A long tradition exists in the pages of College Composition and Communication and College English of introducing student populations, such as the women at the Center for Nonviolence or the underprepared first-year student, whom scholars deem to merit special attention or reconsideration, to other, perhaps less enlightened, composition and rhetoric professionals. For example, the February 2002 issue of CCC focused upon the boundary crossing rhetoric of people negotiating issues associated with race and ethnicity, and the November 2004 issue of College English focused upon people negotiating issues associated with social class. The authors in these two particular issues tended to characterize their work as activist, critical, or liberatory/Freirean pedagogy (Beech, 2004; Libretti, 2004; Linkon, Peckham, & Lanier-Nabors, 2004; Okawa, 2002; Pough, 2002). In these two journal issues, I have noticed three rhetorical aims important to the arguments I make in this essay. First, the authors strive to make visible and substantial the (usually not white and not middle class) people about whom they write, their dignity, their worthiness, and the impediments to academic achievement they encounter. Second, the authors attempt to persuade readers that caring about these (different) peoples or students is not sufficient to enable change in their material circumstances; instead, the reader’s changed behavior as an educator is also required. The third rhetorical aim is not often stated as explicitly as Jennifer Beech does in arguing for “the complex subjectivities of [poor and rural] white students” (p. 173) in the 2004 College English issue to which I refer: