Yvette Sandoval

Ebonics lowers English standards

In their search to educate inner city youth in proper English, legislators fail to evaluate whether this new language is truly a cultural asset or a setback

When Oakland does something, Oakland sure does it big.
The political activity that surrounds the lifestyles of black people in Oakland is not only amazing, but historical. Twenty years after Oakland was on fire with issues raised by the Black Panther Party, Oakland is the birthplace of the controversial motion that introduced Ebonics, inadvisably identified as black English.
The Oakland School Board asserts that Ebonics is a culturally-based deficiency of African Americans that warrants special attention to teaching African American children to speak standard English. The irony lies in Oakland's producing two extreme views of treatment of blacks in society.
Oakland is challenging the norms with Ebonics in the political arena. The Oakland Unified School District sparked the political explosion about Ebonics all the way to the front steps of the White House, as if it were an expert in black people. The Department of Linguistics passed the buck to the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, who is going to make sure whatever the solution, Ebonics will not be funded with bilingual federal funds. The real dispute is not about the linguistic challenges of black children speaking standard English but rather financing the alleged "educational tools" to train already qualified instructors.
Society and/or the government doesn't give a damn if African Americans want to legitimize street slang and poorly structured English, or even the slow drag of the South and deem it another facet of English. The real mockery of Ebonics is that the main concern is over who will foot the bill to recognize it and who will finance instructors to learn how to use Ebonics in bridging the gap between mainstream English language and the street dialect.
There is a paradox in that America's main interest is not in the future of its children but in who will be liable for all this research in Ebonics.
Meanwhile, blacks themselves are divided on the issue of Ebonics. Ebonics advocators Toni Cook, of the Oakland School District, and Barbara Boudreaux, of the Los Angeles Unified School District, claim training for teachers in Ebonics is essential for education, while the majority of African-Americans contend that Ebonics is a joke; they are appalled to link Ebonics with an African heritage. They feel it is a shame African Americans have endured and persevered through the past 100 years just to face this ridiculous rhetoric. It is another blow to an already turned non-violent cheek, reminiscent of the infamous bell curve that did its damnedest to declare black people genetically inferior.
Ebonics is not a culturally-based language. It is simply a conscious refusal to utilize standard English. Ebonics is essentially `hood dialect, and it would be a mistake to revere it as anything more. If you call Ebonics "black English" and then call it poor or bad English, there is an argument waiting to happen--"bad" and "black" have been interchangeable for too long. I can't imagine how many negative connotations accompany that title. The practice of coupling black with bad is common: black mail, black list, black magic, black market--and now, "black English". Moreover, believing that correcting poor English on the spot is embarrassing or humiliating is pushing this issue a little too far. It should not be an insult to have another person notice when a word is mispronounced; that's what education is all about. If funds are needed to assist improper articulation, well then say so. Support could be substantiated with a more stable foundation, not become based on misguided illusions of black children who supposedly can't speak English.
This is not a question of "black English" versus "white English". The difference in speech may warrant a joke or two, but it is not worthy of lowering the standards of the English language to meet the needs of African American children. We shouldn't extract funds from the federal government to pay teachers to learn Ebonics. Teachers should be able to teach children who speak poor English to speak English properly. That's their primary duty, anyway--to accept the level children are at and bridge the gap to where they need to go. A teacher should already be capable of noticing an erroneous speech pattern communicated by students and encourage correct speech.
I will, however, take my hat off to the Oakland School Board for bringing to light the linguistic problems of inner city children. All children need the capacity to adapt to the mainstream with regard to correct usage of language. Future generations should be equipped with the power of communication. I truly believe that this passion permeating from Ebonics could ultimately be beneficial to our children. Only for now, the cons outweigh the pros.
The means don't seem to justify the ends, and blacks should not have to carry the linguistic luggage attached to Ebonics.
Would it be Ebonics if I said, "I feel love for you, but you got it twisted"?
Ebonics is not about cultural diversity. If it were, there would be Europhonics for Anglo Americans, and Spanglish for Chicanos--which a classmate of mine adamantly suggested.


Yvette Sandoval is a junior majoring in American studies.

Editor's note: In recognition of Black History Month, the Daily Trojan will feature a weekly series discussing issues relating to the African American experience.

Copyright 1997 by the Daily Trojan. All rights reserved.
This article was published in Vol. 130, No. 21 (Monday, February 10, 1997), on page 4.