Johanna,
It seems to me that the Oakland decision was based more on politics than
linguistics.  Of course, some notable linguists have made an argument at
least 30 years ago that BEV is a 2nd language, but it seems they represent
a very small but vocal sector of linguistics.
I believe I agree w/ what I perceive your stance is--that BEV (or Ebonics)
is simply a dialect.  It certainly passes the most reliable test of what
is/isn't a langauge--mutual intelligibility.  That is, an Ebonics speaker
could communicate very well w/ someone who spoke "standard English"
(wherever that mystical person is).  In fact, having grown up in Texas
around many speakers of Black, rural white Southern, Hispanic, and Cajun,
I'd say that the Cajun speakers are the ones who would qualify the most for
2nd language status.
 
I'm sure the move in Oakland was well intended, but I cannot believe that
it will help students--esp. the minorities whom it was intended to
help--nor does the rationale represent current thinking on what is a
langauge.
 
What bugs me is that the ultra-conservatives are having a field day with
this one, and I find myself agreeing w/ their stance but not their tone,
rhetoric, or reasons.
 
Larry Beason,Director
English Composition Program
Dept. of English
Eastern Washington University
Cheney WA 99004
[log in to unmask]
 
WAC Page: http://ewu66649.ewu.edu/WAC.html