Conor Hilton: Blog Post 4

 


I’m conflicted about the demands to avoid teaching (and using?) ‘academic’ or ‘standard’ English. I fully support idea of broadening our sense of what is acceptable, and love the idea of increasing my own and others’ literacy of ‘Englishes’ (I’d love some recommendations for how to do this and particularly how to do so as a white person). And, I don’t know how to go about this in practice or what it means for me and the language that I use, every day. 

What should I do about my own language? Is what I’m speaking now and with my students perpetuating white supremacy? If so, what are my options? What language should I use in the classroom? It seems differently problematic for me to start using AAVE or some other Black variant of English (I’m still a little unsure about the ‘correct’ or desire labels, so please correct me if there’s a different preferred terminology). 

AND it seems like, while I can be gracious and understanding and accepting of various Englishes in my own classroom—language is about a shared set of conventions, so we can’t accept everything, right? What rules will we use? How will we synthesize what’s going on here? Or should we all learn to code-switch or speak these other Englishes? Should we separate folks according to which English they wish to use? Or do they have enough overlap that they can co-exist? 

I also wonder if we can do better work to privilege student choice in these conversations? We can work to make spaces more accommodating for a variety of Englishes, but some people may still want to learn “standard” or “academic” English before we have more fully eradicated this linguistic racism. Should I refuse to teach that to them, even if my refusal goes against their wishes AND may result in real-world negative impacts to them? Can I both validate their own Black English and teach them “standard” English?


Comments

  1. Dylan NiceSeptember 22, 2020 at 8:43 AM

    Hi Conor, like you I am receptive to the spirit of their argument but had a similar list of questions about what it might mean in practice. The statement itself is largely written in standard English with formal academic conventions like citations. Of course, advocacy often intentionally overshoots its true mark, knowingly demanding more than what is achievable. It is a negotiation tactic: you begin the conversation with everything you want.

    Perhaps, in reality, the hope is for greater blending and cultural exchange. I'm aware this has already happened (at least in some instances) in other disciplines like Debate. A debate team employing Black English won the national debate (championship?). There's a RadioLab episode about it from a couple of years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David KimeSeptember 22, 2020 at 3:24 PM

    You voiced so many of my thoughts in a much more articulate way. But, I have to say, what sticks out to me most is your final paragraph -- "We can work to make spaces more accommodating for a variety of Englishes, but some people may still want to learn 'standard' or 'academic' English before we have more fully eradicated this linguistic racism." My understanding is that perpetuating "standard" or "academic" English as the one true English (and using these terms) is the problem, not so much the fact that they exist. Sure, some students may want to learn what is seen as "proper," and I don't think we are in a position to discourage that, if that's how they so choose to express themselves. We just have to be cautious as to what we consider acceptable. Language should be about communication, not correctness, right? I'm not sure that really answers your question... because the problem still stands -- does teaching one version invalidate another?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lucie BerjoanSeptember 23, 2020 at 11:50 AM

    Conor, while I totally get where you are coming from, I think it is important thing to remember that students who don't speak standard English are CURRENTLY being asked to code switch, something that white folks balk at the thought of doing. Like David expressed above, I think that all they are asking for is a seat at the table rather than asking teachers to change how they speak. No one is saying we should ban standard English– only that we recognize and legitimize others. That being said, I think step one is recognizing that yes, what you are speaking now with your students is upholding the white supremacy and you're not the only one– I'm in the same boat! But just because it's an unsettling truth, doesn't mean it should be swept under the carpet. There are many ways, I think, to broach the subject (especially in English classes). How might it legitimize students from different backgrounds if they were told that they had the option of writing an essay in Black English vernacular and rather than marking it wrong, their professor asked them to clarify parts that she didn't understand? Or leading a discussion about different types of English using texts written by BIPOC authors as examples? In a Writing Center context, I think asking the student what they want is a good first step– there's no reason we can't have open dialogue about these issues with them. I think it's about remaining open to new possibilities of inclusion more than anything else.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Andrew post 9

I think it's vitally important for writing center staff to keep abreast of writing center scholarship. Because students who visit writing centers vary widely in their proficiency, their motivations for seeking help, and economic/identity categories, and bring in work from disparate disciplines, staff need to be adaptable to multitudinous tutoring relationships and scenarios. Requiring staff to go through practicum courses (held on maybe a biennial basis) and holding regular department forums where tutors can present research or seek counsel would help keep everyone on the same page with regard to the latest findings and debates in writing center theory and practice. However, I don't think that it's reasonable expect that each member regularly conduct their own research, since many tutors are graduate students or full time instructors whose resources are often already stretched thin on account of pressures to produce writing/research in their own field of study. Asking too m...
Read more

Andrew blog post #10

 I'm usually fairly confident working with writers outside my discipline. I think part of that has to do with my own experience as an undergraduate, where I switched majors from political science to literature to philosophy then, finally, to psychology. To my mind, basic critical thinking skills--the kind that I teach my students in my rhetoric classes--apply just as much to qualitative analyses as they do to quantitative/empirical analyses. Questions of audience and purpose factor into effective writing and communication--approaching any paper, regardless of the class that it's for, I always push writers to ask themselves how much information is necessary for them to provide to contextualize an argument, and remind them that each item of evidence they introduce has to be accompanied by an explanation of its relevance to their overarching thesis. One of my writing center students' first assignment for his rhetoric class was to write a paper about his major (bio-medical engi...
Read more

Andrew blog post 4

Perhaps one way to promote appreciation of other "Englishes," as the CCCC statement (as much as they would disapprove of the use of the term) is to recalibrate considerations of style in writing pedagogy, one that demonstrates that what we call "standard English" is but one among many modes of expression that can be modulated according to varying purposes/audiences. Many people, I think, don't particularly enjoy reading academic English, which, besides imposing oppressive standards on marginalized people, is often a clumsy, bland, and inefficient means of expression; writing is most effective when it comes off as the work of a singular voice and intellect.  Students' general education in universities should also include critical studies of how languages are products of conquest. This, of course, has been a constant throughout history--consider how Spanish and Portuguese integrated Arabic vocabulary by virtue of Muslim rule over the Iberian Peninsula. However...
Read more