Ebonics Resolution Ebonics Controversy \"Resolution\"

Ebonics Resolution Ebonics Controversy

"RESOLUTION" OF EBONICS CONTROVERSY

"For optimal development and learning of all children, educators must accept the legitimacy of children's home language, respect (hold in high regard) and value (esteem, appreciate) the home cul-ture, and promote and encourage the active involvement and sup-port of all families, including extended and nontraditional family units"

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)

(quoted in Means & Daniel 2000: 82).

Ebonics merely constitute careless and ignorant communication. In the article, "A linguist looks at the Ebonics debate," Charles J. Fillmore (2010), professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that this unconstructive perception appeared to prominently portray the mindset of school personnel who typically responded negatively to African-American children who attended Oakland's schools. Instead of treating the students who spoke Ebonics as evidencing knowledge and skills they could positively build upon, instructors routinely challenged the children's classic communication as "simply sloppy and wrong." Instructors could more effectively help children learn Standard English if they would encourage the students "to compare the way they speak with what they need to learn in school, & #8230; treat what they already have, linguistically, as a worthy possession rather than as evidence of carelessness and ignorance" (Fillmore: ¶2). During this paper, the writer investigates why individuals inside as well as outside of one school district blew the resolution so far out of proportion.

One concrete "truism": If people do not speak the same language, they cannot learn, motivated the Oakland, California Board of Educa-tion (OCBE), Oakland Unified School District's December 18, 1996 "Ebonics" resolution. A bevy of misunderstandings, perhaps fueled by the initial draft of the resolution which may have mislead some, however stimulated conflicting scenarios following the Board's recommendation. As the way some African-American students spoke when attending Oakland's schools in 1996 so dramatically differed from Standard English, teachers reported that frequently, neither they nor the students could understand what the person meant or said. In turn, these children failed to properly complete assignments and generally did not acquire the ways to speak to help them succeed later in life to succeed when they venture into the world outside their community.

In the journal article, Mediating Ebonics, Robin R. Means Coleman and Jack L. Daniel (2000) discuss how the OCBE related myopia regarding African Ameri-cans' language directly correlates with the "color line" in America. Coleman and Daniel (2000) note that during January and February of 1997, following the OCBE's unanimous adoption of the controversially worded Ebonics resolution, Ebonics became one of the most mass-mediated phenomena in America. During this time, Americans became fixated on Ebonics to an extent which resembled the historical focus on 0. J. Simpson. This extreme focus on Ebonics reportedly evolved from the way the mass media mediated and/or depicted some African-Americans as well as the media's rendition of African-American's linguistic patterns. According to Coleman and Daniel (2000):

Reducing African-Americans, their life, culture, and language, to the depths of the ridiculous has a long history in mass media. For example, early radio (1926) offered a peek into African-American life through the "Black voice" of "Sam 'n' Henry" (later "Amos 'n' Andy"). Mocking the great migration of African-Americans in search of employment who moved from the South (Birmingham, Alabama) to the North (Chicago, Illinois), "Sam 'n' Henry" relied upon a caricatured version of what Black language was purported to be (Coleman & Daniel 2000: 79):

Sam: Henry, did you evah see a mule as slow as dis one?

Henry: Oh, dis mule is fas' enough. We gonna git to de depot alright.

Sam: You know dat Chicago train don't wait fo' nobody - it jes' goes on - jes' stops and goes right on.

Henry: Well, we ain't got but two mo' blocks to go - don't be so 'pa-tient, don't be so 'patient.

Sam: I hope dey got fastah mules dan dis up in Chicago. (Wertheim, quoted in Coleman & Daniel 2000: 79)

Historically and reportedly even extending into contemporary times, mass media presentations of a number of commentaries, headlines, reports as well as some political cartoons reflect the handling of Black language to depict an extension of numerous racist stereotypes. "African-American language patterns are often the sites for ridicule. & #8230;[Irreverent] stereotyping remains so deeply entrenched in American media because such depictions are 'frozen, incapable of growth, change, innovation, or transformation'" (Coleman & Daniel 2000: 80). Mainstream media's lens does not feature Ebonies as a critical educational issue, but instead ridiculously caricatures and mediates to exhibit the worst in African-Americans. The media approach to Ebonics with an abundance of poor diction and malapropisms deserted two primary issues:

1. The significance of Ebonics' historical, linguistic slavery roots of;

2. The requisite that African-American chil-dren receive aggressive, improved education efforts.

If the media had utilized the educative and historical as initiative points for its coverage, the invested efforts could have yielded a better informed and more useful debate regarding Ebonics' (dis)advantages as a tool to productively encourage African-American children toward Standard English. In the compilation of writings, "Views of linguists and anthropologists on the Ebonics issue," Leanne Hinton (1997), Linguistics, UC Berkeley, asserts that whether or not Ebonies depicts a separate language or not did not depict educators' primary concern in Oakland. Instead, Hinton stresses, educators sought to promote the status of African-American English (AAE). The proponents of Ebonics, however, employed an unempirical set of intense prejudices against AAE. The Oakland Board tried "to promulgate a new set of political ideas about AAE as a legitimate form of speech, partly for the sake of African-American pride, but mainly for the sake of teaching Standard English in an emotionally positive way (Hinton: 4-5). Because some individuals strongly perceive that something inherently "bad" exists in atypical varieties of English, they may also suppose that African-American speak Black English to rebel and demonstrate contrariness. Some also assert that these students need to be punished to consequently correct them.

Educators, however, do not perceive that students communicating via Ebonics need to be punished. Nevertheless, they often experience a dilemma as they aim to show respect of an African-American child's way of speech and that respect leaves them without a way to teach that child Standard English. The method the Oakland School Board embraced filled that void. Evading the perception of nonstandard Black English to constitute a set of "errors," and taking care to treat Ebonics what actually comprises: A "different system, not a wrong ones Standard English can be taught by; helping children develop an awareness of the contrast between their two speech varieties, and learn to use one without losing their pride in the other" (Hinton 1997: 5). This effort eliminates Ebonics being mediated as comedic, ridiculous, communication; ultimately contributing to an effective way to educate rather than deride children.

In the article "Ebonics and all that jazz: Cutting through the politics of linguistics, education, and race," Michele Foster (n.d.), Professor in the Center for Educational Studies at the Claremont Graduate School, also the author of the book, Black Teachers on Teaching, reports that following the Oakland School Board's resolution acknowledging Ebonics as the primary lan-guage of the majority of its African-American students, a myriad of economists, ministers, politicians, writers and other individuals volunteered their opinions regarding the board's vow to take Ebonics into account in instruction. Foster concluded that "concluded that most pundits had already decided what they believed; they were saying, 'Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind.' And they wouldn't change their minds even if they were presented with the linguistic facts…" (7). The controversy over Ebonics, Foster argues, involves much more than lan-guage; it particularly proffers and/or portrays politics.

Perceptions regarding the definition for Black English and whether it actually depicts a viable language, a vernacular, a dialect, or perhaps a rich example of "poor English," Margaret-Mary Sulentic (2001), a professional educator with 15 years of experience in the Waterloo, Iowa schools, asserts. It basically depends on who speaks Black English. Opinions may range from and include, but not be limited to Ebonics comprising a "home language" or primary discourse. In the article, "Black English in a place called Waterloo," Sulentic argues that "conflicts, issues, and tensions of cultural difference, including language diversity, are as acute in such communities as Waterloo, a small, urban community tucked into the northeast corner of Iowa, as they are in a large metroplex such as Oakland, California" (Conclusion Section: ¶ 3). She perceives Black English to aptly apply to the language the majority of African-Americans who in Waterloo, members of Waterloo's Black community, speak. Sulentic argues that Black English comprises a language in its own right.

As children grow up, they learn and speak the language verbalized in their homes and communities; circuitously and implicitly acquiring language from their culture. Language, according to includes more than simply a systematic means a person employs to communicate, containing regular as well-ordered rules. Language depicts "much more than just a method of communication. While language converts thoughts and ideas to spoken and written expressions. & #8230;Through language, children acquire a sense of who they are as well as a sense of their speech community" (Sulentic 2001, What Is Language? Section: ¶ 2). In addition, language serves as a venue for a particular people to transmit their cultural values and mores.

Language portrays power. Standard English, particularly in the U.S., portrays the language of power. "Language is power and that power grows when one knows the dominant language well" (Yolanda De Mola, as cited in Sulentic 2001, Langauage is Power Section: ¶ 1). Jesse Jackson, an African-American "politician" reportedly employs the term "cash language" to distinguish Standard English to reflect the language of power and wealth in America. Foster (n.d.) asserts that in his statement: "It's not your apti-tude, but your attitude that determines your alti-tude" 10), Jesse Jackson employs alliteration, repetition, rhyme and rhythm, five elements characteristic of a Black discourse style. Sulentic purports that for many African-Americans who live in Waterloo, Iowa, speaking Black English serves as a mark of social identity as well as a symbol of group membership in Waterloo's Black community. In Waterloo and in many areas, language and culture conjoin with language epitomizing a cultural marker. Foster also argues:

…[T]he linguistic dis-tinction between a language and a dia-lect isn't that neat. Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible, but they are called dialects of Chinese. On the other hand, Norwegian and Swedish, although mutually intelligible, are called languages. The truth is that the designations applied to different varieties are a matter of social practice that often have more to do with power and politics than with any inherent char-acteristics of the varieties themselves. The linguist Max Weinrich commented that a language is a dialect backed by an army and a navy…. (Foster n.d.: 8)

In referring to differences in a certain language, Foster (n.d.) prefers the less value laden term "variety," a more neutral, less politically charged idiom.

Linguists have conducted research on African-American English for over 30

years. They have documented the fact that like other varieties of English, African-American English is rule governed and systematic. Children learn these patterns from their parents in the context of the community in which they are born. African-American English is the primary variety of working class African-Americans, but it is also spoken by many middle class African-Americans who are bidialectal. A social dialect, a variety spoken by a particular social or ethnic group, African-American English traveled northward and westward as Blacks migrated to regions of the country outside of the south and, consequently, may vary according to region. As with any dialect, African-American English has unique grammatical characteristics and unique pronunciations. (Foster n.d.: 8)

As the Oakland School Board addressed a critical concern in 1996, the members simultaneously stimulated a storm of criticism that ranged from complimentary to questioning as well as from ridicule to outright hostility, which clearly indicated confusion shrouded the explosive issue. In the article, "The controversy over Ebonics," Steven Fox (1997), who teaches English at Shaker Heights High School, Shaker Heights, Ohio, explains that Ebonics is not a separate language than English but depicts a dialect of Amer-ican English. In itself, Ebonics is not slang, though it, similar to other languages and their dialects, utilizes some degree of slang. According to Fox: "A language is a pat-tern of words and of rules governing the use of those words, spoken or written, that is mutually understandable by a group of people and not understandable by per-sons outside that group" (238). Paul Newman, linguist, reports that approximately 25,000,000 individuals speak Hausa, for example, one language in the Afro-Asiatic phylum of the Chadic family. The Chadic family includes roughly 135 distinct languag-es. In contrast, only a few thousand individuals speak, Sanskrit, the moth-er tongue of ak-ers and the ancestor of a number of languages widely spoken on the Indian subcontinent. Neither Hausa or Sanskrit, however, constitute any less or any more of a language than English. One language or dialect is not superior simply because a greater number of individuals speak it.

Americas share the English language, albeit, it includes numerous different dialects. People from Boston and Dallas do not sound the same because they speak different dia-lects. "A dialect is a subgroup within a lan-guage, one dialect differing from another in three particular ways: vocabulary, pro-nunciation, and grammar" (Fox 1997: 238). Two people who speak two different lan-guages cannot usually understand each other. Two individuals who speak the same language, yet speak with two different dialects, albeit, typically can still understand each anoth-er. Contemporary Ebonics, a dialect of American English, differs from Standard American English (SAE), also a di-alect, in grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary.

Fox (1997) argues that the "real" problem fueling the controversy relates to the fact the Re-ceived Pronunciation in England conjures perception of royalty, elegance, and privi-lege. Ebonics, on the other hand, stimulates "images of the problems of urban life - poverty, crime, unemploy-ment, substandard housing, inferior edu-cation. Accurate or not, those factors are what most Americans think characterize life in the inner city" (Fox: 240). As many people associate Ebonics associated with the poverty-ridden, inner city cycle, some contend that, if the younger generation can break away from the language, they could possibly break out from the poverty and other negative issues that appear to accompany it.

Similar to Jackson referring to SAE as the "cash" language, some consider it to be the "money language." Some argue that if one does not speak SAE, he cannot secure a white-collar or more prestigious job. Some individuals report that even though they grew up in homes where they spoke the Ebonics dialect, they also mastered SAE. They presented themselves as testimony that it can be done. Fox (1997) points out that Martin Luther King, who wrote and spoke SAE with accomplished skill, also adeptly as well as effectively utilized his con-gregation's dialect. If hand not been fluent in both dialects, he most likely would not have succeeded within both the black community and the bigger American community, nor so significantly influenced the extended world.