Dear ATEG members/subscribers,
 
I would like to respond to Terry's recent post, but I find it difficult to
tell exactly how to respond because I'm uncertain about the space in which
we're discussing.  It no longer feels quite like a listserv; rather it feels
(to me) as if we're in a space more akin to the "lists" of a medieval
tournament.  In one way I feel the way (I imagine) King Henry V must have
felt when he received the message and "gift" of the box of tennis balls from
the Dolphin [sic] of France (in Shakespeare's play).  That feeling makes me
wonder if we haven't crossed an important line.  I'd prefer to talk about
what I believe are the issues that motivated the sender; certainly, they are
the issues that motivate me.
 
I want to begin by acknowledging that I recognize the value of such
contributors as Freire and Locke.  I draw on Freire (quoting him in a
positive manner) in my dissertation (as far as it is at the moment), and I
refer to Locke.  However, what they, and others, offer will not function (in
my mind) as complete pedagogies nor do they suffice in and of themselves to
address the issue(s) at hand.
 
What seems to me to be the most important issue, and one that seems to
distress Terry, is the frustration we, as teachers feel, when trying to help
students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.  It is true I haven't
taught in his area of the country in which he works and lives.  But my area
of the country has many Appalachian ties, so much so that the part of
Hamilton where the campus lies is referred to as "Hamiltucky."  So I have an
appreciation for, if not a complete understanding of, the problems he
references.  Few of us can have more than such an appreciation unless we
live, or have lived, in such environments and experience(d) those problems
first hand.
 
And I have talked to an Hispanic "kid."  I know many such young men and
women from the barrios of inner cities.  I also have talked with ones from
the heart of Harlem, from the wheat fields of Nebraska, from small towns in
Texas or New Mexico, from the cities and farms of Puerto Rico, and from the
very northern parts of Alaska (to name just a few).  As an officer in the
military, I worked with literally thousands of young men and women from all
walks of life, but primarily from those that one might call economically
disadvantaged.  When we spoke about "we," we spoke about the citizens of the
United States.  And when we spoke about wishes and dreams, we spoke about
learning to succeed in the country we served.
 
My current students speak similarly.  We recognize, as those young men and
women I worked with for fifteen years recognized, that there are
inequalities in this country, and we'd like to change them.  But, despite
these inequalities, these young men and women are and have been able to
succeed and change their economic status, in part, by learning the language
of the class they serve(d).  Which of us would be where we are without
mastering that language?  Which of us willingly would undue the work of that
mastery?
 
My main reason, however, for responding to Terry's first posting and for
labeling his language as Marxist (which may or may not have been accurate,
but certainly the connotations of many terms he used would fall under the
label many academics claim as Marxist) is that I have been unable to
ascertain exactly what those who subscribe wholeheartedly to Marxist or
liberation pedagogies propose to do that will help their students in a
practical sense in the environments in which they currently find themselves.
And, more importantly, I wonder what makes them believe they will be able to
change the "ruling class" or the way it perceives language.
 
In my posting I made it clear that I believe that we should not denigrate,
disparage, or insult our students, their ethnic and racial backgrounds, or
their language use.  We should build on what they currently have.  We should
work to make them more fluent and capable of communicating effectively in
the environments in which they live and work.  How could we consider
ourselves effective teachers otherwise?
 
For example, I am sure that Terry is a dedicated teacher.  If he thought I
meant he wasn't, I apologize.  What I was arguing has to do with what we, as
teachers, value and how we present it.  If we present the language used by
those Terry calls the "ruling class" in a disparaging or unflattering way, I
believe we do our students a disservice.  If we don't work to help them
learn that language use, what Terry and others refer to as SWE (although
many other "colors" of people would call it their standard as well), I
believe we do them a disservice.  If we don't help them learn that language
use, we don't help them overcome the stereotypes and prejudices that many
(in that "ruling class" and in other classes as well--one need only witness
reactions from two people from very different ethnic backgrounds but
similarly poor economic ones) automatically associate with their particular
language use.
 
It may be true that some of those students will never overcome those
prejudices (as Terry suggests), but many will.  I've seen it first-hand.
I've watched a kid from the projects of Chicago who had two brothers in
prison, no one he could call father, and only a GED, work his way up through
the ranks until he could apply for, and receive, a chance at a college
scholarship (which he earned).  I've watched and helped young men and women
from many environments make it because they learned not only the language
but also the determination to succeed.
 
Terry's experience is obviously different from mine.  I respect it, but I
respectfully disagree with the conclusions he has drawn from it.
 
Sincerely,
 
Jim Dubinsky