ABSTRACT
We want to argue caution in the conversation about mainstreaming basic writing and basic writers. In so arguing, we may provide an unwelcome voice. After all, the mainstreaming moment has produced some impressive curricular transformations in support of students (see, for instance, Grego and Thompson; Soliday and Gleason; Glau), and is built on rationales against some of which, at least, it is difficult to argue. Our purpose is not to be gratuitously reactionary toward a way of thinking that in many instances prompts a revitalization of the basic writing curriculum, and of the institutional standing for that curriculum, in service of students who are most at risk of being excluded from higher education by the reascendant right. Rather, we want to offer a perspective on mainstreaming that argues several points:
• The case for mainstreaming too often has been built on theoretical narratives which posit an overly-sometimes conveniently-homogenized basic writing status quo against which mainstreaming is placed as a universally desirable fix.
