lack of knowledge about the history and development of CUNY's open admissions policy. Although there is no dearth of scholarly literature on this subject, the bulk of it tends to take a "top down" historico-sociological approach, which focuses more on institutional practices, data, and impacts than on students' perspectives. Little attention has been drawn to the crucial importance of including students in academic debates about a policy (or the erosion of a policy) which is directly related to them. It was in response to students' unawareness of open enrollment issues that I recently developed and implemented a first-year composition syllabus around the history of CUNY's open admissions. Admittedly, this history, which involves a series of thorny, complicated, and entangled social issues over a span of thirty-five years, makes a very challenging theme for an introductory writing course. |
3
|
|
In designing the course on this still debated subject, I took clues from the recent trend among history educators toward employing primary sources as a tool to develop students' analytical and writing skills (e.g. Balantic and Libresco; Stovel). For history teachers, the value of using primary sources is thought to stem from letting students "see history as an ongoing process of constructing the past, rather than a fixed body of knowledge" (Meo 335). In my text-based composition course (one that requires students to write in response to readings), I selected a mixed assortment of primary sources representing different genres and media—autobiographical narratives, newspaper and journal articles, official documents drawn from mayoral archives, and drama. I supplemented them with some secondary sources to provide necessary historical backgrounds. All in all, the use of primary sources challenged students to situate and understand unfamiliar texts in historical contexts with which they also needed to familiarize themselves so that they could develop their reading, writing, and historical skills in ways that might not have been possible with the adoption of commercial composition textbooks. |
4
|
|
In addition to responding to texts, I also wanted students to master different modes of writing (narrative, definition, comparison and contrast, evaluation, argument, and others). There was a strong research component in this introductory course as well, namely a 1500-word research paper using primary and secondary sources, documented in the MLA style. To help students meet these course goals, I organized my syllabus into several units, each of which was complete with required readings on a subtopic of open admissions history, class and small-group activities, writing assignments, and suggested sources for further research for the research paper. |
5
|
| |
|
Narratives and Connections | |
|
My first challenge in teaching the course was to help students draw personal connections with open admissions, to let them see that it was not merely an academic subject, but that as CUNY students, they did have a stake in its past and present development. Since narrative (personal stories, not grand historical accounts) is the most intimate genre for articulating and hearing personal voices, I concentrated the first unit of the course on personal-narrative reading and writing assignments so that students could see open admissions in relation to themselves, and their predecessors in CUNY, as individuals in struggle and conflict, rather than as statistical numbers. |
6
|
|
To lead them to think about college admission, to see it through their own eyes, I asked students to write a personal narrative on "Enrolling in LaGuardia, Not enrolling in LaGuardia?" as their self-introductory essay. For the first part of the assignment, I asked students to describe the process through which they got admitted to LaGuardia, accounting for their college choices, the difficulties they encountered in their application and enrollment, the kind of assistance they received, and their educational plans. This relatively straightforward account led to the more imaginative part of the topic, which asked students to imagine that LaGuardia had rejected their application for admission. What would they then have done or become instead? What impact would rejection have had on their education and career plans? As it turned out, few students could provide thoughtful responses to this part of the topic although most did well in delineating their enrollment experiences. Many students either ignored the question or brushed it aside by saying, "I haven't thought about it" or "Well, I'd apply next semester." This is perhaps the irony of an "open door" institution that admits without competition; as a result, students simply take for granted the very policy that has made their education possible. |
7
|
|
It was the first reading assignment, Peter Rondinone's "Open Admissions and the Inward 'I'," that helped students see the crucial importance of the policy in some CUNY alumni's lives. Written using a candid first-person point of view, the autobiographical story recounts how Rondinone, a high-school gangster growing up in the poverty-stricken South Bronx, changed his life by enrolling in the City College of New York through the Open Admissions Program in 1972, and finally became a published writer. Coming from similar low-income, inner-city backgrounds, my students could identify with Rondinone's troublesome and dangerously violent teen years, the discrimination and resentment he faced as an open admissions "Joe Blow," his struggle to learn the basics in writing and mathematics, and his eventual intellectual and emotional growth. The most moving quotation that many students cited in their reading journals and class discussions was the concluding statement of Rondinone's story, "If it weren't for open admissions, the likelihood is I would still be swinging baseball bats on the streets on Friday nights" (290). |
8
|
|
To provide more perspectives on the open admissions policy of the 1970s, I supplemented Rondinone's story with a narrative by a City College English professor, M. Ann Petrie, "Up the Down Campus— Notes From a Teacher on Open Admissions." Although Petrie adopts a candid first-person point of view similar to Rondinone's, she, as a faculty member, provides a wider perspective to account for the changes open admissions brought to City College. Mingling personal observations with objective accounts of CUNY's historical development, the open admissions master plan, City College's demographic changes, the SEEK program, faculty sentiment, and budgetary issues, Petrie's story introduced to my students some key issues and contexts of the Open Admissions Program of the 1970s, with a human touch lacking in sociological studies of the policy. |
9
|
|
The stories not only kindled students' interest in pursuing the subject but also served as a springboard for the second writing assignment, which asked them to create a new version of Rondinone's autobiographical narrative by adopting a different character's point of view. The assignment challenged students not only to capture and understand the details and social contexts of the narrative but also to exercise their imagination to create new voices, episodes, and dialogues based on the chosen narrator's perspective. The narratives submitted by students were vividly written with rich detail, showing that they could look at the issues related to the open admissions theme from different angles. Some students, for example, adopted a fellow gang member's point of view to retell Rondinone's story: though this "tough guy" first saw Rondinone as a traitor leaving his "old buddies" behind for some "big-time" college, he was later inspired by this open admissions "dude" to enroll in college. Quite a few students used the point of view of Rondinone's immigrant father or mother and recreated him as an "ungrateful" son, who locked himself in the bedroom all day long studying and reading, rather than helping out or making money for the family. |
10
|
| |
|
Reading and Debating Histories | |
|
If narratives can be told and retold from different perspectives, so can histories. This was in fact the focus of the second unit, which asked students to read, interpret, and debate historical accounts of the open admissions policy. Materials reflecting different political standpoints were paired to stimulate interpretations of open admissions in history. One pair of these readings was, for instance, a chapter titled "Access and Excellence: 1960–1997," excepted from the book From the Free Academy to CUNY (Roff, Cucchiara, and Dunlap 111–29), and H. Bruce Franklin's article "Under Attack for 150 Years" in Clarion, a newspaper of the faculty and professional staff union of CUNY. |
11
|
|
To gain a necessary historical background, students in small groups were first asked to find in the readings all the key events and issues related to open admissions. This straightforward task prepared students for a more analytical group activity. Each group was to decide which of the events they had found was the most significant in the history of open admissions. The group was to be prepared to support their decision based on the readings. Every group, as it turned out, chose a different "most significant event," including the approval in 1969 of CUNY's plan "to enroll all high school graduates by 1975," the City College student strike of 1969, the beginning of CUNY's open admissions policy in 1970, the termination of that policy in 1976, and the revision of restrictive immigration laws in 1965 and 1978. |
12
|
|
Seeing these diverse choices, I asked each group not only to defend their chosen event but also to criticize one of the other groups' decisions as "less significant." This started a vehement class debate. For example, the group who chose the endorsement of CUNY's plan to enroll all high school graduates by 1975 argued that this event predated the 1969 student strike and was more significant than the latter because it provided a foundation for the implementation of open admissions whereas the student protest only served "to accelerate its implementation by a few years." The group who selected the student strike did not agree, saying the plan was endorsed in words only, and it was the student strikers that forced the Government to realize it immediately. "Don' say the students only made open admissions happen a few years earlier than the Board of Regents' plan. How many students' education was at stake in these years?" concluded the group leader. |
13
|
|
In retrospect, I think the debate was very useful in getting students into interpreting what once they might have dismissed as "facts" in historical accounts and examining them from multiple perspectives. I refrained from introducing Hayden White's theory about the nature of history as "literary artifacts" or from asking students to analyze the two histories as "representation[s] of the past" with "specifiable ideological implications" (69). Critical exercises and theories of this sort are quite beyond an introductory writing course. However, the class discussion in which my students enthusiastically participated was helpful in achieving the goal of preparing them to read history carefully and critically and to ask good questions. During the Q&A time after the debate, for example, a student asked the following thought-provoking question, citing "Access and Excellence: 1960–1997," "Why was it called 'open admissions' when the plan only 'guaranteed students graduating with an average of at least 80 percent, or who were in the top 50 percent of their high school graduating class, a place in a four-year college'?" |
14
|
| |
|
Defining "Open Admissions" | |
|
Quite a few students were curious about the question to which there is, of course, no simple answer. It became one of the questions that helped me find a teaching focus among a plethora of primary sources I had decided to use, but had not yet made any final decisions as to how to integrate them into the course. Rereading the sources of 1969 and 1970, the most turbulent juncture in CUNY's history, I agreed with my students that "open admissions" was a problematic term that had never been clearly, let alone unanimously, defined. Instead, different groups and institutions came to define or represent "open admissions" according to their own agendas. What was championed as "open admissions" by some could be a "Quota System" for others (e.g. Adelson 20); what was proposed as "open admissions" by an institution might very well appear to the students to be "in direct conflict with the ... goal of ending de facto segregation." ("Total Unacceptable" 8). I therefore decided to focus the next unit on these different, contradictory, and often competing definitions and representations of "open admissions." |
15
|
|
Not surprisingly, the primary sources containing these definitions and representations were wide-ranging, including CUNY publications (plans, reports, studies, statements, proceedings, etc.), CUNY's institutional archives, mayoral archives, academic and popular books, and periodical and newspaper articles. It was the newspaper press that I finally decided to use as the main genre of readings for this unit. According to Walter Benjamin, the newspaper publishers "are constantly opening new columns to...questions, opinions, protests" of the masses of readers in order to satisfy their "impatient longing for daily nourishment" (224–225). During the 1960s and 1970s, although bound by their individual editorial policies in covering the open admissions controversy, newspapers nonetheless constituted the most open forum, allowing more voices and opinions to be heard than other published or unpublished genres and media. |
16
|
|
The basic reading assignments for this unit were articles and editorials drawn from the New York Times, which provided comprehensive and arguably balanced coverage of the open admissions movements both in New York City and all over the nation (e.g. Hechinger, "The Problem"). In the Blackboard site, I also included further readings excerpted from other journals such as the Jewish Zionist for students' research projects. |
17
|
|
For the majority of my students, this was their first time reading thirty-five-year-old newspapers filled with unfamiliar names and references. To facilitate comprehension, I asked students to keep a triple-entry journal, taking notes of any theoretical or working definition, or representation of "open admissions" they identified (column 1), the group or institution that adopted that definition or representation (column 2), and the student's feedback on the noted definition or representation (column 3). This triple-entry journal helped students acquire an essential skill in comprehending primary sources, namely the skill of "focused reading" which required making notes of their targeted information and filtering out other less relevant, sometimes distracting material. |
18
|
|
Through the triple-entry journals, students were able to uncover in the otherwise chaotic reports and commentaries the main definitions or representations of "open admissions" covering a broad spectrum of opinion from the "radical" to the "conservative." The most "radical" one that students found, developed out of the Black and Puerto Rican students' demand for open admission to public higher education, was "open admission to all types of institutions," public and private, "without test of past achievement" (Hechinger, "A Growing Conflict" E11). On the other end of the gamut was some Jewish critics' characterization of the open admissions proposal as "a quota system unfavorable for Jews" (Adelson 17). Students also found some middle-ground "open admissions" plans. One example was California's three-tiered "open admissions" system consisting of the University of California centers for the top twelve percent of high-school graduating classes, followed by the state colleges for the upper one-third, and the two-year community colleges for "all the rest" (Hechinger, "The Problem" 43). |
19
|
|
The newspaper sources proved indispensable not only in letting students see the disagreements among all these "open admissions" definitions and representations but also in enabling them to experience, through the contemporary rhetoric and photographs, the highly inflammable atmosphere in which the policy was proposed, defined, and debated. In their reading journals, some students commented that they were troubled by the repeated use of words of extremity such as "nonnegotiable demands" and "[s]igns of an oncoming ugly flow of blood are apparent at B[rooklyn] C[ollege]" ("Uptight Campus" 12) and the visual images of campus riots and police officers attacking student demonstrators with batons (e.g. LaGuardia and Wagner Archives, "Open Admissions"). One student wrote that this reminded her of the existing racism that she had experienced in college. These fresh insights into the social climate of the 1960s and 1970s were helpful to students in completing the definition essay assignment of this unit, which asked them to compare and contrast two definitions or representations of "open admissions" of their choice, and analyze which one was more reasonable. |
20
|
|
The newspaper press also provided a good source of information for many students' subsequent research papers. For this course requirement students took advantage of the online newspaper databases including the Historical New York Times, introduced to them at a library orientation session, to research a wide range of topics. Some students examined the open admissions controversy in relation to other problems plaguing New York City at the time. Some looked at the open admissions movement in terms of race and class. A few focused on the issues related to the maintenance of standards in "opening up" higher education. Two students wrote new historical accounts of CUNY's open admissions policy, enriched with journalistic detail. |
21
|
| |
|
Evaluating Mayor Lindsay | |
|
Besides the newspaper press, I also incorporated archival source material in the course in order to provide students with new learning experiences that other primary and secondary sources did not offer. "The use of archival material," according to archivist Marian Matyn, "takes [students] into an environment different than a library and one with which they are not familiar. It also requires them to learn new techniques of discovery and creates a real sense of intimacy with people of a different time" (349). For students in a writing course, the use of the archives would certainly yield these benefits. However, as an English professor, I have a slightly different pedagogical emphasis. Unlike canonical or popular literary texts, archival documents are usually obscure, unique, and untapped. As a result, there is often not much, if any, reference material or scholarship on which readers can rely, thus challenging students to interpret them independently. |
22
|
|
In searching for appropriate archival sources for the course, I benefited from the expertise and assistance of the colleagues of my college's own LaGuardia and Wagner Archives. They made available to me relevant material culled from the papers of John V. Lindsay, mayor of New York City when open admissions was debated and later implemented. These documents included letters and memos written by or addressed to Mayor Lindsay, official reports, testimonies, and newspaper clippings. The archive has a microfilm collection of Mayor Lindsay's papers (whose originals are deposited in the New York City Municipal Archives) as well as original papers of several other mayors. In a class tour to the archive, its education coordinator introduced to students this wealth of historical material housed in a facility that they rarely visited even though it was just steps from their regular classrooms and computer laboratories. After a brief discussion on how historians use archival sources to reconstruct the past, the education coordinator focused on the Lindsay papers, discussing their themes and details with students, and providing hints on how to contextualize and interpret the documents, draw inferences, ask questions, and research further. |
23
|
|
This archival orientation opened students' eyes to the political dimension of open admissions, pointing to new source material and questions that they could explore about this controversial policy. However, the constraints of time did not allow for a fuller discussion of all the political issues as revealed in the Lindsay papers. I therefore focused the lessons on Mayor Lindsay's decision to oppose the proposal for a dual admissions policy, which would have created two separate categories of students to be admitted: those from disadvantaged or poverty areas and those with "'normal' academic admission qualifications" (Brady 23). His effective opposition to "dual admissions" opened the way for the open admissions plan, which was implemented. |
24
|
|
Although previous readings had contained references to the event that led to this proposal, namely the student strike at City College in April 1969, my students had not read anything comprehensive about this landmark in the history of open admissions. To understand the context in which Mayor Lindsay opposed the dual admissions plan, they read and discussed newspaper articles and editorials covering the student strikers' demands, the widespread tensions on the campus, the embittered negotiation between the students and the college administration, and proposals aimed at reopening the shut down college (e.g. Brady; Fox). |
25
|
|
While the dual admissions proposal was written in simple language, its underlying implications were broad, demanding careful reading and contextualization. As I was not sure that students had grasped all the subtleties through the initial class discussion, I grouped them into pairs for an online activity in the computer laboratory. Each student was asked to write and post a summary of the dual admissions plan on the Blackboard's Discussion Board, and then comment on his or her classmate's summary. The summaries showed that I had in fact underestimated the growth of students' reading and writing skills during the semester. Most of them were not merely straightforward summaries as my prompt required; they were actually evaluative summaries, showing that students were now at ease in offering their own interpretations and opinions while summarizing the proposal. |
26
|
|
With a good understanding of the dual admissions plan, students were ready to analyze and evaluate its strongest opposition voice, that of Mayor Lindsay. Of the Lindsay papers that students read, the key document was his letter to Porter R. Chandler, chairman of the Board of Higher Education, in which the Mayor spelled out his reasons for denouncing the proposal as "unworkable" and "unfair" (Lindsay 1, 2). To situate Lindsay's opposition to the dual admissions plan in its political context, I focused class and group discussions on how different interest groups—the "radical" student strikers, the white and Jewish students, and the City College administration—would respond to the mayor's letter. This led to an essay assignment that asked students to evaluate Mayor Lindsay's reasons for opposing the dual admissions plan. They had to explain why they agreed or disagreed with the Mayor that the plan was "unworkable" and "unfair." In addition, they needed to judge whether Mayor Lindsay had fairly weighed the interests of different groups of students. Many of the essays I received showed that the writers did not jump to any simple yes-or-no conclusion. Instead, they did justice to the complexity of the problem faced by Mayor Lindsay by stating a qualified and conditional approval or disapproval of his position on the dual admissions proposal. |
27
|
|
Some of my students became interested in the politics surrounding open admissions and wrote their research paper on this topic. For example, one student interviewed his father about the nature of politics, and wrote an analysis of how politics shaped educational policies in general and the open admissions policy in particular. Another argued that open admissions could not have been realized without "the assistance and full support of John Lindsay." Both of these essays drew heavily on the Lindsay papers. However, there was a student who wanted to use more recent official documents to examine open admissions over a longer span of time. Based on the 1999 mayoral assessments of open admissions and remediation, he argued, "a major flaw with the CUNY administration's handling of the open administration process has been its inability to correctly collect and interpret available economic and demographic data in a timely manner." |
28
|
| |
|
Staging "Open Admissions" | |
|
Toward the end of the semester, students were naturally getting apprehensive about the final essay exam. I did not want to overwhelm them with any more serious readings than I had originally prepared. Since our understanding of open admissions had been basically academic, I thought that we might use drama to reenact the furor, frustration, and emotions accompanying this controversial social policy. As a class, we read and discussed Shirley Lauro's one-act play, "Open Admissions." It is about a highly contentious and charged encounter between an overworked and dissatisfied City College speech professor and an equally frustrated freshman in the Open Admissions Program who speaks in, according to the professor, "the Substandard Black Urban Pattern" (Lauro 55). After a class discussion of the characters, students in groups of two rehearsed an episode of the play, and then performed for the whole class. At the beginning, performers understandably had difficulty in overcoming their shyness and, for those who played the student, their reluctance to speak "street language" in the classroom. However, the performances following the earlier "warm-up" ones tended to improve, with better acting and more appropriate use of tones and voices. The performances afforded students a glimpse, however brief, of the human drama that had unfolded when open admissions was first implemented—something no amount of scholarly writing and sociological analysis can offer. These rehearsal experiences helped students prepare for the final exam in which they were asked to analyze a character of the play. |
29
|
| |
|
Reflections | |
|
If it is true that we tend to read into history what concerns us at present, a look at how students reflected on the course may add a telling footnote to the scholarship on open admissions. At my request on the last day of classes, students wrote a spontaneous paragraph or two about what they thought was the most important insight they had gained about open admissions—with an understanding that their writing would not be graded. Two themes recur in their feedback. One is their deep concern about race and its interrelationship with education in general and their own education in particular. Unfortunately, for all the rhetoric of "equal opportunities for all" adopted in the mission statements of education systems and institutions across the nation, educational inequalities along racial and class lines that led to the student activism and the demands for open admissions more than three decades ago are still relevant issues today. The other recurrent theme was students' appreciation of their opportunities to study and pursue their dreams. As one student commented, "Reading stories about open admissions and learning about what students went through makes me value even more the education that is available to me ... [It] makes me want to succeed and fight for what I want." This is the spirit that I wanted to share with all my students. |
30
|
| |
|
Acknowledgments | |
This article was born out of my work with colleagues working on two projects at LaGuardia Community College: the English Archives Research Project (jointly sponsored by the Department of English and the LaGuardia and Wagner Archives) and the Writing in the Disciplines program (WID). I am much indebted to Brian Gallagher, who provided me with guidance and advice in both projects. I am grateful to Steven Levine and Richard Lieberman of the LaGuardia and Wagner Archives for sharing with my students and me their expertise in New York City history and archival research. I learned a great deal about composition pedagogy from Marian Arkin and other facilitators and participants in the WID program. Last but not least, I am thankful to my students for their active participation in all of the course activities and their advance permission to cite their writing anonymously. I hope that their discussion, research, and writing will inspire more "student-centered" directions in the scholarship on open admissions.
|
31
|
|
Works Cited
|
| Adelson, Howard L. "City University: A Jewish Tragedy." American Zionist September 1971: 17–29.Balantic, Jeannette, and Andrea S. Libresco. "Teaching Writing with Documents." Social Science Docket 2.1 (2002): 28–30. New York State Council for the Social Studies. 3 January 2005 <http://www.nyscss.org/>.Beaky, Lenore. "Impact of Schmidt Proposals on the CUNY Community Colleges." Community Review 17 (2001): 5–12.Benjamin, Walter. "The Author as Producer." 1934. Reflections. Ed. Peter Demetz. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. New York: Helen and Kurt Wolff Book-Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978. 220–38.Brady, Thomas F. "City College Agreement Reached." New York Times 3 May 1969: 23. Historical New York Times. ProQuest. LaGuardia Community College Library, Long Island City, NY. 1 September 2004 <http://80-proquest.umi.com/>.
Crain, William. "The Battle for Social Justice at The City University of New York." Encounter 14.4 (2001): 36–41.Fox, Sylvan. "Faculty Rejects C.C.N.Y. Dual Plan." New York Times 30 May 1969: 1. Historical New York Times. ProQuest. LaGuardia Community College Library, Long Island City, NY. 1 September 2004 <http://80-proquest.umi.com/>.
Franklin, Bruce H. "Under Attack for 150 Years." Clarion Summer 2003: 10.Hechinger, Fred M. "A Growing Conflict Over the Effect of Open Admissions." New York Times 12 October 1969: E11. Historical New York Times. ProQuest. LaGuardia Community College Library, Long Island City, NY. 1 September 2004 <http://80proquest.umi.com/>.
—. "The Problem of Open Admission to College." New York Times 1 May 1969: 43. Historical New York Times. ProQuest. LaGuardia Community College Library, Long Island City, NY. 1 September 2004 <http://80-proquest.umi.com/>.
LaGuardia and Wagner Archives. Man Behind the Scenes, Julius C.C. Edelstein: LaGuardia and Wagner Archives 2003 Calendar. Long Island City, NY: LaGuardia Community College/CUNY, 2003.Lauro, Shirley. "Open Admissions." 1979. Mercury Reader: ENZ099 ACT Prep Class. [Comp. Basic Writing Committee of LaGuardia Community College]. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2005. 50–61.Lavin, David E. "Policy Change and Access to 2- and 4-Year Colleges." American Behavioral Scientist 43.7 (2000) 1139–58.Lindsay, John V. Letter to Porter R. Chandler. 29 May 1969. Papers of Mayor John V. Lindsay. New York City Municipal Archives.Matyn, Marian J. "Getting Undergraduates to Seek Primary Sources in Archives." History Teacher 33.3 (2000): 349–55. JSTOR. LaGuardia Community College Library, Long Island City, NY. 4 January 2005 <http://links.jstor.org/>.Meo, Susan Leighow. "'In Their Own Eyes': Using Journals with Primary Sources with College Students." History Teacher 33.3 (2000): 335–41. JSTOR. LaGuardia Community College Library, Long Island City, NY. 3 January 2005 <http://links.jstor.org/>.Petrie, M. Ann. "Up the Down Campus—Notes From a Teacher on Open Admissions." New York 17 May 1971: 34–40.Reitano, Joanne. "Post-Open Admissions Dilemmas for CUNY's Community Colleges: Presentation at Borough of Manhattan Community College, April 3, 2003." Community Review 18 (2004): 96–100.Roff, Sandra Shoiock, Anthony M. Cucchiara, and Barbara J. Dunlap. From the Free Academy to CUNY: Illustrating Public Higher Education in New York City, 1847–1997. New York: Fordham University Press, 2000.Rondinone, Peter I. "Open Admissions and the Inward 'I'." Thinking Critically. Ed. John Chaffee. Second edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1988. 281–90.Stovel, John E. "Document Analysis as a Tool to Strengthen Student Writing." History Teacher 33.4 (2000): 501–09. JSTOR. LaGuardia Community College Library, Long Island City, NY. 3 January 2005 <http://links.jstor.org/>."Totally Unacceptable." Kingsman 14 November 1969: 8. The Archives and Special Collections Division of the Brooklyn College Library."Uptight Campus." Kingsman 25 April 1969: 12. The Archives and Special Collections Division of the Brooklyn College Library.White, Hayden. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. 1978. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1985.
|
|
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|