small steps: race, education, and language

How does race affect the way we view language in education?
This is the question Nelson Flores and Jonathan Rosa pose in their article, “Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education”. They note first that students who come from non-white racial or ethnic backgrounds, and who are classified as language learners who are unprepared for English-language academic work[1], are in fact being viewed through a lens which “frames their linguistic practices as deficient” – no matter how fluent and/or “appropriate” they are (Flores 149).

Several factors can influence the ways in which these student language learners are perceived, and I identify three key issues based on Flores and Rosa’s text. First, the so-called rules about “appropriateness” of language are inconsistent and serve only to drive discussion away from the racial hierarchies behind them. Second, these racial hierarchies continue to affect the way in which language users are viewed, so that even additive approaches towards language diversity fall short of addressing the root problem. And lastly, the educational system as a whole maintains and valorizes racialized ideologies that stem from whiteness. In this paper, I aim to explore these issues through a more personal, story-based approach, and to use these experiences coupled with theory to suggest some next steps in educators’ approaches to linguistic diversity.

The first problem is the misleading boundary that appropriateness-based approaches create – namely, the idea that while all languages are “fine for communication within their own communities but inappropriate in academia”. Recent pushback on “subtractive” approaches, models that aimed solely to increase English language competence with little regard for the students’ linguistic practices at home, sparked a new surge of contrasting “additive” ones. These new approaches sought to affirm nonstandard English and other languages as appropriate for out-of-school contexts; however, they see standard English as a necessary tool for success and as the only appropriate option in academic settings (Flores 153). However, this is what I would call a multicultural assimilation-based approach: even while it affirms alternate ones (multicultural), the solution posed is focused on English learners’ ability to master white linguistic practices used in academia (assimilation). This fails to address the root problem.

During my junior year of high school, I studied abroad as an exchange student to Switzerland. Switzerland offers a particularly unique perspective on linguistics and academic vs. social language in education – this is because, in Switzerland, all academic classes are carried out in High German (the “standard” German used in books, newspaper articles, lectures, movies, et cetera). However, friendly conversations, family discussion, and everyday interactions are all carried out in Swiss German -- an entirely different dialect (unintelligible to most actual Germans) that uses different vocabulary, grammar structures, idioms, and slang. It’s the “language of the people”, its dialects differ from region to region, and it’s never taught in schools. During my year in Switzerland, I became moderately fluent in both out of sheer necessity; proficiency in High German is valued in the academic world, whereas fluency in Swiss German helps one to fit into a culture and country.

At least, that’s how it works theoretically.

The fact is that even High German, as taught in Switzerland, isn’t the same as actual High German –more accurately, it’s a version of standardized German as taught in Swiss schools. In addition, Swiss German is the language that students speak with one another, and it’s also the language with which everyone feels most comfortable, so teachers sometimes switch in and out of it during class time. Finally, I ended up learning Swiss German simply because it was such an integral part of the culture; even though I was a student and needed the language of academia, I felt acutely aware of the fact that cultural communication was just as important too.

One might use this linguistic peculiarity as a lens on American education in the English language… although the difference between High and Swiss German is a much more literal one than between formal and colloquial English, it’s important to acknowledge that the definition of “appropriate” language usage is, itself, fairly inconsistent. Perhaps even more important, it brings a new argument to the table – while educators may call for the use of academically appropriate language, the fact remains that academia does not exist in a vacuum. Proficiency in alternative linguistic practices can often be vital in society, which in turn means that it’s also important in education.

Furthermore, this type of approach draws a stark line between academically appropriate and socially appropriate language. The truth is that this line doesn’t actually exist. First of all, language is always changing -- the boundaries between “slang” and formal English are always being challenged. But what Flores and Rosa emphasize in their text is that the standards are inconsistent and hypocritical, “produced by the white listening subject and… not based on discrete linguistic practices” (157). Using the example of a Chicana student named Tamara, they note that she demonstrated both competence in English, understanding of situational appropriateness, and linguistic dexterity; they stress that, were she a privileged white student, her linguistic practices would go unquestioned, or even praised (159).

So who sets the definition of academic language vs. social language?
The white listening subject, say Flores and Rosa.

This brings us to our next issue: that of the racial hierarchies behind the ways languages are viewed in education. Flores and Rosa explain that the additive approaches suggested won’t work because “only some groups are stigmatized for using ‘social’ linguistic practices in academic settings” (160). Valdes, another educational theorist, notes that this is based in the characterization of some languages/English varieties as prestige (formal) and “non-prestige” (informal), which in and of itself grants dominance to a system of whiteness. Thus, the dialectic of “appropriateness” is used to mask the fact that “people are positioned as speakers of prestige or non-prestige language varieties based not on what they actually do with language but… how they are heard by the white listening subject” (160). This listening subject, contend Flores and Rosa, racializes students’ language use – because of racial presentation, whether it be accent, appearance, or culture, perceptions of an individual’s language use can be radically skewed.

This speaks to why “fluency” – that undefinable thing – is so valued among American immigrants (particularly those whose accents or cultures are “othered” or dismissed). I remember my grandfather being proud of the fact that all of us grandchildren were eloquent and articulate in English, despite the fact that none of us could speak Chinese… now, I wonder why that was so important to him. Perhaps it was because, conscious or not, he was aware of the fact that we would be racialized automatically. That we would have to “prove” our fluency, because when we spoke from racialized bodies, we would automatically be considered less legitimate.  

It's important to recognize the root issue, which isn’t that of linguistic standards. It’s of the social positions assigned by race and given to language users, the social hierarchies that influence the way their linguistic practices are heard. Rosa and Flores contend that we cannot just study the language used— educators must study the position of the speakers, and the consequent stigmatization and reception they receive (162). In their words, we must move away from looking simply at linguistic practices, and “toward raciolinguistic ideologies that overdetermine people as particular kinds of language users” (Flores 162).

Finally, this all begs the question: What are the next steps necessary for educators to take? If the educational system as a whole serves to perpetuate and reify the linguistic practices of whiteness, and if standard English is still “a powerful language ideology and social fact” (Flores 164), how can we address this? As stated earlier in this essay, the educational system does not exist in a vacuum – even if, for whatever reason, educators managed to decenter the white speaking subject and push back on the dominance of Standard English, the fact remains that the “real world” continues to use raciolinguistic ideologies to categorize and assign value to certain language varieties. How can we recognize this social fact, while providing an educational environment in which students can receive both linguistic affirmation and preparation for upward mobility?

Perhaps the best solution, after all, is one that expands on the additive models, shifting its focus to the racial structures at the root of the issue. Flores and Rosa detail Delpit’s approach as one that “uses an appropriateness-based model to advocate explicitly teaching… the idealized linguistic practices of the white speaking subject” (164). Essentially, she wishes to be transparent with the training she offers her students – and she does that by affirming alternative language practices and by calling attention to the imbalance in the systems of power, while simultaneously providing her students with the tools necessary to participate and make change in these systems (Flores 165). They (Rosa and Flores) don’t by any means see this as an end destination; they argue that it “reifies the relationship between linguistic practices and upward socioeconomic mobility”, without providing an alternative for students who are unable to access the system at all. They insist that these students will face institutional exclusion and difficulty, all because of the perceptions of a white listening subject.

However, I think it’s important to recognize that this is an important starting point; yes, solving the problem of raciolinguistic influences in education must involve both support of language-minoritized students and challenging of racial hierarchies, but I’d argue that Delpit’s approach does both of these things. Hopefully, the system of education that favors whiteness will eventually meet its end… in the meantime, all we can do is take small steps forward.