Sean Tyler: Blog Post 4

 

I agree with the CCCC’s statement that Black students should not be forced to do extra work to translate their thoughts into “standard English”. It is unfair to ask one group of students to do extra work, but not another. I also agree that this stifles their self-expression and devalues their culture. I think asking a student to hide a part of themselves and their background is hypocritical when we turn around and encourage other students to find “their own voice.”

I believe that on the whole, “standard” English is useful only as long as it is aiding in clarity of communication. I believe that rules like having both a subject and a verb in a sentence are useful, because they allow us to quickly ascertain whom is doing what. Things like periods at the end of sentences are useful because they allow a pause between separate ideas. Anything beyond basics necessary to clearly communicating seem restrictive, prescriptive, and potentially discriminatory. Automatically rejecting Black English does not take into account the flexible and evolving nature of a language that has new words and slang terms added to the dictionary every year. Every language has wildly different rules for word order, syntax, and punctuation, and the human mind is flexible enough to know many. There is no one standardized way for people to use language; to demand absolute standardization of English, once colorfully described as “three languages wearing a trench coat pretending to be one” (Gugulethu Mhlungu via Twitter), seems unrealistic.

The only reason I would ever encourage a student to force themselves to use “standard English” in the Writing Center is because I would be afraid that their teacher will not understand the significance and damage of “standard English” and penalize them for not conforming. I am concerned that without the scholarship mentioned by the CCCC statement being distributed to a wider academic audience, that professors will continue to penalize students unfairly. I would love to see the demands they present come to fruition and change the way English is used and taught, I think it would be the best path forward for the discipline.

The statement from Michigan seems to be thinking along similar lines as the statement from the CCCC, but I would have liked for them to be more specific. I think their goals are admirable; I want to know what practical strategies and policies they have to ensure those goals are achieved. I would love to have the ability to advocate for my student’s use of their language, but I don’t understand how I could do that in an academic context. My only concern with their statement is that without practical ways to implement it, it could be another black square on Instagram, symbolic but not useful.

 

 

 

Link to Tweet https://twitter.com/gugsm/status/1077213399170334720?lang=en

 

Comments

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