Communication, at its very core, requires flexibility. As a communications student, what I find so fun about the discipline is the various ways communications professionals are trained to alter the way they communicate based on their target audience. It is commonly understood after graduation that the way one must write in their chosen profession will be dictated entirely by what that profession calls for. If this is all understood and accepted, then why is it that only one very strict version of “Standard” English is taught and accepted within American classrooms? The American education system forcing children and young adults to adhere to this “Standard” form of English disproportionally disadvantages non-white students, students who come from a lower income background, and furthermore stunts creativity and yields fewer dynamic writers and communicators. Frequently in social justice discourse communities, one may hear about the systematic oppression of racial minorities that are left over from a country that was founded upon slavery and racial discrimination. Those who are privileged enough to not have to be confronted with these oppressive systems on a regular basis may question that such oppressive systems are still in place, however forcing students to conform to “Standard” English practices in the classroom is a blatant example of one of these oppressive systems.
The fact of the matter is there are plenty of scenarios in which intelligent college-educated individuals will find themselves, in which “Standard” English is not the proper way to communicate. Forcing students to forego their natural communication patterns and habits, instead of leaning into them, in order to force the stiff rules of “Standard” English upon them ultimately is doing them a disservice. First of all, it is harmful to teach a young student that they way they have been communicating their entire life is “wrong” simply because it doesn’t comply with what the rest of the predominantly white society of academics deems correct is harmful. Additionally, as a teaching practice, it creates students who only know how to communicate with similar groups of people. Jamilla Lysicott illustrates this point beautifully. One moment I particularly enjoyed from her spoken word “3 ways to speak English” comes after she makes the point that she is “articulate” because she can switch between three different “codes” with ease: “Standard” English that is primarily spoken in a classroom, Jamaican Patois, and “Urban” English. After she demonstrates these three, equally valid, forms of English she turns the tables on those who advocate solely for the “Standard” English. “When my professor comes on the block and says ‘Hello,’ I stop him and say ‘No! You’re being inarticulate.’ The proper way is to say ‘What’s good?’” (TED, 2014). Lysicott is clearly presenting a hypothetical situation in which “Standard” English is not the appropriate way to communicate. The professor would sound foolish to speak “on the block” in the same code he uses to address his white academic colleagues. This perfectly illustrates my point about “Standard” English creating communicators who are not dynamic. If schools force students to forego the less formal ways they are comfortable speaking, and completely replace that with what is found in academia, then these students will still find themselves in situations in which they cannot comfortably communicate. This, therefore, speaks to the validity of the other two ways in which Lysicott can speak English, as those are two additional codes that she is fluent in that even the most intelligent “Standard” speaker cannot comfortably speak in. I would argue that these additional two fluencies make Lysicott more intelligent, a more effective communicator and more prepared for the world after graduation. All things that English classrooms should be striving to instill in their students.
The idea that academic institutions are intended to prepare their pupils for life after graduation is an important point worth pondering. The conventional/academic English that is shoved down students’ throats since we began learning how to read is primarily the language spoken by academics. However, this begs the question: If academia is intended to prepare students for life after graduation, why does it spend so much time teaching us how to speak to those within academia? It is also important to realize that forcing students to transition from their customary methods of communicating to “Standard” English does not inhibit all students equally. Students’ Right to Their Own Language poignantly points out, “We need to ask ourselves whether our rejection of students who do not adopt the dialect most familiar to us is based on any real merit in our dialect or whether we are actually rejecting the students themselves, rejecting them because of their racial, social, and cultural origins” (Students Right to Their Own Language, 1975). Forcing students of all various racial, social and cultural origins to conform to the way of communicating that is most commonly preferred by upper class white people, is inherently an act of discrimination. Upper class white students who have parents, family members and friends who speak “Standard” English as they are being brought up are systematically set up to succeed and given an advantage that minority students aren’t born with. Instead of leaning into the different sets of linguistic and writing skills that each individual student enters the classroom with, writing instructors stifle students in an attempt to get them to conform to one way of communication.
Part of the reason why instructors are so quick to instill “Standard” English in their students as opposed to learning from the student and helping them learn in a way that is more organic to what they are accustomed to, lies within the instructors themselves. Lisa Delpit’s “Education in a Multicultural Society: Our Future’s Greatest Challenge” is full of these hard truths. She writes, “Many teachers-Black, White, and “other”-harbor unexamined prejudices about people from ethnic groups or classes different from their own. This is partly because teachers have been so conditioned by the larger society’s negative stereotypes of certain ethnic groups, and partly because they are never given the opportunity to learn to value the experiences of other groups” (Delpit, 1992). Delpit points out that students who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds, or come from a different culture than their instructor, are never understood. Instructors don’t take the time to learn about the home life of their students, where they come from and why they communicate with the way that they do. Instead, instructors are more likely to inflict labels upon these students that only perpetuates the way they are looked down upon in an academic setting, such as “at-risk” or “disadvantaged”. These labels make it easier for instructors to disregard the background that these students bring to the table, and also help them justify why certain students don’t take to “Standard” English as quickly as their white counterparts. However, these students are not “at-risk” or “disadvantaged” at all. They are merely being held to a standard that lends itself to white privileged students more than it does to them and instructors are not interested in learning about the different codes or cultures that a student may be fluent in. Instead, they are looked down upon and through this system of labels, the school system truly allows for students of different backgrounds to fall by the wayside as they cater to their white counterparts.
In summation, the academic system that our country employs is at fault for valuing one variation of the English language over any other. “Standard” academic English is a harmful standard to hold students of all walks of life to. Forcing students to restrict themselves to a single code of communication creates students who are unable to effectively communicate outside of higher academia. It also teaches students that the way the upper-class white elite write is to be valued more than those of any other background. This is all a systemic problem that oppresses those from different cultural, ethnic and socioeconomic statuses and is one of the invisible oppressive systems that remains in our country from the years of racism and slavery it was built upon, and instructors of writing and communication must be cognizant of the harm they are doing in order to begin to unravel the years of oppression that have been unnecessarily inflicted upon students.
Works Cited
Lisa D. Delpit. “Education in a Multicultural Society: Our Future’s Greatest Challenge.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 61, no. 3, 1992, p. 237. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/2295245.
Students Right to Their Own Language. (1975). College English, 36(6), 709. doi: 10.2307/374965
TED. “3 ways to speak English | Jamila Lyiscott.” YouTube, 19 June 2014, https://youtu.be/k9fmJ5xQ_mc.
Alex's WSC 119 Blog 