Student language narratives and discrimination.

Abstract

Traditional language instruction has focused around the binary of prescriptive/descriptive grammar, and thus issues of correctness, sociolinguistic research highlights language practices within social contexts. An increased awareness of language in context has resulted in a concomitant understanding that language discrimination is rooted in social inequities. Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is discussed, along with the recent increase in language discrimination suits. The importance of communicating to students their rights and responsibilities regarding language diversity is explored through school and workplace narratives.

Introduction

While the debate over the role of language instruction in education has traditionally focused on the tension between traditional, prescriptive approaches to teaching grammar--the belief that a standard exists, that the standard represents a superior, desirable, and stable form of the language, and that all students should learn that standard for both economic and patriotic reasons--and descriptive linguistic accounts that point out that all varieties of a language are logical and capable of communicative competence, recently discussion has turned to looking at language through the lens of sociolinguistics.

Sociolinguists point out that language and society are linked, and, therefore, mutually interact in a variety of ways that reflect back to us the ways we as speakers and listeners construct our interactions. The sociolinguistic turn in grammar studies has led to the catchphrase "grammar in context"--either in the context of writing, where choices of correctness and appropriateness are made in the context of rhetorical purpose, genre, and target audience (Weaver 1996)--or in the context of culture, where students examine the ways in which language shapes our individual and cultural identities (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes 1998). As postmodern and poststructuralist scholarship provide us with the theoretical background to contextualize the way that language functions as a social construction of our perceptions of reality, sociolinguistics provides specific data to test the hypotheses of these theories. In addition, sociolinguistic studies can help build the foundation of a social justice approach to dealing with language difference.

With its origins in the identity movements of the 1960s and 70s, social justice theories ask us to think critically and carefully about what we consider the norm. An early outgrowth of this movement would be documents such as the Conference on College Composition and Communication (1974) position statement, Students' Right to Their Own Language (SRTOL) and an increased emphasis in the stated standards in the field to help students develop respect for language diversity (NCTE/IRA 1996). These shifts in educational focus were concomitant to one of the most significant pieces of legislation in US history--The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of this act, through a variety of court decisions, has come to be interpreted as providing limited legal protection to speakers of "non-standard" English if certain conditions are met.

Title VII and Material Interference on the Job

The EEOC states that there is a three-part test that should be applied to any case of possible discrimination on the basis of language, and that cases of accent discrimination must prove "material interference" with the job (Understanding 2006). First, the nature of communication required on the job must be considered. If the job does not require extensive language skills (such as manual labor), using language as a criterion for hiring or dismissal is inappropriate. Second, an objective evaluation of an employee's speech must be made. Third, the impact that the employee's language skills would have in creating miscommunication must also be considered. The EEOC points out that, for example, in the case of a 911 operator, the ability to communicate quickly and clearly with a variety of individuals is a necessity. However, negative reactions of clients to a particular accent or language variety (such as African-American Vernacular English) cannot be used as a reason for termination (Kline 2006), employers can be held liable for discriminatory practices, even if their intent was not to discriminate (Kline 2006), and employers also can be held liable for customer harassment of an employee because of that employee's accent (Idaho Employment Law Group 2005)

Although Title VII decisions have usually been based on a definition of race founded on "morphology-based ascription"--that is, the interpretation of certain biological features as belonging to a particular racial or ethnic group--particularly physical features such as hair, skin, nose, and eye (Rich 2004, p. 1149), such legal interpretations have failed to take into account the arguments of critical legal studies, critical race theory, and feminist jurisprudence (Matsuda 1991), relying instead on "biological theories of race and ethnicity that were hegemonic in the scientific community" (Rich, 2004, p.1148) until the early twentieth-century. Instead, a performative view of race, similar to the performative view of gender proposed by Butler (1990), is a more accurate way of viewing race and ethnicity (Rich 2004).

Identity as Performance

Performative racial and ethnic identities acknowledge that there are social markers that signal to a culture one's race and heritage, just as such markers signal gender. Rich (2004) points out the case of certain hairstyles that are associated with a particular race (for example, dreadlocks and African descent) and that stereotypes connected to a particular group are transferred upon performative acts associated with this group. In other words, the negative stereotypes that a society ascribes to people of African ancestry are transferred upon dreadlocks. As another example, an employee of Caucasian descent, to express his enthusiasm about Reggae music, might also adopt dreadlocks to show solidarity with those musicians. At work, however, his employer may begin to project his or her negative stereotypes about African-Americans onto the Caucasian worker--suddenly, post-dreadlocks, the worker is "unhygienic" (Rich 2004, p. 1160). Although the worker is not biologically a member of a minority group, he still is being treated in a discriminatory manner by his employer's reactions to a performative act associated with a minority group.

An analogous case can be made with language. Language, in itself, is a performative act; it is a skill that all humans are biologically predisposed to learn, but the actual language, as well as pragmatic concerns such as courtesy markers, etc., is determined by the language acts the child is exposed to at an early age.

Linguistic Profiling and Continuing Discrimination

The fact that speakers of non-mainstream dialects, from those varieties that are classified by a culture as "non-standard" to those that vary only by accent, are stereotyped in various ways seems obvious enough to be considered a truism. Nevertheless, despite legislation such as the Civil Rights Act, the repeated attempts by linguists and educators to make the case for the dignity of non-mainstream forms (LSA 1997; CCCC 1974) and the push for more tolerance and sensitivity to race, ethnicity, and class markers, such speakers still face discrimination in schools and workplaces. As a matter of fact, the number of employment discrimination cases based on language doubled from 1995- 2006 (Uranga 2005).

Whereas racial profiling is the tendency to assign a person to a particular racial group based on physical, visual cues such as those described above, linguistic profiling is a similar activity that uses auditory cues "used to identify an individual or individuals as belonging to a linguistic subgroup within a given speech community, including a racial subgroup" (Baugh, 2000, p. 363). Recently, Baugh illustrated this tendency in a series of studies to determine the effect of language variety on the housing market. Baugh placed a series of phone calls to landlords who had advertised an apartment for rent. When Baugh spoke to the landlords in non-mainstream dialects, such as African-American English or Chicano English, the landlords told him the apartments were rented. When he called the same landlords later, using Standard American English, some of the landlords reported that the same apartments that had been rented a few hours earlier were available (MacNeill 2004). These findings were also dramatized in a series of radio and television public service announcements emphasizing the role that language discrimination can play in housing discrimination.

As educators, we have a responsibility not only to be aware of our tendency to make judgments about others based on language use but also to make students aware of these tendencies as well. Indeed, many students, who may not have any experience with language other than the traditional school grammar of sentence diagrams and usage injunctions, may not be aware of the linguistic equality of all speech varieties. Given the legal consequences of both intentional and unintentional language discrimination as described above, these students may one day find themselves in a situation where their misperceptions about language and diverse language practices may have serious impact upon their lives and careers. However, many students are resistant to an acceptance of tolerating linguistic diversity since they have been taught that one variety, Standard English, is the "correct" form. Indeed, Matsuda (1991) points out that the discrepancies between the judgments in Title VII based linguistic discrimination cases against the plaintiff and the guidelines set out by the EEOC to decide these cases are often based in these linguistic myths and stereotypes that persist in judges' and juries' minds, despite expert testimony from linguists in such cases.

Standard English as a Unifying Force

Standard versions of languages, of course, developed for good reasons. Whereas handwritten manuscripts were written in their scribes' dialect, the printing press made a written standard a necessity (Fennell 2001): to be economically feasible, books needed to be accessible and readable for a wide audience.

In addition, throughout history, arguments have been made for a standard as a unifying national force, particularly during troubled times. For example, English reasserted itself centuries after the Norman Conquest as a focal point to unite the country against the continued influence of the French court in English affairs (Fennell 2001), Neoclassical scholars argued for a codification of English, partly in an attempt to reassert order after the chaotic Civil War of the previous century (Baugh & Cable 2002). Interestingly such attempts failed because concerns that the regulating force of such an institution would violate English civil liberties--an important part of English cultural identity (Baugh & Cable 2002). In the US, the concept of an American English, as Webster argued after the Revolutionary War, served the purpose of unifying the new country as a move for cultural independence from England (Kovecses 2000).

With increased accessibility to education, acquisition of a standard version of English has become one source of cultural capital that could be used in the quest for upward mobility (Aronowitz 2000). However, in the mid-twentieth century, a greater awareness of diversity led immigrants--as well as their progeny--to view cultural heritage as a source of pride, something to retain rather than discard. Language, so closely tied to our notion of our identities, became a sticking point. Should one assimilate to American culture, as immigrants before, and learn and use only English; should one reject Standard American English and retain one's affiliation with the country of origin by maintaining one's use of that language or dialect; or should one adopt a middle road, becoming bilingual/bidialectal and code-switching (Wheeler & Swords 2004) between Standard American English when expected in professional and academic settings and maintaining the home language/dialect in private or informal situations?

Hence, the dilemma at the heart of language discrimination. Just as Rich (2004) noted the difference in court rulings noted above hinged on competing definitions of race, language discrimination also relates to competing notions of language and American identity. This intertwining of these often unconscious assumptions makes decisions about what language or dialect to use--and when to use it--fraught with serious educational, economic, and social consequences if one miscalculates and violates the audience's expectations of "correct American English." For the speaker who acquires the cultural capital of a standard, obvious rewards apply, but, some may ask, at what cost to one's notion of one's self and one's heritage?

Critical Analysis of Discrimination Narratives

Discussing matters of difference in the classroom can be tricky to handle, and language, which is so closely tied to identity, can be a particularly difficult subject to discuss. As an instructor of future educators, however, I have found that it is necessary to address these issues with my pre-service students before they confront the increasingly diverse classrooms in which we teach. Getting beyond the stereotypes of language users, nevertheless, can be particularly tricky. Students who speak non-mainstream dialects of English may feel reluctant to discuss their experiences in a classroom environment. Students who have never had to consider the fact that their language gives them privileges others do not have can be equally reluctant to discuss diversity issues.

I have found that by depersonalizing the discussion, students are much more open to discuss these issues. In the grammar class that I teach for teacher education students, at the end of our unit on varieties of English and methods for working with students from diverse cultures, I ask the students to write a brief descriptive essay. Rather than writing about their own language experiences, I ask them to recall a time when they observed someone being treated differently because of the way he or she spoke. I ask them to be descriptive and tell us as much as possible about the situation and to think about the reasons the person was treated differently.

Although some students will describe their own experiences, most report on situations they have observed, primarily in school and employment situations, and thus provide their own real-world examples of the legal and linguistic issues they will have to face in their professional lives. The student who tells the story of her friend who was critiqued for her "country" speech at the upscale store where she had been hired illustrates Labov's (1972) study of class and dialect in department stores in the 1960s is still relevant over forty years later. The student who tells the story of a colleague who was teased about being dumb because of his accent reminds us of the legal ramifications of making judgments about other's abilities based on accent alone. And, perhaps even more disturbing, is the story of a young child who moved to a new state was placed in a communications disorders class at his new school because his accent was deemed a dysfunction by new teachers. Telling these stories gives students the opportunity to consider the relevance of the research we have been studying and gives them the opportunity to learn to empathize with those who experience this type of discrimination. Just as telling stories is an important part of legal testimony, students' narratives can be powerful instruments of persuasion, a "logical and legitimate mode of argument" (Spigelman 2001, p. 63). Students can begin to see parallels between their observed experiences and the experiences of people such as those described by Matsuda (1991) who experienced language discrimination and sought recourse through the legal system.

Conclusion

Sociolinguistic approaches to language remind us that language education is more than just grammar. The language that we use, and the way that we perceive the language, can have profound effects on our lives, both personally and professionally. Cadierolo Kaplan (2002) notes that teachers and administrators too often implement curricular policies without considering the ideologies undergirding those policies and argues for a definition of literacy that moves beyond mere functionality, a critical literacy "valuing student voice, linguistic diversity, cultural pluralism, and democratic schooling while emphasizing literacy and bilteracy as processes of empowerment (p. 378). A critical analysis of discrimination narratives can facilitate student understanding of the interrelation of language and social structures.

References

Aronowitz, S. (2000). The knowledge factory: Dismantling the corporate university and creating true higher learning. Boston: Beacon Press.

Baugh, J. (2000). Racial identification by speech. American Speech, 75(4), 362-364.

Baugh, A., & Cable, T. (2002). A history of the English language. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Rutledge.

Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2002). Literacy ideologies: Critically engaging the language arts curriculum. Language Arts, 79(5), 372-381.

Conference on College Composition and Communication (1974). Students' right to their own language. Retrieved on 30 November 2006 from http://www.ncte.org/about/over.positions/category/div.

Fennell, B. (2001). A history of English: A sociolinguistic approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Idaho Employment Law Group (2005, August) Postal service could be on hook for customer harassment of postmaster. Idaho Employment Law Letter, 10(5). Retrieved November 26 from LexisNexis database.

Klein, S.W. (2006, July). Understanding and preventing race and color discrimination. Indiana Employment Law Letter, 16.7. Retrieved November 25, 2006 from LexisNexis database.

Kovecses, Z (2000). American English: An introduction. Peterborough, ONT: Broadview Press.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Linguistic Society of America (1997). LSA resolution on the Oakland "Ebonics" issue. Retrieved 30 November 2006 from http://www.lsadc.org/info/Isa-res-ebonic.cfm

MacNeil, R. (2004). Do you speak American? [Television documentary]. Boston: PBS.

Matsuda, M. J. (1991) Voices of America: Accent, antidiscrimination law, and a jurisprudence for the last reconstruction." The Yale Law Journal 100(5), 13291407.

National Council of Teachers of English/International Reading Association (1996). NCTE standards for language arts. Retrieved November 30, 2006 from http://ww.ncte.org/about/over/standards/110846.htm

Rich, C. G. (2004) Performing racial and ethnic identity: Discrimination by proxy and the future of Title VII." New York University Law Review 79, 1134-1270.

Spigelman, C. (2001). Argument and evidence in the case of the personal. College English, 64(1), 63-88.

Understanding when accent is a legitimate job consideration. (2006, July). Federal EEO Advisor, 9(6), Retrieved November 25, 2006 from LexisNexis database.

Uranga, R. (2005, November 6) Their accent is on success: Immigrants working in U.S. struggle to improve speech. Daily News of Los Angeles, N1.

Weaver, C. (1996) "Teaching grammar in the context of writing." English Journal, 85, 15-24.

Wheeler, R.S., & Swords, R. Codeswitching: Tools of language and culture transform the dialectally diverse classroom. Language Arts, 81 (6), 470-480.

Wolfram, W. & and Schilling-Estes, N. (1998) American English: Dialects and variation. Malden, MA: Blackwell Press.

Susan Latta, Indiana State University 

Latta, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English