Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 23, No. 1 (2025)
More Than a Celebration: Writing Center Anniversaries as Epideictic Rhetoric
James M. Cochran
Hartwick College
cochranj@hartwick.edu
Kara Poe Alexander
Baylor University
kara_alexander@baylor.edu
Rachel Herzl-Betz
Nevada State University
rachel.herzl-betz@nevadastate.edu
Ricardo Ramos Duran
Nevada State University
ricardo.ramosduran@students.nevadastate.edu
Abstract
This article reimagines writing center anniversary celebrations as powerful acts of epideictic rhetoric. Applying Sheard’s six characteristics—educative, ritualistic, elicits judgment, initiates, supports, and influences discourse, participates in reality at critical moments, and inspires new realities—we analyze celebrations at three institutions: a private R1 university, a small liberal arts college, and a public institution. Our analysis reveals that these events function as strategic rhetorical acts rather than mere commemorations. Writing center anniversary celebrations affirm institutional value, strengthen community identity, and advocate for continued support. Moreover, through commemorating past achievements, reflecting on present work, and envisioning future directions, these events reinforce the writing center’s institutional identity and showcase contributions to student success–all of which can help to secure ongoing support. Ultimately, we argue that approaching anniversary events as rhetorical opportunities rather than neutral commemorations enables writing center administrators to create celebrations that honor tradition, affirm communal values, and advance strategic aims.
Keywords: anniversary celebrations, epideictic rhetoric, institutional history, collective memory, writing center administration, archives, commemorative rhetoric
In On Rhetoric, Aristotle identifies three primary forms of rhetoric—forensic, deliberative, and epideictic—each tied to a distinct temporal orientation (past, future, present, respectively) (1358b). Forensic rhetoric evaluates past actions and assigns blame or innocence, making it central to legal and courtroom settings. Deliberative rhetoric seeks to persuade audiences about proposed future actions—what should or should not be undertaken to achieve desired outcomes or prevent harmful ones—and is common in legislative and policy-making contexts. Epideictic rhetoric attends to the present by celebrating, critiquing, or reaffirming current events and communal values. Traditionally associated with toasts, eulogies, commencement speeches, sermons, and acceptance speeches, epideictic discourse commemorates achievements, reinforces collective identity, and affirms communal bonds.
Scholars have examined epideictic rhetoric in classrooms, dominant ideologies, disciplinary discourse, and cultural practices (e.g., Crowley and Hawhee; Halloran; Killingsworth; Lussos; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca; Spigelman; Walker, “Aristotle’s Lyrics;” Walker, Rhetoric), yet its role within writing center contexts remains largely unexamined. This gap is significant because epideictic rhetoric is central to the celebrations, events, and everyday practices that shape writing center identity and community. One timely example is the writing center anniversary.
Because many writing centers were founded in the 1970s (Carino; Boquet, “Our Little Secret”), a large number are now celebrating 40-50-year anniversaries. While these anniversaries mark institutional longevity, they also emphasize the evolution of the writing center itself. As Giaimo reminds us, “writing centers, at their core, were created during times of crisis. Only, the crisis then was about ‘unprepared’ students rather than the myriad challenges we face in higher education today.” This observation underscores how today’s anniversaries function not only as celebrations but also as significant rhetorical moments–occasions that invite reflection on what has changed and what has endured. They affirm core values, honor the labor and contributions of past and present community members, and strengthen the writing center’s visibility within the academic community (e.g., Lerner, The Idea; McKinney). These celebrations enact epideictic rhetoric through speeches, testimonials, and institutional narratives, discursive forms that praise past achievements, reaffirm shared missions, and foster belonging among students, faculty, and staff (Boquet, Noise; Lerner, The Idea).
Despite their clear rhetorical function, little scholarship has examined these events as epideictic rhetoric. While studies have analyzed writing center histories, narratives, and institutional positioning (Geller et al.; Lerner, The Idea; McKinney), few have explored how anniversary events function as rhetorical acts. This gap leaves unexamined how anniversaries contribute to writing center values, identity, and institutional positioning as well as their potential to serve as sites of critique, transformation, and advocacy.
In this article, we apply Sheard’s six categories of epideictic rhetoric, following Rachel Graham Lussos’ model, to an analysis of three writing center anniversary celebrations. We argue that these celebrations function as epideictic rhetoric by commemorating important milestones, affirming communal identity, and fostering rhetorical reflection on the writing center’s role within the institution. Through an analysis of three case studies, we demonstrate how anniversary events affirm institutional presence, cultivate community and belonging, and provide opportunities for rhetorical engagement with writing center history and identity. More broadly, our findings highlight writing center anniversaries as significant epideictic acts that celebrate past accomplishments, reaffirm ongoing relevance, and solidify a writing center’s role in supporting academic, institutional, and community goals. By viewing these events through an epideictic lens, we demonstrate how they honor tradition, strengthen community ties, and shape the writing center’s identity within the academic landscape.
In what follows, we first provide background on epideictic rhetoric, situating it within rhetorical studies and composition theory. Next, we review existing scholarship on writing center histories and celebrations and provide background on each writing center analyzed here. We then present case studies of three writing center anniversary celebrations, analyze their rhetorical strategies, and discuss implications for community-building and institutional identity. Finally, we consider the broader significance of recognizing writing center anniversaries as rhetorical moments that contribute to writing center advocacy, institutional visibility, and the reaffirmation of core values. Ultimately, by framing writing center anniversary celebrations through an epideictic lens, we offer a new perspective on how these moments function as rhetorical acts that sustain and evolve a writing center’s role within the academy.
Epideictic Rhetoric and Writing Centers
Epideictic rhetoric, one of Aristotle’s three branches of rhetoric alongside deliberative and forensic rhetoric, is primarily concerned with the present and often takes the form of ceremonial discourse that commemorates events, shapes communal identity, and creates a shared sense of belonging (1358b). Aristotle emphasized its association with praise and blame, but later scholars broadened the concept. Walker reconceived epideictic rhetoric as discourse that negotiates, reinforces, or revises values and beliefs (“Aristotle’s Lyrics” 7). Similarly, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca highlighted epideictic rhetoric’s aesthetic and pedagogical functions: it invites audiences to reflect on collective values and traditions while honoring or criticizing them. This expanded understanding positions epideictic rhetoric as a dynamic force for social cohesion that reaffirms institutional and cultural identities (Oravec).
In “The Public Value of Epideictic Rhetoric,” Cynthia Sheard further identifies six defining features of epideictic rhetoric. She writes:
We can say that epideictic is educative, that it is in many ways ritualistic, that it elicits judgment, that it can initiate, support, influence, or lend closure to other modes of discourse, and we should add not only that it participates in reality at critical moments in time but that it interprets and represents one reality for the purpose of positing and inspiring a new one (790).
Sheard’s framework emphasizes epideictic discourse’s role in invoking values and therefore shaping collective realities and stimulating change in a community. This expanded understanding positions epideictic rhetoric as dynamic: it honors traditions while creating space for critique, transformation, and communal identity.
Contemporary scholars have identified epideictic elements across diverse contexts ranging from landscapes (Halloran), sorority rhetoric (Hogg), and graduation ceremonies (Agnew) to the composition classroom (Sullivan), songs (Walker, “Aristotle’s Lyrics”), needlework (Carter), and occasional cakes (Lussos). This breadth illustrates how epideictic rhetoric operates beyond traditional ceremonial settings as a powerful tool that shapes meaning in everyday cultural and institutional practices.
Writing centers are deeply embedded in institutional culture, making their anniversaries particularly rich sites for rhetorical analysis; yet, these celebrations remain largely unexamined as rhetorical events. Although scholarship has not focused on anniversary events in writing centers, scholars have examined anniversary events and culture in higher education more broadly: anniversary events as jubilees that construct meaning and identity (Guhl and Hürlimann), as a site of contested memory (Huxford and Wallace), as prompts for historical research and reflection (Paletschek), and as closely related to university historiography (Dhondt). The same attention has not carried over to studies of writing centers.
Instead, writing center scholarship has emphasized the importance of telling our stories through three primary approaches: (1) histories of writing centers (Carino; Boquet, “Our Little Secret;” Lerner, “Punishment; Moore), (2) archival studies (Nall; Wilde et al.; Buck), and (3) autoethnographies and testimonies that center on lived experiences (Faison and Condon; Giaimo and Lawson; Doyle). Peter Carino, for instance, sketches a history of writing centers from 1904 until the 1950s, challenging dominant narratives that characterized early writing centers as “dungeons where students were banished to do grammar drills” (113). Expanding Carino’s history, Elizabeth Boquet traces the development of writing centers throughout the twentieth century: from writing labs as methods in the 1920s, to physical sites in the 1940s, their apparent “disappearance” in the 1950s, the growth of peer tutoring in the 1960s and 1970s, and finally to becoming sites of contemporary composition studies in the 1980s. Framing her history explicitly as storytelling, Boquet acknowledges the multiplicity of narratives: “All of these stories can be written. Should be written. Are waiting to be written. Will be written. Or not” (479). Likewise, Neil Lerner traces the tensions between the growth and elimination of writing centers from 1939 to 1970: Writing centers grew due to increased college enrollments from “urban immigrants in the 1930s” and “returning veterans in the 1940s,” but many writing centers were eliminated from campuses during the 1950s and 1960s due to budget cuts and the elimination of remedial programs (“Punishment” 53). Lerner’s history demonstrates both the precarity and possibilities that today’s writing centers face. More recently, Dan Moore reviews the formative years of writing centers (late 1880s to early 1940s) to identify the historical developments that gave rise to the principles that guide writing centers’ tutoring practices and philosophies today.
Archives provide another approach to preserving writing center narratives and therefore constitute essential infrastructure for commemorative events like anniversaries. Stacy Nall argues that informal partnerships and collaborations often remain undocumented in formal archives, yet these constitute a critical part of writing center histories. Nall calls for the collection and preservation of these informal moments as an act of “storytelling” that preserves “institutional memory” (117). Wilde et al. similarly explores how archival research can help to preserve “a living past” by foregrounding tutor voices that sometimes get ignored in dominant historical narratives of writing centers (105). Finally, situated within her broader work on open access multimodality, Elisabeth H. Buck surveys the digital archives of writing center journals to construct a historiography of the treatment of computer technologies in the field of writing center studies. By detailing her archival research process, Buck calls attention to the necessity of maintaining “obtainable,” “navigable,” and “straightforward” archives (59) to better understand the past so that we can handle today’s challenges in the field.
More recently, counterstories, autoethnography, and testimony have emerged as methods for sharing writing center experiences. In Counterstories from the Writing Center, Wonderful Faison and Frankie Condon gather first-person accounts as a “means of surfacing, naming, interrogating, and dismantling the workings of racism in the daily life of the writing centre” (8). Building on this work, Genie Nicole Giaimo and Daniel Lawson’s edited collection, Storying Writing Center Labor for Anti-Capitalist Futures, uses “counterstory, storying, and testimony” to convey individualized, lived experiences in writing centers (23), thereby complicating dominant narratives and making visible the experiences often excluded from official histories (23). Relatedly, Melanie Doyle employs autoethnography to reflect on the stories she tells about her multifaceted and complex career in writing centers. Doyle suggests that autoethnography as methodology can serve as an accessible approach to writing center scholars, particularly those in precarious or marginal positions.
While each of the above approaches underscore the importance of writing center narratives, they do not address their rhetorical function in commemorative events like anniversaries. Only occasional references to anniversaries appear. For instance, in a 2015 blog post, Brad Hughes reflected on the 20th anniversary of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s online writing center. He traced the history and evolution of the center since the website was first launched in 1995 and highlighted its growth, technological adaptation, and role in academic writing support. The post generated nearly sixty comments expressing shared nostalgia, appreciation, and community. Praxis’s 2013 special issue, “The Future of Writing Centers,” is framed around two anniversaries—the tenth anniversary of Praxis and the 20th anniversary of the UT Austin Writing Center (Orem and Pietsch). Despite occasional references to writing center celebrations, scholarly discussions remain sparse and none examine such occasions rhetorically. This absence leaves a clear opportunity to investigate how anniversaries commemorate history, affirm institutional values, and negotiate writing center identity.
Institutional Context and Methodology
The three case studies presented here focus on writing center celebrations at three institutions—Baylor University, Hartwick College, and Nevada State University. Each case study employs a tailored methodology informed by the institution’s history and the specifics of its celebration. These methodologies include archival research, rhetorical analysis, and qualitative analysis. Taken together, these case studies offer a multifaceted perspective on how writing centers leverage epideictic rhetoric to affirm their institutional roles and community significance.
The Writing Center at Baylor University—a private R1 religious institution in the Southwest with an enrollment of 22,000 students—was established in 1983 and renamed the University Writing Center in 2019. The Center is staffed by a director, assistant director, staff coordinator, and 30-35 undergraduate and graduate student consultants. [1] In spring 2024, it celebrated its 40th anniversary. For this study, Kara, who has served as director since 2017, conducted archival research to examine the Center’s historical and rhetorical significance beyond her prior administrative knowledge. Methods included analysis of staff handbooks, university website archives, campus newspapers, and yearbooks. She also engaged in rhetorical analysis of the Center’s 40th anniversary celebration—its speeches, program materials and artifacts, structure, visual and symbolic elements, and community participation—to assess how epideictic rhetoric was enacted and institutional values were affirmed.
The Charlotte Orr Hotaling Writing Center at Hartwick College, a small liberal arts college in upstate New York with a population of 1,112 students, opened in 1978. The Writing Center was dedicated as a named space in the mid-1990s. The Writing Center is staffed by a director and approximately 10 undergraduate consultants. James has served as director since 2019. In the fall of 2023, the Writing Center celebrated its 45th anniversary. For that occasion, James analyzed the archival materials located within the writing center and at Hartwick’s archives. He also directed a member of the writing center’s undergraduate staff to identify articles about or even brief mentions of the writing center in past editions of the campus newspaper. The same undergraduate writing consultant also met with prior writing center and writing program administrators and recorded conversations with them about their experiences establishing and directing the writing center and writing program.
Nevada State University’s Writing Center became a stand-alone program in 2014, after its origins in the Academic Success Center (ASC). Roughly 70% of the University’s 7,500-person student body identifies with a historically marginalized race or ethnicity and 60% identify as first-generation college students. It typically employs 14–17 undergraduate writing specialists and fellows. Rachel, assistant director since 2017 and director since 2021, and Ricardo, an undergraduate fellow since 2023, helped lead the 10th anniversary celebration in 2024. Together, they designed an IRB-approved study focusing on the team’s perception of The Long Night Against Procrastination, or LNAP, a bi-annual event that has been celebrated since the center’s inception. At Nevada State, this event is collaboratively organized by the undergraduate team and promotes productivity, community, and campus support. Rachel and Ricardo collected anonymous reflections from former employees and fellows in response to the following questions: “What does LNAP mean to you? What people, places, activities, and memories feel most important and why?” These responses, displayed at the 10th anniversary event, were analyzed using epideictic rhetoric as their critical lens. All respondents included in this article are identified by pseudonyms.
Writing Center Anniversaries as Epideictic Rhetoric
In this section, we follow Lussos’s model to apply Sheard’s six characteristics of epideictic rhetoric to analyze three case studies of writing center anniversary celebrations. In doing so, we aim to highlight how these celebrations enact epideictic rhetoric and affirm community values, cultivate identity and belonging, and assert institutional relevance, value, and prominence.
Educative
Writing center celebrations serve an educative purpose by helping attendees understand the center’s mission, values, and history, as well as its role within the institution. Beyond being a social gathering, these events provide an opportunity to actively share a writing center’s (his)story with a broad audience. They also facilitate knowledge about the purpose of a writing center and highlight its contributions to the academic institution.
During Baylor’s 40th-anniversary celebration, for example, Kara invited former directors, including the founder and first director, Dr. Dianna Vitanza, to attend and speak. [2] During her speech, Dr. Vitanza recounted how, as a new assistant professor fresh out of graduate school, she recognized the need for a writing center at Baylor and drew on her graduate school experiences as a writing consultant to establish one. By revisiting the center’s origins, the event educated attendees—including current professional and student staff and university administrators—about its history, identity, and evolving role within the university. This reflection on the writing center’s founding also fostered a sense of communal identity rooted in the center’s legacy.
Similarly, Hartwick’s 45th anniversary celebration highlighted the center’s resilience amid institutional challenges, including the college’s recent turnover of several chief academic officers. James invited former writing center administrators (Emily Wilson-Orzechowski, Julie Suarez Hayes, and Stephanie King), writing program administrators (Dr. Robert Benson and Dr. Susan Navarette), and the chair of the English Department during the Writing Center’s formative years (Dr. Thomas Beattie). In Hartwick’s case, the Writing Program and Writing Center have long been intertwined, so those responsible for the founding of the Writing Center also had a hand in the founding of the Writing Program. In addition, Hartwick’s anniversary celebration took place following a period in which the College had had four different chief officers of academic affairs during the previous four years. By revisiting the writing center’s history and its long-standing contributions to student success, the event underscored its continued necessity, demonstrating its resilience and enduring value within the institution. Ultimately, this anniversary celebration not only commemorated the writing center’s history but also served as a crucial moment of institutional memory, reinforcing its ongoing relevance and educating both past and present members about its foundational values and contributions.
In a similar vein, alumni reflections collected during the 10th anniversary celebration of Nevada State’s LNAP illuminated the event’s evolution from a labor-intensive experiment into a cherished campus tradition. For example, Theo describes the “exhaustive” commitment to building the event, marked by “sweat, tears, laughter, doubt, and delirium,” while Claire recalls how the student workers “took time-stamped selfies with increasingly exhausted specialists.” These reflections provide a kind of narrative arc by illustrating how LNAP evolved from a precarious, late-night experiment into a structured and anticipated aspect of campus life. By sharing these stories, the celebration educated attendees on the hidden labor required to foster writing culture and support on campus.
Together, these three anniversary celebrations illustrate how the educative dimension of epideictic rhetoric operates across diverse institutional contexts and audiences. The Baylor and Hartwick cases emphasized institutional continuity by linking present-day practices to founding figures and reaffirming the writing center’s enduring value despite administrative change. In contrast, Nevada State’s LNAP celebration showcased the evolution of a newer writing initiative from an experimental event into an established tradition that embodies the writing center’s pedagogical and communal values. Across all three cases, anniversary celebrations functioned as rhetorical acts of education and remembrance that connected past and present practices, strengthened institutional memory, and advocated for the writing center’s continued support. In addition, they serve as powerful reminders of the writing center’s essential role in student success and academic life. These approaches demonstrate that education through epideictic rhetoric can be achieved through multiple modalities—speeches, artifacts, and personal narratives—each suited to different institutional contexts and strategic goals.
Ritualistic Aspects
Epideictic rhetoric is also inherently ritualistic because it adheres to established forms, traditions, and social expectations that foster belonging, communal values, and a collective identity (Bokser; Hogg). Writing center anniversary celebrations incorporate rituals—structured events, symbolic gestures, and communal gatherings—to commemorate achievements, reaffirm their mission, and strengthen institutional belonging.
Baylor’s 40th-anniversary celebration featured several key rituals. Speeches by the founding director, the current director, an undergraduate writing consultant, the dean, and the provost were central to the event and bolstered the writing center’s mission. As current director, Kara honored the individuals who shaped the center’s legacy, while the provost emphasized the writing center’s vital role in supporting students and faculty and adapting to technologies like AI. The student consultant shared a personal testimonial and highlighted how tutoring influenced her learning and development. By recognizing past achievements and looking toward the future, these speeches performed a ritual function of affirming the center’s continued relevance and value.
Beyond speeches, visual and symbolic elements further enhanced Baylor’s ritualistic nature. Staff wore t-shirts featuring a 40th-anniversary logo, and the space included balloons, floral arrangements, and refreshments. Attendees received commemorative cups, and a slideshow showcased archival materials, such as photographs, bookmarks, flyers, and stickers from the center’s history. These elements reinforced the celebratory and ritualistic nature of the occasion and provided a tangible link between the past and present, thereby strengthening participants’ sense of identity and belonging.
At Hartwick College, James took a different approach, opting for a more casual, informal, and speech-free 45th-anniversary celebration. This choice was strategic because it was Hartwick’s first writing center anniversary event. James sought to create a relaxed gathering, with plans for a larger, more formal, and ritual-heavy celebration at the 50th anniversary. However, even in the absence of speeches and formal rituals, the event still carried ritualistic significance. The casual brunch format recalled a long tradition of writing center gatherings around food, a practice well documented in Hartwick’s archives through photographs of past celebrations, beautiful sheet cakes, humorous newsletters, and the gathering of generations of students in the same space. Like Kara’s showcase of past writing center artifacts, James displayed historical artifacts, including pamphlets, photographs from holiday parties and meetings, and founding documents. Moreover, by embedding the event within the college’s annual reunion–a campus tradition for alumni and families of current students–James ensured higher attendance and greater institutional visibility. This integration illustrates another function of ritual in epideictic rhetoric—it attracts participants and secures the writing center’s place in broader campus traditions.
Nevada State’s 10th-anniversary LNAP event blended aspects of Baylor’s formal and Hartwick’s informal approaches. Students designed t-shirts for all attendees, which created a distinct event identity that fostered community. Both the celebration and the collected alumni reflections focused on unintentional traditions, which only had value because of their shared recognition. Unlike Baylor’s formal speeches or Hartwick’s structured casual brunch, Nevada State relied on peer-centered, participatory practices that gained significance precisely because they were shared. In fact, in the reflections, references to “subpar pizza,” hallway chair races, and late-night blackouts functioned as shorthand for shared memories, “memeifying” the event, and allowing student workers to build community across its 10-year history. Over time, these student-driven rituals accrued meaning, strengthened communal identity, and created continuity across the event’s decade-long history.
Together, these three case studies illustrate the varied ways epideictic rituals operate within writing center contexts. Baylor’s 40th anniversary emphasized formalized, highly structured rituals—speeches, ceremonial artifacts, and carefully curated visual displays—that reinforced continuity, authority, and the Center’s institutional legitimacy. Hartwick’s anniversary relied on informal, participatory rituals: a casual brunch format, historical artifacts, and the college’s reunion weekend. These rituals cultivated intimacy, embedded the center within campus traditions, and enhanced visibility and participation. Nevada State’s LNAP event blended these approaches, combining branded materials and structured displays with unintentional, student-driven rituals. Through repetition and shared recognition, unintentional practices strengthened communal identity over time. Across all three celebrations, anniversary rituals functioned not merely as ceremonial formality but as mechanisms that connect past and present participants—administrators, staff, and students—to the writing center’s ongoing mission. Collectively, these cases demonstrate that ritualistic practices—whether formal, informal, planned, or emergent—affirm communal identity, preserve institutional memory, and sustain the writing center’s culture and advocacy within higher education. They also show that anniversary celebrations can be strategically deployed to serve both institutional priorities and community-building goals.
Elicits Judgment
Writing center anniversary celebrations also provide moments for judgment—both positive and negative—that influence perceptions of a center’s legitimacy and institutional standing. The success of these events hinges on execution, which might include attendance, organization, food, attendance, promotional materials, and speeches—factors that contribute to the public perception of the center’s value. A well-planned and well-attended event signals institutional validation and prestige, which may elicit praise and reinforce a positive ethos and institutional standing. By contrast, a poorly executed or sparsely attended celebration may signify marginalization, which could potentially affect future funding and support. For our centers, these events become rhetorical moments where stakeholders judge the center’s role and contributions and where centers self-assess, teaching the community how they, and their campus contributions, should be understood.
At Baylor’s 40th-anniversary event, for instance, the organization and content of the event underscored the writing center as an indispensable part of the university. Kara’s speech detailed the changes made over the years, highlighted new initiatives, and presented data on student engagement and usage—all aimed at demonstrating the center’s role as a vital university service. Student and faculty testimonials further shaped public perception by validating the center’s legitimacy and worth. The selection of speakers, the presence of key university figures, and the narratives shared by presenters and attendees alike all contribute to how the center is perceived within the institution.
Similarly, at Hartwick’s anniversary celebration, a common feature was praise for the work of the writing center and for past writing program and writing center administrators. A member of senior leadership attended the event and praised the writing center’s mission and projects, including earning an external grant, expanding linguistic justice resources, and implementing curriculum revisions that promoted student success. James, too, offered praise. He honored past writing center and program administrators for their work establishing and sustaining the writing center and contributing to what it is today. He also commended their design choices of the physical space and extended this praise even to seemingly small details, such as the significance of a Minnie Mouse clock that still hangs in the writing center today. They returned this praise, thanking James for hosting a celebration that involves them, and extolling the recent updates to the writing center and the writing program. Moving away from praise, they lightheartedly asked about decor that James had removed from the writing center, such as a world map that had been hanging on the walls for decades in the writing center, which demonstrates how material artifacts can carry symbolic weight in institutional memory.
In addition, at Nevada State, alumni reflections on LNAP emphasized “support,” “collaboration,” “connection,” and “safety” to explain what they value about the event and how they, by extension, believe others should judge its value. Emilia described LNAP as “more than just a study session; it’s a place to meet friends, improve assignments, but most importantly it’s a place where you are safe and supported.” Xander noted that “It means connection. It means helping people find their people.” These narratives highlighted emotional, social, and professional growth, framing LNAP's broader impact on emotional, social, and professional skills. For example, Dayea explains how LNAP’s emphasis on serving and creating community influenced her classroom teaching post-graduation. In these narratives, alumni do more than celebrate the event; they establish the writing center’s long-term relevance and affirm its role in shaping both individual experiences and institutional culture.
Across these three anniversary celebrations, audiences evaluated the writing center’s value in ways that both affirmed its legitimacy and influenced future trajectory. Each event invited its community to reflect on the center’s mission, role, and impact, though the sources and modes of judgement varied. Baylor’s celebration strategically featured speakers from distinct institutional positions, ranging from student consultants to senior administrators, which allowed diverse stakeholders to share unique perspectives on the center’s work and thereby reinforced the center’s authority across multiple institutional levels. Hartwick’s celebration emphasized communal praise and symbolic artifacts, which prompted reflection on continuity and the center’s evolving identity. Nevada State centered alumni voices and privileged the relational and framed the center’s value in terms of support, collaboration, and connection. Together, these cases reveal how anniversary events function, not only as commemorations, but also as rhetorical performances in which writing centers negotiate identity and institutional value. By eliciting judgment from diverse stakeholders, anniversary events reinforce legitimacy and prompt reflection, which helps centers align their mission with institutional priorities and remain valued spaces of learning and community.
Initiate, Support, Influence, or Lend Closure to Other Modes of Discourse
Writing center anniversary celebrations initiate, support, influence, and lend closure to other modes of discourse about a writing center’s role, legacy, and future (Sheard). These events provide space to reflect on a center’s history, affirm its mission, and chart its trajectory. By gathering students, faculty, administrators, and alumni, anniversary celebrations spark conversations that elevate the writing center’s institutional value and significance. Through speeches, testimonials, and commemorative materials, these events shape how the center is perceived and influence its reputation. Anniversary milestones often serve to highlight moments of transition—leadership changes, programmatic shifts, and new initiatives—making these celebrations strategic rhetorical acts that help define the center’s evolving identity and purpose rather than merely retrospective exercises.
Baylor’s 40th-anniversary celebration exemplifies this rhetorical function by emphasizing the writing center’s role through public recognition and institutional discourse. Kara’s speech acknowledged past directors and institutional supporters (e.g., Libraries, English Department, Provost’s Office, Dean’s Office) for their role in supporting the center. She also honored student consultants for helping to fulfill the writing center’s mission and contribute to student success. Beyond the formal program, the event fostered informal discourse, where attendees shared stories with each other of their connection to the center or its impact on their academic and professional lives. For attendees less familiar with the writing center’s work, the event served as an introduction to the center’s mission, people, and significance—potentially encouraging greater engagement in the future.
Similarly, Hartwick’s 45th anniversary celebration initiated and supported reunion discourse. As part of a larger alumni reunion, the celebration fostered conversations that evoked shared memories and highlighted changes over time. Charlotte Linde describes reunion discourse as twofold. First, it allows participants to remember and confirm their experiences with others who share their memories—what she calls “the power for the participants because it may contain at least some of the right people to remember with” (54). Second, reunion discourse emphasizes contrast between past and present or “what has happened then and now” (55), which helps participants recognize their own and the writing center’s evolution. At Hartwick, both functions were clearly evident. Alumni reminisced with past writing administrators about their time in the writing center, recalling shared experiences and connecting with former colleagues. Likewise, writing center and writing program administrators recalled their shared pasts. Participants also engaged in the reunion discourse of contrast: alumni introduced partners and children, former writing administrators inquired about alumni’s careers, and attendees caught up on each other’s lives. The event also fostered new relationships, bridging generations of writing center consultants and administrators and strengthening the center’s ongoing legacy.
In short, writing center anniversary celebrations function as rhetorical acts that honor the past and shape the center’s future. These events initiate conversations, shape perception, influence institutional discourse, and lend closure to one chapter while opening another, thus guiding how the center is perceived and remembered. Baylor’s 40th anniversary emphasized public recognition and institutional acknowledgment, a choice that fostered engagement and reinforced the center’s relationships across campus. Hartwick’s 45th anniversary celebration centered on reunion discourse that bridged generations of writing center staff, confirmed shared memories, and highlighted change over time, an approach that strengthened the center’s legacy. Together, these cases demonstrate how anniversary celebrations employ epideictic rhetoric to guide perception, influence institutional narratives, and chart a writing center’s evolving identity. Through speeches, testimonials, and commemorative materials, these events ensure that writing centers are not only remembered but also continually reimagined as vital, dynamic spaces for learning.
Participate in Reality at Critical Moments in Time
Writing center anniversary celebrations function as epideictic rhetoric by participating in reality at critical moments in time—marking significant milestones and emphasizing its role within the institution. These events serve as historical markers that draw attention to a center’s longevity and its continued adaptation within the institution. Through commemoration and reflection, they invite participants to honor a shared past while envisioning a collective future.
Celebrating a 10th, 25th, or 50th anniversary is important because it signals institutional stability and growth, recognizing that the centers celebrating today have evolved significantly from their founding iterations in mission, pedagogy, and institutional positioning. For example, Baylor’s 40th-anniversary celebration honored the center’s foundational years while looking ahead to future endeavors. The inclusion of music, a video slideshow, t-shirts, and flowers enriched the audience’s sensory experience by grounding the event in a shared, embodied engagement that fostered a sense of unity and collective memory. More broadly, celebrations often incorporate visual and multisensory elements that engage the audience’s senses and invite them into a shared experience. All three celebrations used a range of elements, including slideshows, videos, banners, archival displays, and t-shirts, to create an embodied experience that fosters a tangible connection to the center’s mission and impact. At Hartwick, for example, archival displays and the longstanding physical space of the writing center—a space that has housed the writing center for approximately three decades—helped to build participants’ shared sense of community and memory. These communal elements help reframe the writing center’s role within the academic community and invite participants to reflect on its past, appreciate its present, and imagine its future.
At Nevada State, the 10th Anniversary celebration coincided with a pivotal financial milestone. Since its inception, the center had been supported by a generous external gift that also funded other student support programs on campus. Shortly before the anniversary year, the writing center began transitioning to state funding—a shift that signaled a move to greater institutional stability and permanence. While these transitions are themselves worthy of celebration, they also invite deeper reflection, reassessment, and, at times, increased scrutiny. Although only a few study respondents explicitly referenced the funding change, its significance was more subtly reflected in how attendees interacted with the in-person exhibit. The display itself did not mention the shift in funding, yet many attendees interpreted the reflections as an invitation to construct a broader narrative about the center’s development. For them, the center’s transition was not just a financial update—it became the symbolic culmination of its institutional journey. In this context, the act of highlighting the center’s history and adaptability took on added meaning, shaped by the convergence of multiple critical institutional moments.
By participating in reality at critical moments in time, writing center anniversary celebrations act as strategic rhetorical moments that commemorate the past, encourage reflection on the present, and invite contemplation on the future. In all three celebrations, each event reflected its center’s trajectory and priorities while reaffirming its place within the academic community. Baylor’s 40th anniversary event used multisensory elements—music, a slideshow, t-shirts, and flowers—to foster collective memory and embodied engagement. Hartwick’s celebration emphasized continuity through archival displays and the longstanding physical space, which reinforced a sense of rootedness and shared history. Nevada State’s event coincided with a pivotal financial funding that attendees interpreted as a symbol of institutional permanence and growth. Together, these examples demonstrate how anniversary celebrations serve as moments of rhetorical significance in that they connect past achievements with future aspirations. Through epideictic rhetoric, these events foster belonging, ownership, and anticipation, all of which serve to contribute to the center’s continued success, relevance, and vitality.
Represent One Reality and Inspire a New One
This characteristic of epideictic rhetoric, while overlapping with others, uniquely prompts WCAs to pause and assess their center’s present reality and envision its future. Anniversary celebrations highlight the center’s current state and affirm its value while creating space to praise its contributions and validate its role as a vital part of the institution. However, these events do more than celebrate triumphs; they invite critical reflection on ongoing challenges facing contemporary writing centers. These challenges include recruiting and retaining consultants; fostering staff diversity that reflects student populations; responding to changing student needs shaped by hybrid learning environments, evolving technologies, and shifting enrollment trends; navigating fluctuating usage rates amid shifting institutional priorities; addressing budget constraints during periods of austerity; and adapting to emerging technologies such as generative AI that reshape writing pedagogy and tutoring practice. While these contemporary concerns differ markedly from earlier struggles for legitimacy, they reflect how writing centers continue to evolve in response to the current moment. Acknowledging these realities positions participants within the center’s ongoing story and encourages collaborative problem-solving. Too often, writing center staff operate within what Anne Geller terms “fungible time” (8)—undergraduate tutors moving between writing conferences during shifts, which are often squeezed in between their own classes, or administrators navigating their own daily demands. Anniversary celebrations offer a rare opportunity to participate in “epochal time,” allowing practitioners to pause and take stock of the center’s present state (Geller 8). This reflective pause is particularly valuable in the typically frenetic pace of writing center work, creating space for both honest assessment and aspirational thinking.
While these events offer a chance to reflect on the present through “epochal time,” they also inspire future possibilities by channeling that reflection into tangible change. For instance, the reflection sparked by the planning and execution of these celebrations inspired new possibilities for all of us, acting as a launching point for new initiatives, such as expanding services, embracing new pedagogies, or addressing emerging technologies like Gen-AI. After Baylor’s writing center anniversary celebration, Kara was inspired by conversations with attendees to establish a donation account for the writing center, which was successfully added as a funding option within the College of Arts and Sciences. This initiative made the writing center visible to potential donors and opened up new avenues for support. By offering a vision for the center’s future, these celebrations served as a call to action for WCAs and other stakeholders to invest in the center’s continued growth.
Investment in the writing center’s future, however, extends beyond financial contributions. Institutional partnerships, community engagement, advocacy, and activism can also play a crucial role in strengthening its foundation. For example, anniversary celebrations fostered relationships that initiated new forms of support. At Hartwick, for example, as part of the planning process leading up to the anniversary celebration, one of the senior writing consultants interviewed past writing center and program administrators in an attempt to build an oral history of the early writing center. After these interviews, that writing consultant continued to see some of these past writing administrators as they attended campus events. The anniversary celebration gave rise to new relationships and engagement, which helped to shape the center’s future trajectory. These events thus became transformative rhetorical acts that redefined both what the writing center is and what it can become.
Beyond individual initiatives, writing center anniversary celebrations also foster a shared understanding of a center’s role within the academic community and inspire participants to imagine a new reality for its future. These events encouraged attendees to envision growth, innovation, and inclusivity and then motivated participants to become active contributors to that vision. This dual function of reflecting on the past and inspiring future change aligns with epideictic rhetoric’s power to praise and to transform. Through this process, anniversary celebrations act as catalysts for change, strengthening writing center communities and enhancing their institutional presence.
This dual function of envisioning and inspiring a new reality is particularly evident in alumni reflections at Nevada State’s anniversary event, where respondents articulated a vision of what LNAP represents and offered an implicit argument for how those relationships should shape future priorities for the university, the writing center, and the event itself. Together, they pointed to LNAP as a sign of academia’s potential when given the resources to flourish. One respondent, Imara, highlighted LNAP as an example of how “successful collaborations, student support, equity mindset, hard work, fun, and a little more time” can foster a thriving academic community. To reach that potential, she argues, institutions need the right attitude, but they also need a budget to match. Another respondent, Vida, emphasized the communal aspect of the event in a long poem that describes LNAP as an “exhibition of what students can accomplish,” a “demonstration of community support,” and as a chance to “feel close, in a genuine, unforced way.” While one reflection frames the event as a “reminder” and the other frames it as an “exhibition,” both understand LNAP (and writing centers themselves) as a kind of exception. For them, academia doesn’t always feel “close,” but they know that it can and, more importantly, they argue that it should. They claim that this kind of support within the context of “FUN” is essential, valuable, and worth saving. As Vida argues, “shit gets done, or doesn't.” For the respondents, the event’s value doesn’t lie in the number of assignments completed during the night; rather, it’s an argument for the essential value of a space that provides opportunities, while also allowing for multiple visions of success.
Vida ends her poem with a statement that could be read as a description or an order:
“Within the Writing Center or at home
Long Nights Against Procrastination
Never get old.”
In her voice, the end of the poem “never get old” almost sounds like marching orders for future academic leaders to keep such practices alive. LNAP, you shall not age. It is framed as both a true statement and a requirement. Her words suggest a vision for the future in which the spirit of the writing center’s events remains relevant and vibrant, continually shaping the academic culture at Nevada State.
As a rhetorical mode that represents one reality and inspires another, epideictic rhetoric allows writing center anniversary celebrations to affirm the present and envision future possibilities. In all three celebrations, reflection on current challenges—such as funding, staffing, and evolving pedagogies—prompted action and imagination. Baylor’s event led to the creation of a donation account, expanding financial visibility and support. At Hartwick, the planning process initiated an oral history project that deepened institutional memory and fostered new relationships. Nevada State’s alumni reflections framed LNAP as a model for what academic communities could become, emphasizing collaboration, equity, and joy. These examples show how anniversary events not only acknowledge the realities of writing center work but also inspire participants to reimagine its potential. Through this dual function, celebrations become generative moments that connect past and present while motivating investment in a more inclusive, sustainable, and visionary future.
In sum, Baylor’s donor initiatives, Hartwick’s renewed relationships, and Nevada State’s call to preserve LNAP demonstrate that writing center anniversaries are more than celebrations; they function as rhetorical acts that affirm institutional values, strengthen communal identity, and shape public perception. Through their educative, ritualistic, and commemorative functions, these events celebrate past accomplishments while influencing future discourse. Recognizing the rhetorical significance of these celebrations allows us to better understand their role in strengthening writing center communities and enhancing their institutional presence, thus ensuring that they continue to thrive and evolve.
Discussion and Implications
Our analysis of three writing center anniversary celebrations reveals the pivotal role of epideictic rhetoric in affirming institutional values, fostering community, and securing institutional relevance. Far from mere commemorations of longevity, these events serve as celebrations of identity and rhetorical renewals. They are opportunities to bridge past and future, to reimagine identity, and to negotiate value within each institution. Each milestone thus serves as a moment of reflection and renewal, a chance for writing centers to reaffirm and celebrate their histories while envisioning their ongoing relevance and possibilities for transformation. In an era when writing centers must justify their worth, these celebrations provide strategic opportunities to make persuasive arguments of value that extend well beyond honoring the past and demonstrate the writing center’s essential contributions to student success, faculty development, and institutional priorities. Thus, the act of celebration becomes a form of rhetorical performance, affirming what the identity of a writing center has been, and an articulation of where it might go next.
In addition to justifying a center’s continued existence, our findings suggest that writing center anniversaries contribute significantly to community-building and identity construction. As Sheard notes, epideictic rhetoric functions as both ritual and education, creating valuable moments for reflection and learning. As acts of “sensemaking” (Malenczyk), these celebrations provide a space to publicly acknowledge a writing center’s history, labor, and mission and to also cultivate a shared sense of belonging among staff, alumni, and institutional partners. By connecting past achievements to present work and future aspirations, anniversary events strengthen the collective identity of the writing center community and foster continuity across generations of participants. Anniversary celebrations therefore create strategic opportunities to assert institutional presence and demonstrate the writing center’s enduring impact. This persuasive function of epideictic rhetoric can effectively convince stakeholders to maintain and enhance their support for the writing center’s mission, vision, and values.
Because of their epideictic nature, writing center anniversaries serve as pivotal moments of rhetorical transformation. Through the curating, planning, and execution of these events, WCAs and staff engage in a deliberative process of reflection—deciding which aspects of their history to highlight and which parts to ignore. This process involves culling through decades of archives, institutional records, and personal stories to craft compelling narratives that resonate with broader institutional audiences. In curating these narratives, administrators make strategic rhetorical choices about how to frame the writing center’s impact, value, and relationship to the campus. The stories they choose to tell, the significant moments they emphasize, and the achievements they showcase all attest to the writing center’s relevance. Thus, these celebrations move from a singular event in time to persuasive acts that can position the writing center as an indispensable part of the academic community.
Furthermore, this study can be helpful to other WCAs planning their own anniversary celebrations. Centering epideictic rhetoric encourages a strategic approach to celebration planning, and allows their creators to revise with broader messaging in mind For example, when planning an anniversary event, it can be easy to focus on how a speech by an impressive alumnus or dramatic retention data will show how much the center has accomplished. It’s easier to forget that those choices in evidence, timing, and presentation also make a public-facing argument for how the center’s value ought to be assessed going forward. We are both responding to our current reality and inspiring one for our future selves. As previous scholarship on epideictic rhetoric demonstrates (Lussos; Walker, Rhetoric), commemoration involves not only preservation of the current moment but also an active reimagining of communal identity. In analyzing our three case studies, we found that our celebrations reflected the six elements of epideictic rhetoric to varying degrees, with some elements featuring more prominently than others. Not every epideictic element needs equal emphasis, but WCAs must recognize that their choices have rhetorical power, regardless of whether or not that power is under our intentional control.
It’s important to note that the rhetorical power of an anniversary celebration isn’t necessarily limited by its budget. While more financially secure centers may have access to dedicated archival support and better catering, our results suggest that smaller-scale commemorations carry equal potential for rhetorical impact. In fact, the success of the speeches, ceremonial artifacts, and visual displays in each center seems to owe more to their intentionality than to their extravagance. It would be facetious to suggest that funding doesn’t shape the ethos of a celebration. However, the three celebrations suggest that invoking collective memories of past directors and grounded details, such as a Minnie Mouse clock, may carry more rhetorical power than a show of pure institutional largesse. This means that centers without a budget line for a banquet can still shape their reality at a “critical moment in time” with a potluck, a thoughtful lineup of speakers, or a collage of their collective journey.
A final implication from our analysis is the critical importance of recordkeeping and archives to the work of celebration planning. Well-maintained records serve a practical purpose—they make it easier to compile invitations and provide materials for display. An archive of historical documents like brochures, handbooks, or photographs can be instrumental to an anniversary celebration. Beyond the practical function, archives can create opportunities for engaging with epideictic rhetoric. Having access to accurate archives allows administrators to learn about the center’s history and make strategic decisions about which aspects to highlight or critique. Incomplete archives limit the reflective and educative potential of these epideictic moments. Writing center administrators seeking guidance on archival development can consult Nall; Wilde et al.; Ramsey et al.; and Ritter for effective strategies.
While our research addresses several important questions, it also generates new areas for inquiry. Future research might examine the rhetorical dimensions of other traditions, celebrations, and events in writing centers. Writing centers put on numerous events each year, such as the National Day on Writing, the International Writing Centers Week, writing retreats, writing groups, write-ins, community events, and tutor appreciation events. Investigating how these events embody or promote epideictic rhetoric could further illuminate their significance for writing center practice and identity.
In conclusion, writing center anniversary celebrations offer a time to praise, commemorate, and reaffirm the enduring relevance and purpose of a writing center. These events function as powerful rhetorical acts that provide WCAs with opportunities to reflect on the past, present, and future while also affirming identity, building community, and advocating for the writing center’s value. Through the lens of epideictic rhetoric, writing centers emerge as vital spaces that celebrate writing, community, and student success, while also emphasizing change, growth, and evolution. Beyond commemoration, these anniversaries enable WCAs to critically assess their center’s role within the academy and persuade others of its importance. In an era of institutional precarity, labor inequities, and the rise of generative AI, such epideictic moments become even more critical as sites for asserting value and advocating for continued support. As such, writing center celebrations position writing centers as dynamic spaces that honor tradition, embrace change, and look toward the future, thus serving as crucial moments for reminding us of their value and ensuring that they remain visible, vital, and essential to student learning and growth.
Notes
[1] After the acceptance of this article, the University Writing Center at Baylor University merged with the Graduate Writing Center to form the Center for Writing Excellence in Fall 2025. The merger resulted in changes to titles, roles, and staffing.
[2] We include the names of people who have come before us to both honor them and preserve parts of our history.
Works Cited
Agnew, Lois. “‘The Day Belongs to the Students’: Expanding Epideictic’s Civic Function.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 27, no. 2, 2008, pp. 147–164.
Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by George A. Kennedy, Oxford UP, 1991.
Bokser, Julie A. “Reading and Writing Sor Juana’s Arch: Rhetorics of Belonging, Criollo Identity, and Feminist Histories.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, 2012, pp. 144–163.
Boquet, Elizabeth. “Our Little Secret: A History of Writing Centers, Pre- to Post-Open Admissions.” College Composition & Communication, vol. 50, no. 3, 1999, pp. 463–482.
—. Noise From the Writing Center. Utah State UP, 2002.
Buck, Elisabeth H. Open-Access, Multimodality, and Writing Center Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Carino, Peter. “Early Writing Centers: Toward a History.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, 1995, pp. 103–115.
Carter, Sue. “Using the Needle as a Sword: Needlework as Epideictic Rhetoric in the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.” Rhetorical Agendas: Political, Ethical, Spiritual, edited by Patricia Bizzell, Erlbaum, 2005, pp. 325–334.
Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. Pearson, 2012.
Dhondt, Pieter, editor. University Jubilees and University History Writing: A Challenging Relationship. Brill, 2014.
Doyle, Melanie. “Telling Stories and Growing Up: An Autoethnography on Writing Center Storytelling.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, 2024, https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/2eb91cd6-700a-4994-86f9-e27d8b873814/content
Faison, Wonderful, and Frankie Condon, editors. CounterStories from the Writing Center. UBC Press, 2023.
Geller, Anne Ellen. “Tick-tock, Next: Finding Epochal Time in the Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 25, no. 1, 2005, pp. 5–24.
Geller, Anne Ellen, et al. The Everyday Writing Center: A Community of Practice. Utah State University Press, 2007.
Giaimo, Genie N. “The College Writing Center in Times of Crisis.” Los Angeles Review of Books, 13 Feb. 2024, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-college-writing-center-in-times-of-crisis/
Giaimo, Genie, and Daniel Lawson. Storying Writing Center Labor for Anti-Capitalist Futures. The WAC Clearinghouse, 2024. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/practice/storying/.
Guhl, Anton F., and Gisela Hürlimann. “Anniversaries of Institutions of Higher Education: The Status and Perspectives of Current Research.” Inszenierte Geschichte | Staging History: Medialität und Politik europäischer Hochschuljubiläen von 1850 bis heute / Anniversaries in European Institutions of Higher Learning from 1850 to the Present, edited by Anton Guhl and Gisela Hürlimann, Walter de Gruyter, 2021, pp. 21–42.
Halloran, S. Michael. “Aristotle’s Concept of Ethos, or if not His, Someone Else’s.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 1982, pp. 58–63.
—. “The Rhetoric of Picturesque Scenery: A Nineteenth-Century Epideictic.” Oratorical Culture in Nineteenth-Century America: Transformations in the Theory and Practice of Rhetoric, edited by Gregory Clark and S. Michael Halloran, Southern Illinois UP, 1993, pp. 226–246.
Hogg, Charlotte. “Sorority Rhetorics as Everyday Epideictic.” College English, vol. 80, no. 5, 2018, pp. 423–448.
Hughes, Bradley. “The Evolution of UW-Madison’s Writing Center Online: A Wayback Look.” Another Word: From the Writing Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2015. https://dept.writing.wisc.edu/blog/the-evolution-of-uw-madisons-writing-center-online-a-wayback-look/.
Huxford, Grace, and Richard Wallace. “Voices of the University: Anniversary Culture and Oral Histories of Higher Education.” Oral History, vol. 45, no. 1, 2017, pp. 79–90. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26382545. Accessed 29 Sept. 2025.
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary-language Approach. Southern Illinois UP, 2005.
Lerner, Neal. “Punishment and Possibility: Representing Writing Centers, 1939-1970.” Composition Studies, vol. 31, no. 2, Fall 2003, pp. 53–72. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43501554
—. The Idea of a Writing Laboratory. Southern Illinois UP, 2009.
Linde, Charlotte. Working the Past: Narrative and Institutional Memory. Oxford UP, 2009.
Lussos, Rachel Graham. “Have Your Epideictic Rhetoric, and Eat it, too.” Journal of Multimodal Rhetorics, vol. 2, no. 1, 2018, pp. 28–47. http://journalofmultimodalrhetorics.com/2-1-lussos.
Malenczyk, Rita, editor. Sensemaking for Writing Programs and Writing Centers. Utah State University Press, 2023.
McKinney, Jackie G. Peripheral Visions for Writing Centers. Utah State UP, 2013.
Moore, Don. “A CHAT Analysis: Narrating the Writing Center’s Formative Period.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, 2024, https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/5557d89e-ddab-4d7d-b3c9-5b5a8a597df0/content.
Nall, Stacy. “Remembering Writing Center Partnerships: Recommendations for Archival Strategies.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, 2014, pp. 101–121.
Oravec, Christine. “Observation in Aristotle’s Theory of Epideictic.” Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 9, no. 3, 1976, pp. 162–174.
Orem, Sarah, and Jacob Pietsch. “From the Editors: Special Issue on the Future of Writing Centers.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, 2013. https://www.praxisuwc.com/journalpage111.
Paletschek, Sylvia. “The Writing of University History and University Jubilees: German Examples.” Studium: Tijdschrift voor Wetenschaps- en Universiteitsgeschiedenis / Revue d’Histoire des Sciences et des Universités, vol. 5, no. 3, 2012, pp. 142–55. https://platform.openjournals.nl/studium/article/view/20292/21954
Perelman, Chaim, and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver, U of Notre Dame P, 1969.
Ramsey, Alexis E., Wendy B. Sharer, Barbara L’Eplattenier, and Lisa S. Mastrangelo, editors. Working in the Archives: Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric and Composition. Southern Illinois University Press, 2010.
Ritter, Kelly. “Making (Collective) Memory Public: WPA Histories in Dialogue.” Writing Program Administration, vol. 41, no. 2, 2018, pp. 35–64.
Sheard, Cynthia Miecznikowski. “The Public Value of Epideictic Rhetoric.” College English, vol. 58, no. 7, 1996, pp. 765–794. https://www.jstor.org/stable/378414.
Spigelman, Candace. “‘Species’ of Rhetoric: Deliberative and Epideictic Models in Writing Center Settings.” Writing Groups Inside and Outside the Classroom, edited by Beverly Moss, et al., Erlbaum, 2004, pp. 133–150.
Sullivan, Dale L. “A Closer Look at Education as Epideictic Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3/4, 1994, pp. 70–89.
Walker, Jeffrey. “Aristotle’s Lyric: Re-Imagining the Rhetoric of Epideictic Song.” College English, vol. 51, 1989, pp. 5–28.
Walker, Jeffrey. Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity. Oxford UP, 2000.
Wilde, Patty, et al. “Talking Back: Writing Assistants Renegotiate the Public Memory of Writing Centers.” Pedagogies of Public Memory: Teaching Writing and Rhetoric at Museums, Memorials, and Archives, edited by Jane Greer and Laurie Grobman, Routledge, 2015, pp. 105–116.
The authors thank the two anonymous Praxis reviewers for their insightful feedback and thank one another for a rewarding collaborative experience. James thanks Hartwick College for his appointment as one of the 2025-2026 Winifred D. Wandersee Scholars-in-Residence, which provided course release time during the final stages of writing this article. Rachel and Ricky also extend their gratitude to the participants in this study, without whom the project would not have been possible. They are sincerely thankful to the writing center alumni of Nevada State University, whose experiences and reflections deepened their understanding of epideictic rhetoric, celebrations, and the center’s history. Their words and perspectives continue to resonate beyond the scope of this study and remind them of the lasting contributions each member has made.