By LEIGHA BAUGHAM
Editorial Columnist
A senstive linguistics debate has been raging throughout the land since December, when the Oakland, Calif., Unified School District made a rather curious decision on the use of one particular American dialect, namely �Ebonics,� or the various forms of African American English that exist in the United States today. The uproar stemmed in part from the school district�s belief that Ebonics is a language distinct from English with West African sources. The board had intended to get Ebonics labeled a second language in the same way Spanish and several Asian languages are now so labeled in the English as a Second Language program. The result would be school districts with heavy Ebonics-speaking populations receiving federal ESL funding.
The theory behind labeling Ebonics a language, as opposed to a dialect, is African Americans have developed this language in their four-plus centuries in North America. It is, they argue, a language with its own rules � for example, go, normally an action verb in English, can become a linking verb, as in �There he go� for �There he is.� None of this is so offensive. However, the main area of contention centers around the fact that board members described Ebonics speakers as not being culturally different, but genetically different. The Oakland school board maintains that African American youths are having such a hard time learning how to speak �standard� English because they are genetically pre-disposed to learn African language systems that have their origin in West Africa, specifically the Niger and the Congo River Valleys. This makes black children stand out from their counterparts of other varying racial and ethnic groups. Thus, the Oakland school board argued that African American students must be seen as Ebonics speakers first and standard English speakers second. Saying that African Americans are genetically pre-disposed, or in no uncertain terms, genetically inferior, is where the battle field begins to rage for me.
As a black youth living in the South, I am accuustomed to Ebonics. In fact I consider it slang. Several parts of the United States have their own dialects with distinctive traits. In this country, slang holds as large a piece of historical culture as the preserved garments in a museum. Ebonics is as indigenous to North Carolina as the sterotypical collard greens and chitlins. The major point is that slang is a living, breathing entitiy. One that constantly changes and is meant to be expressed in a comfort zone of friends and family.
But, that�s the South, that�s North Carolina. As a nation we must hold true to a unifying languge, and in some cases a unifying standard. Whatever English has become after generations of a cultural blending we must keep it as a unifying force, not a dividing line. For someone to say that I am genetically less likley to pick up English is say that I am genetically inferior. The theory that the Oakland policy is so ardently standing behind is remnant of facism. Remember Hitler? Remember all of the people that were exterminated on the basis of genetic differences? I am no less of a person, nor is it true that I can�t learn English as easily as the next person. Perhaps instead of looking to languge as an excuse to furthur divide our society, we should look at the environment that many contemporary teenagers grow up in. Furthermore, we should examine how we teach our young people. Yes, a classroom is a place to foster learning, but not when gunshots ring out during a class change. Students need more interaction with standard English. I use slang myself. Yet there is a time and place for using it. School is a diverse environment, but also nurtures students for success in future occupational arenas. Ebonics just seems like another excuse to account for the problems in our society. Instead of solving the problem, Oakland is trying to whitewash it. Teachers may have to learn to understand Ebonics to fully communicate with their students, but it should not be an ideal for the classroom. We should not be trying to lower the standards of English; instead, we should be trying to raise the standards of children.
Return to WordSmith homepage.� 1997 [email protected]
Get your own Free Home Page
