Asao B. Inoue's Infrequent Words

Entry 26 Whether we like it or not, whether we want to admit it or not, we are in a language race war. I know, that sounds awful, but I don’t know how else to put it. The way we use our language standards in literacy classrooms is one front -- a very important front --  in that language race war that we’ve been fighting for at least 150 years. This becomes most obvious when students of color are in large numbers in schools and colleges. When this happens, perceptions of falling or low literacy standards among students begin to circulate. One way to see this war is in the rising number of so-called “remedial” students. In gentler circles, we refer to these students as “underprepared.”  But we might ask ourselves what is the racialized nature of preparedness for our schools and colleges? Knowing our histories of schooling should tell you the answer: The nature of preparedness for school is gauged by a student’s proximity to and experience with Habits of White language (HOWL)....

This is part three of a three-part critique of Beehler's article. Read part 1 and part 2 if you want to catch up. What Towers Should We Build?  Photo from Thomas Hawk, Untitled.  In what I read as the heart of his article, Beehler explains why critical pedagogies that use code-meshing can be harmful to students. Vershawn A. Young (University of Waterloo) has done copious work on code-meshing. If you are less familiar with the concept, you can see an interview of him on the topic  from Kentucky PBS, when he was a professor at UK. Or you can check out his co-edited book, Other People's English . In short, code-meshing is the idea that we all already mesh various language codes all the time, and in the literacy classroom, it should be okay to do so. And in fact, the practice offers lots of opportunities for critical work, especially around interrogating dominant English standards. Beehler explains that “other languages and hybridized languages most certainly have...

This is the second of three connected posts. If you haven't, it will help to read the first post, "A Response to Paul Beehler -- Part 1 of 3."   Tricks of Diluted Language  I need to be straight here, but I also want to be compassionate. I think, Beehler means to do good teaching, to help all students. I do not fault him for that. I fault his arguments for what they lack. Beehler makes several arguments about teaching writing and language today that ignore the histories and politics of language and its judgement, and this makes his arguments white supremacist in their outcomes among diverse students in schools. Beehler claims that Theoretically speaking, a common, or standard, language can be the gateway through which all individuals can fully participate in society because participation occurs through the nexus of a common language, whichever that language may be , as Smitherman noted in her reflection of the 1960s and 1970s debates. (166, original emphasis)  He’...