The Tutoring Book - California State University, Sacramento

121
Katie Johnson
Fall 2004
The Writing Center Catch-22: Helping Writers Succeed While Questioning Our Own Assumptions
about Academic Discourse and Standard English
Have you heard of the Students’ Right to Their Own Language? If you are anything like me, most
likely you have not, for I only happened upon it by chance while doing research last semester. First, let
me give you some of the background information and important concepts underlying the Students’ Right
before explaining how it will be relevant to your experience as a tutor in the writing center (and believe
me, it is relevant).
In 1972, the Executive Committee of the Conference on College Composition and Communication
declared its support for students to speak the dialect – standard or not – of their choosing in the
classroom; in a special 1974 issue of CCC members detailed the linguistic and social grounds in support
of this proclamation. Thirty years later, I find myself grappling with many of the questions this
movement raised. For example, why is “standard” English the standard? “[W]ould we accomplish more,
both educationally and ethically, if we shifted the emphasis [on uniformity in speech and writing] to
precise, effective, and appropriate communication in diverse ways, whatever the dialect?” (“Students’
Right” 2, emphasis added).
It is important to understand that the writers of SR and other advocates of dialect-diversity “do not
condone ill-organized, imprecise, undefined, inappropriate writing in any dialect” (8). They are not, in
other words, suggesting that academic standards should be relaxed but are instead calling for those
standards to be reassessed, challenged, and ultimately, broadened in order to reflect the growing diversity
of the student body 1 . Writers of SR convincingly argue that standard English holds no linguistic
superiority over non standard dialects. Dialects themselves are neither good nor bad, and prestige, rather,
is “externally imposed” upon them (5). Often times the more power and influence a speaker is thought to
have, the more prestige is afforded to his or her dialect (5). Proponents of SR point out that speaking a
nonstandard dialect impairs neither the ability to read (6-8), write (8), think (9), nor communicate
meaning.
On the other hand, there are many who argue that learning the “dominant” discourse benefits
students. For one thing, it allows them to participate in the academic conversation. Learning the
conventions of academic discourse may, some argue, actually facilitate a change in one’s thought process
and often times one’s world view. I should point out that this process (of adopting the “academic” world
view) can be extremely confusing and difficult, especially for students whose home world views may be
markedly different than or conflict with that of the university. Many students come to the university
strictly to get a degree so that they will have a better chance of getting a job, and, whether it is fair or not,
employers usually expect a person (especially someone who has been educated at a university) to speak
and write in a certain way, i.e., in standard English.
Not helping students achieve at least some level of proficiency in standard English may very well
disadvantage them because other students will have these skills. Students need tools and strategies to
better negotiate the system, a system which, I might add, is not likely to change overnight. Lisa Delpit
argues the importance of explicitly teaching students the rules of what she calls “the culture of power”
(85). While affirming the validity of nonstandard dialects, Delpit also explains to students “that there is a
power game that is also being played, and if they want to be in on that game there are certain games that
they too must play” (95).