In June of 2021, the CCCC released a “Statement on White Language Supremacy” (WLS). It called for “antiracist educators [to] work alongside students, communities, and institutions to push for the dismantling of WLS because of its deleterious effects on Black, Indigenous, and people of color” (BIPOC), given that it is “usually a part of the standard operating procedures of classrooms, disciplines, and professions” (Baca et al. 2021, sec. 1, 2). Antiracist research and writing pedagogy seeks to challenge how WLS is upheld in the teaching and assessment of standardized English, also known as “white ways with words”—advocating for inclusive and culturally sustaining practices (Monroe, 2009, p. W337; Canagarajah, 2006, p. 613; Condon & Young, 2017; Inoue, 2019; Kenney, 2018, pp. 44-45; Lee, 2014; Lee & Handsfield, 2018, p. 159; Young, 2010). Considering the modality of signed languages and our Deaf, DeafBlind, DeafDisabled, and Hard-of-Hearing (DDBDDHH) student population, we define “writing” broadly, as including not only alphanumeric writing, but also multimodal compositions, a form of writing that is inclusive and sustains the cultures of signers (Butler 2017; Hindman 2019; Stanton 2016). While it is known the status quo of WLS in university writing instruction negatively impacts BIPOC students, the question of how WLS also perpetuates hearing supremacy through audism (Eckert & Rowley 2013; Monts-Tréviska 2021) and negatively affects BIPOC DDBDDHH students is often left out altogether.

This session is for members and attendees interested in social justice, anti-racist writing pedagogies, as well as language justice, disability justice, intersectionality, and/or deaf/hard-of-hearing (hoh) students. In this panel, we will engage with and forward current conversation in the largely disparate fields of anti-racist writing pedagogy and accessible writing pedagogies through a collaborative autoethnography. This method of inquiry allows us as researchers and teachers to examine a common phenomenon "through purposeful exploration of [our] own experiences" (Pretorius 2023). This collaboration between multiple autoethnographers has all of the features of autoethnography, but with more profound results than can be achieved by an individual alone.

Our collaboration is informed by the frameworks of Deaf Latine Critical Theory (DeafLatCrit) and Critical Deaf Writing Pedagogy to bridge the gap between anti-racist writing pedagogies (Baker-Bell 2020; Inoue 2015) and the largely deficit-based frameworks for discussing (intersectional) deaf students' writing. DeafLatCrit, with its tenets of intersectionality, raciolinguicism, consciousness-raising, and storytelling (García-Fernández 2020) as part of resistance and the promotion of language preservation and sustainability, allows us to examine how BIPOC deaf/hoh students experience the systemic racism that results in cultural deprivation under the white-imposed expectations of (white) schools. Critical Deaf Writing Pedagogy works within “positive, prosocial theories about deafness like deaf epistemologies and deaf ontologies,” as well as “educational forms of deaf gain,” which all “emphasize that deaf writers are capable, creative, and critical individuals who are valid artists, rhetors, and scholars” (Skyer 2023, p. 121). Critical Deaf Writing Pedagogy also works *with* deaf/hoh students through interactive classroom practices. In short, in bridging the gap between these pedagogical approaches to composition, we emphasize an asset-based perspective that honors students’ language repertoires.

We hope that this new knowledge impacts the audience when considering their own pedagogical perspectives, especially when working with Deaf, DeafBlind, DeafDisabled, and/or hard-of-hearing students. To illuminate our intervention and the bridging of the gap, we plan to share a multimodal video created with deaf student authors on anti-racist writing practices and why they are important.