A case study of the responses of two faculty members to a seminar designed to help them use writing-across-the-curriculum in their classrooms was undertaken. The purpose of the seminar was to examine the positive and negative views of the concept of "resistance" to illuminate reasons for, and forms of, faculty resistance to change. The seminar participants used in the case study were both senior members of the faculty: one was a rhetorician and the other was a language philosopher. The rhetorician demonstrated assumptions on learning and teaching which were at odds with the objectives of the seminar. Yet while he initially resisted ideas about writing-to-learn, he has continued to scrutinize and revise his teaching to incorporate writing-to-learn into his teaching style in the semester after the seminar. The language philosopher, however, based his objections to using writing-to-learn on a perceived unbearable increase in his workload. The language philosopher discussed his teaching with the seminar leader only sporadically in the semester after the seminar and confessed at the end of the semester that he has not incorporated elements of the seminar into his teaching because of a perceived increase in workload. Findings suggest that seminar leaders need to collaborate with instructors as they revise their courses so as to be able to understand the sources and nature of resistance and to assist teachers who are serious about changing their pedagogy. (RS)