Joe DeWitt

Lyra Hilliard
ENGL388V
16 April 2017

Learning Artifact: DIY

(INTERIOR - CORNERSTONE GRILLE & LOFT in COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND.

Its the early evening on a Thursday; the BAR has a small crowd of
academics and intellectuals kicking back after a busy week of work.
Intellectuals dont watch sports and dont know the songs that are playing,
so they must have stimulating conversations. TWO ENGLISH GRADUATE
STUDENTS REESE and NICOLE are having a chat about some readings
theyve been discussing with their students.)

NICOLE: How has your week been?

REESE: Its been pretty interesting to say the least. Our class discussion
went on for so long yesterday that I had to scrap an
awesome activity that I had planned!

NICOLE: Really? What was the discussion about?

REESE: I had them read Vershawn Youngs Should Writers Use They
Own English. They had pretty enthusiastic responses.

NICOLE: Oh yeah Ive read that. I decided against assigning it to my

students, though. Not my cup of tea.

REESE: You might need to slow down on the Blue Moons, Nicole, youre
not making sense.

NICOLE: (Laughs) I resent you counting my drinks; its Thursday! But

yeah, that essay is unreadable; I didnt want to force my
students to sit through that.

REESE: Thats insane. I used to think we had so much common until

now! That essay is fantastic and does an excellent job at
framing conversations about inclusivity in classrooms.

NICOLE: Hey, Im definitely not opposed to inclusive classrooms. But as

English instructors we spend so much time helping them
write like an academic. How would Youngs article, which is
riddled with slang, grammar errors, and overall wrong English,
help them become better writers?
REESE: (Scoffs) Wrong English? Do you hear yourself? Thats exactly
the type of rhetoric that Young talks about. Labeling English as
wrong or right is so problematic.

NICOLE: Fine, maybe I could use better words. Improper English? Informal
English?

REESE: Im getting the feeling that you didnt read Youngs entire piece.
Did you not read his discussion about how grammar and
language rules are arbitrary and created by usually rich, usually
white men? I think that reading does a great job at getting
students to take a step back and really think about language.

NICOLE: Well sure, we could open up that can of worms, but the reality of
todays society is that our ability to adhere to grammar rules
and proper English is how we are evaluated for jobs, for
scholarships. We could encourage students to write in
their preferred vernacular and grade them on overall content
rather than on grammar and style, but how would that help them in a
job where theyre required to write to other employees and clients?

REESE: Ok, thats fair. But I think these issues are beyond just going to
school to get a nice job. Telling someone that their English is
wrong or improper totally invalidates their backgrounds and
experiences.

NICOLE: How so?

REESE: Well, from experiences from my high school. We had a white

English teacher in junior year, and one of black classmates said
something along the lines of,

Can I axe you a question?

A persnickety fellow, he responded in front of everyone, mind

you

No you may not But you could ask me a question if youd

like.

It was very clear what my classmate was saying no one thought

he was talking about an axe. But that teacher made a
decision to let this student know that the way he was speaking
was incorrect and inferior to the way we were supposed to talk.
NICOLE: What were the words Young used to describe these different
vernaculars?

REESE: He described the way we spoke as code. We have the code we

speak to each other in, the code we speak with teachers in,
the code we speak with a boyfriend When we change our
vernaculars Young calls that code switching.

NICOLE: So whats the issue with code switching? Why cant we just treat
Standard English as a code? It should be pretty easy to tell
when we need to use that code.

REESE: Well switching code is a pretty intuitive phenomenon; sometimes

we dont even know that were doing it. But the problem isnt
about the difficulty of switching codes. Its the very reason we
have to switch codes at all. As Young puts it, Its ATTITUDES.
It be the way folks with some power perceive other peoples
language (110). We live in a society where individuals attitudes
towards different languages reflect power structures. The attitude my
teacher had towards a black vernacular was a prime
example.

NICOLE: I think Im starting to see what you mean. But what do you think
our responsibility is as English instructors? How do we
teach English without invalidating our students voice?

REESE: We can still show our kids the ropes of what is considered
proper but, as you know, English class is way more than a
grammar class. What made todays discussion so great was
that they were all broadening their perspectives of
language. Instead of teaching Standard Written English as the
dominant style of writing, I teach it is another code. Young warned
readers about the danger of having a narrow perspective of
proper English. He said, The narrow, prescriptive lens be
messin writers and readers all the way up, cuz we all been
taught to respect the dominant way to write, even if we dont,
cant, or wont ever write that one way ourselves (Young, 112). The
English language is made up of so many diverse dialects and
vernaculars, some which arent that difficult to understand.
Thats why I love Youngs concept of code meshing.

NICOLE: Thats when you use multiple codes at once instead of

separating them, right?

REESE: Exactly. Code switching sort of operates under the assumption

that some types of language are acceptable in some places but
not others. It isnt very intersectional. Code meshing implicitly
states that our voice, written or spoken, is made up of
everything. Whether that be our cultural heritage, a product of
how we were taught to write, or our own attitudes about
language, our language is a collection of our background. Young
brought in Stanley Fishs argument that Standard Written
English could be seen as yet another language.

Fish said, If students infected with the facile egalitarianism of

soft multi- culturalism declare, I have a right to my own
language, reply, Yes, you do, and I am not here to take
that language from you; Im here to teach you another one.
(Who could object to learning a second language?) And then
get on with it.

The patronizing tone of it seems to tell students who may have

different vernaculars to Standard Written English to get over
societys prejudices. As Young responded, If he meant
everybody should be thrilled to learn another dialect, then
wouldnt everybody be learnin everybodys dialect? (111).
Standard English isnt just another language to learn, its the
dominant way of writing that most writers are often held to. I dont
want my students to feel discriminated against.

NICOLE: Thats very noble of you. I still feel as though I owe it to my

students to teach them how to write professionally and
academically. I want them to succeed as students and later
as future employees.

REESE: And I totally encourage you to do so! Just dont do it in a way

that undermines their other dialects or vernaculars. You
can teach your Standard English as long as you dont treat it
as the dominant language.

NICOLE: I think I could swing that. Now I think we may need to get out of
here, its getting later and I think I see a line forming. I really
dont want to see any of my students right now.

REESE: Ah, good idea. It wasnt cute the first time that happened to me
and it wont be cute again.
Works Cited:

Fish, Stanley What Should Colleges Teach? Part 3. Opinionator: Exclusive

Online Com- mentary From The Times. The New York Times, 7 Sept.
2009. <http://fish.blogs. nytimes.com/2009/09/07/what-should-colleges-
teach-part-3/>.

Young, Vershawn A. "Should Writers Use They Own English?." Iowa Journal of
Cultural Studies 12 (2010): 110-117.