This dissertation examines how the transmission of language ideologies on a US campus shapes Chinese international students' experiences regarding English academic writing. The study is motivated by past research that demonstrates the challenges of mastering English academic writing, particularly for people who did not speak English early in life. Given that socially shared conceptions of what constitutes "good" academic writing are institutional and societal, I apply the theoretical framework of language ideologies, which stresses that language-related attitudes mediate social action, reify preexisting social hierarchies, and obtain at different levels of social organization. Operationalizing language ideologies into three main strands--aggressive monolingualism, progressive multilingualism, and economic pragmatism--I track individuals' language-ideological alignments in addition to larger institutional language-ideological alignments; I apply a novel methodology combining social-network mapping with writing-focused ethnographic interviews. Based on interviews with 14 Chinese international students and 17 campus community members with whom they discussed English academic writing, I show, first, that all of these individuals experienced the pull of multiple competing and conflicting language ideologies, and they could shift their language-ideological alignments dynamically in different contexts, in line with what past language-ideological scholarship has argued (e.g. Irvine & Gal, 2000; Kroskrity, 2007). Building on language-ideological theory, I demonstrate that language ideologies are cumulative: when multiple language ideologies (e.g. valuing so-called "nativelike" English first as an end in itself [aggressive monolingualism] and second as a means to achieving career success [economic pragmatism]) overlap, they become more powerful. I demonstrate that explicit language-evaluative talk among instructors, especially in officially sanctioned contexts like staff meetings, is a particularly potent influencer of people's language ideologies. Further, I identify that language-ideological silence--when individuals, especially instructors, leave their language-evaluative criteria unspoken--leaves the door open for aggressively monolingual language ideologies to take root as the tacit norm of US universities. Based on these findings, I argue for further language-ideological research to apply a social-network-focused approach within a wider range of communities, developing a clearer picture of how language ideologies shape multilingual people's experiences with English academic writing. Additionally, I offer recommendations for stakeholders in educational contexts, especially advocating for all university stakeholders who interact with multilingual students to develop explicit and justified language-evaluative criteria to share with their students. Overall, this dissertation argues for a deeper awareness of how university stakeholders'--especially instructors'--attitudes toward multilingual people's English can shape their experiences in college. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]