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