Dear Fellow ATEG members/subscribers,
 
Terry Irons recently said, "Those of us who teach language arts . . . need
to consider whose agenda we are buying into when we decide what posture we
represent in relation to language 'correctness' . . . .  If we buy into the
notion of correctness . . . do we not become what are jargonistically called
"running dog lackeys of the ruling class"? . . .  Teaching language and
grammar IS NOT VALUE NEUTRAL with respect to these issues."
 
I've cut and pasted his strongly worded and passionate presentation, hoping
I haven't misrepresented him, because I want to present a different point of
view.  I agree that teaching language and grammar is not value neutral.
What teaching is?  But I find such overtly Marxist language just as
disconcerting as he (and others on the list) find the language of those of
us who believe in teaching our students a clearly presented, coherent sense
of the language used in the majority of workplaces in which they will have
to find work to feed themselves and their families.
 
My students, at a two-year commuter regional campus of a major state
university, want and overtly ask for such a coherent presentation.   We
often discuss, and they indeed recognize and understand, that their personal
language use is acceptable (and "correct") for them at home, among their
friends and family.  But they also know that such language use, particularly
if they come from a home or environment that values and carries on rich
ethnic and racial traditions, won't help them pay the rent as effectively as
other language uses.  They want to learn the language of the group Terry
refers to as the "ruling class."  I work to help them learn it and use it
effectively.
 
I suppose we could work with them to subtly overthrow the "ruling class,"
but what would take its place?  Certainly another ruling class.  One need
only look at the many political experiments with Marxism and Communism in
this century alone to see that the classes that do the replacing are often,
nay usually, more oppressive than the ones they replaced.
 
What is our job?  Is it, as Johanna says, to make good citizens?  If so,
those citizens should learn to understand the workings of our country and
its many different peoples, all of whom strive to be one people.  Sooner or
later, in that striving, there needs to be some sort of agreed upon standard
that is used for common practices of "doing business."
 
I expect that my posting, one of the first I've made to respond to other
than administrative concerns since I helped get this list off the ground,
may result in bringing some "flames" down upon me.  So be it.  I recognize,
in the best and newest jargon of social constructivism, that my personal
background of serving the "ruling class" has helped to "construct me" (I was
an active duty Army officer for 15 years).  I do not wish nor choose to be
unconstructed from that past.  I do wish to do what I and my students think
will be most useful for them and their families.  And in doing so, I am well
aware that what I do is political.  I hope it is also quite practical.
 
Best wishes,
Jim Dubinsky
Miami University, Hamilton
"Let us love not by words along, but let us love until it hurts."  Mother Teresa
 
Jim Dubinsky
Visiting Instructor
Miami University
[log in to unmask]
http://miavx1.muohio.edu/~jdubinsky
H:  (513) 887-6719/ W: (513) 785-3142