The kind of writing the author is describing in the article is fostered by academic discourse, which, as Peter Elbow has persuasively argued, "tries to peel away from messages the evidence of how those messages are situated as the center of personal, political, or cultural interest." He goes on, "the conventions [of academic discourse] tend toward the sound of reasonable, disinterested, perhaps even objective (shall I say it?) men". Thus, academic discourse asks to bracket subjectivity from the message, to become, in so many words, disembodied. It is no surprise, then, that students and academics alike show little reluctance advancing claims about which they do not care. It would seem that the form of academic discourse essentially encourages a kind of intellectual irresponsibility. He argues that writing pedagogy needs to reinsert writer's voice, even if this voice must struggle to be heard among the cacophony of other voices. The dilemma suggested by the academic/personal writing opposition is really a false one. As Elbow has pointed out, there really is no such thing as "academic writing," if what is meant by academic writing is a writing free from personality. One can write personally without risking solipsistic isolation, just as one can write academically without forsaking his or her sense of self.