Dodging Questions

Matsuda, Matsuda, Matsuda, Matsuda, Matsuda, MATSUDA.... Well... Several things come to mind when I think back on lunch and the two talks I was able to attend:

1. Damn that guy ages well. I hope I look that good when I'm his age.
2. Using google search to learn articles... Freakin' brilliant...
3. He was surprisingly shy at lunch.
4. I felt like he analyzed his audience well for the two talks I saw: the public lecture and the tutoring lecture. But, and perhaps because of that, I felt like his talks just covered basic stuff about working with second language users. Affirming, yes. Comforting, yes. Refreshing (my memory), yes. But exciting or new, no. 
5. I wish he'd been able (willing?) to respond to Gallagher's repeated questions about changing the university. While Matsuda seemed interested in what a diversifying student population means for how we teach and think about students, Gallagher seemed to want to start a conversation about what we teach and how the linguistic practices of the world and of the diverse student population (declining [social] capital of American English, the linguistic legitimacy of other languages and Englishes, preference for functional Englishes for economic gain, etc.) should make us alter it. That is, what our curriculum is, how we actively involve second languages/Englishes in composition, how would we assess this kind of composition, etc.
6. I wish I wasn't bashful sometimes. I know, shocking, but I am on certain days, and so I didn't feel comfortable asking questions like I usually do.
7. When he spoke about how a Chinese student with a certain proficiency in their language might have an easier time transitioning to writing in English than another Chinese student, I took him to mean that the literacy practices that are common across languages are what we do (and should be) teaching. Analysis of the rhetorical situation and whatnot. We should teach those literacy practices first, then formal language.
8. But he also seemed unwilling to discard formal language instruction. His emphasis on not grading grammar if we don't teach it doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't teach it. It just means if we don't we shouldn't punish students for not knowing it. Where is the balance between these two for him?

All this rambling is to say... Meh. My response to his presentations are perhaps best summed up by "Meh." He is an excellent presenter. His technique great. His demonstrations captivated the audience (esp. the hand to you chin one). He's more articulate than I normally am. However, his content was safe. It was as if he was trying to catch everyone up to where we are for certain in knowledge: don't assume students are dumb or inferior because of errors; don't grade something you don't teach; do recognize that American English is at the very least declining as a global lingua franca; do realize that English teachers are the harshest judges of ESL writing and that is largely due to our desire to help them... But he was unwilling to venture out into uncertain territory, to make claims about what changes should be made. To all the Trekkies out there, he wouldn't boldly go where (hu)mankind had never gone before. I think his talk was great - especially for people who haven't had much exposure to ESL tutoring and teaching scholarship - but he was no James Tiberius Kirk.