We live in a world where everything is labeled as either “black or white,” “good or bad.” Standard English is also a label-system that defines “good writing” as following rules of grammar and adopting an academic voice and dictates “bad writing” as anything that deviates from the norm. It seeks to excommunicate people, especially people of color, lower socioeconomic status, and multiliterate writers because it perpetuates the myth that people in those groups are inferior and cannot convey themselves properly because they do not know how to write in Standard English. Therefore, they are unable to succeed in society. However, all languages and people need to be respected and everyone should have a right to their own language because each language has its own stylistic conventions and rules that allow people to communicate their purpose and content effectively to their audience. 

Stanley Fish writes in his New York Times article “What Should Colleges Teach? Part 3,” that he places emphasis on sentences and syntactical structure. He elaborates that many students are unable to define what a sentence really is and defines it as: “an organization of items in the world” and “a structure of logical relationships.” He then writes simple sentences such as “Jane likes cake” and asks his students to generate similar sentences. Once students are able to grasp the structure of simple sentences, Fish then gives them activities to do such as taking a three-word sentence and revising it to form a thousand-word paragraph and explain their choices for writing each clause. Although I agree that Fish’s method is a great way to teach students how to write sentences because he is forcing students to conduct an action and analyze why they wrote a sentence a particular way and how it works within the sentence structure, Fish’s method follows what I dub the “grammar method,” in which he focuses on the sentences and punctuation instead of on audience, purpose, and content. Fish’s method focuses on the idea of a “Standard English,” that defines a rigid structure that students have to follow. Students must adopt an academic voice and must follow the rules of grammar, and  if they do not do so, then it is implied that certain people are incapable of writing “correctly” and  “properly” and therefore, they will not succeed in life. Stanley Fish mentions Patricia Dunn and Kenneth Lindblom who wrote in the January 2003 edition of the English Journal that “If we teach standardized, handbook grammar as if it is the only ‘correct’ form of grammar, we are teaching in cooperation with a discriminatory power system.” Fish counters Dunn and Lindblom’s claim by saying that “Statements like this one issue from the mistake of importing a sociological/political analysis of a craft into the teaching of it.” Even though Fish agrees that Standard English is a device that protects the status quo and reiterates their power over others, he believes that Standard English should be taught because it serves as a “qualifier” and “ticket for survival and success in American society” (Greenfield 39, 43). 

There are many people throughout the United States and even internationally, who believe in the idea of a “Standard English” and teach it because they believe that it will help their students succeed within society. Garrard McClendon, an African American teacher and professor, teaches African American students at the Aquinas Teaching Academy how to speak “correct”  English. He teaches his students to say “ask” instead of “ax” because he believes that “When you go on job interviews, people are gonna be looking at how you speak.”  When a journalist asked Randy Thomas of the Aquinas Teaching Academy if he was surprised that students were never taught to speak correct English, he responded that it’s not surprising because “it’s the form of a subculture…that just goes from one generation to another and just passing on poor language skills.” Although the students seem to be grateful that McClendon is teaching them how to speak proper English (one student shyly admits that she says “ax” instead of “ask”), even when people of color utilize “correct” Standard English, they are met with racism in professional settings. In the Tedx Talks video “Why English Class is Silencing Students of Color,” Jamila Lysicott speaking about her multiliteracies says, “People call me a minority. But I am a member of the global majority.” She criticizes institutional spaces which serve as her professional space (she is a professor of social justice education and a senior researcher), for claiming to want to “celebrate diversity” and “diverse culture” but really create a “perpetual invitation to engage in cultural erasure.” Lysicott is multiliterate in Ebonics, Caribbean Creolized English, and Standard English. In the video, she elaborates that once when she was nineteen years old, she was speaking on a panel when a woman commended her for “articulating” herself so well. Although Lysicott understands that the woman probably did not mean to offend her, her comment was still nonetheless offensive because it was inherently based on a belief that Black people don’t know how to speak and write properly, and for Lysicott being able to do so, was a tremendous accomplishment. 

Many people around the world also believe that being able to write and speak English “correctly” will lead them to success in the future. The article  “The English/Urdu Medium Divide in Pakistan: Consequences for Learner Identity and Future Life Chances” written by Fauzia Shamim and Uzma Rashid, details three students’ experiences with English education in Pakistan. Shamim and Rashid explain that there are three types of schools in Pakistan: elite private English medium-schools (O/A level track), non-elite private English-medium schools (Matric/Intermediate level track), and public-sector schools that follow an Urdu-medium (Matric/Intermediate level track) (48).  Aneesa, a Gujarati-girl who attended an elite private English-medium school (O/A level track) believes her fluency in English to be a highly valuable asset that will allow her to succeed socially and professionally. Farina, a Pakistani girl, who  attended a non-elite private English-medium (Matric/Intermediate level track) school, similarly believes that her fluency in English will allow her to have stronger future prospects and has elevated her social status within her family, friends, and society. Farina elaborates, “I can tell from my childhood experience that a lot depends on your schooling… If you have had your schooling in the English language you will definitely thrive. You will definitely get proficiency in English. . . . My friends who don’t know English- they didn’t have good schooling. Mine was relatively better-just relatively better-less than A level students” (50). But Kamran, a Punjabi student, who attended a public-sector Urdu-medium school, said that he is “not very comfortable in using English.” Knowing English is a status symbol in Pakistan can inflate egos and be used to make people who do not have fluency in English feel ashamed about themselves. Farina told Shamim and Rashid that “When I was not able to answer their [my relatives] questions [in English], I used to feel that I was not a good person; I was not a good learner. I was an ordinary child. I don’t know anything. I used to feel like that.’ Farina further elaborated: “I didn’t feel good when they [my relatives] were questioning my capabilities. It was like they were questioning my identity [social class]’” (51). Kamran explained that the education system in Pakistan is based on social class. If someone is wealthy, they will be able to attend private elite O/A level schools but those that are from a working class family, must attend public Urdu-medium schools because they cannot afford the education of a private English-speaking school. Fluency in English, Kamran says, leads to respect, “but when someone is speaking in Urdu, they do not respect him” (54).  Lysicott, Aneesa, Farina, and Kamran demonstrate the racist ideologies that exist surrounding Standard English. While Fish argues that the inability of students to speak and write in Standard English leads to their unsuccess within society and professional spaces, it is clear that “it is not the language which causes listeners to make assumptions about the speaker, but the attitudes held by the listeners toward the speaker that cause them to extend that attitude towards the speaker’s language” (Greenfield). Even though Lysicott, a well-educated multiliterate person who is able to “articulate” herself correctly in Standard English, she faces racism and prejudice from people who believe that she would not be able to speak and write correctly simply because she is Black. Kamran and Farina, both face prejudice from family, friends, and society not because they are not as proficient in Standard English as someone like Aneesa, but because they are not wealthy enough to be able to afford O/A level education. 

Unfortunately, the Standard English myth has blinded many people from seeing how people from diverse backgrounds and cultures can code-mesh and negotiate language to articulate their purpose for their audience. Jamila Lysicott’s Ted Talks video “3 Ways to Speak English” utilizes three languages: Standard English, Ebonics, and Caribbean Creolized English to address her audience of her purpose to show how she is “articulate” in three different languages. In the video, she makes the point that “even our language has rules.” She uses the example of her mom saying in Ebonics, “ya’ll-be-madd-going-to-the-store,” to which she satirically responds, “Mommy, no that sentence is not following the law. Never does the word “madd” go before a present participle,” but she explains “that’s simply the principle of this English.” Lysicott also uses Caribbean Creolized English to demonstrate how her father says, “Wha’ kinda ting is dis,” to demonstrate how people can use other languages to say a sentence that means the same thing in Standard English: “What kind of thing is this?” Similarly, Kamran also mixes Urdu and English when he describes the perception O/A level students have about matriculation students: “They [A level stream] are entirely different people. I don’t know for what reason. They consider it as a privilege to be there; to learn English; . . . they consider us ke matriculation ke students; kia aage in ka future hai [they think matriculation students do not have a bright future] So I think that is the barrier.” Lysicott, Aneesa, Farina, and Kamran, and Shamim and Rashid (for conducting the study and publishing their findings) subvert Fish’s belief that Standard English provides the tools to fight against oppression and the status quo. If each of those speakers and writers followed “Standard English,” then their purpose: to demonstrate the effects Standard English has on their identities as people of color and (in the cases of Farina and Kamran) lower socioeconomic status, would not have been adequately argued and demonstrated. By switching between Standard English, Ebonics, and Caribbean Creolized English and Urdu and English, they demonstrate how each language has its own rules, style, and conventions and  prove that their languages have the ability to articulate what they want to say (their purpose and content) to their audience, thus making evident that Standard English is not superior to other languages nor is it the “correct” way to write or speak. Other languages are just as valuable, powerful and have the ability to fight oppression. 

While some like Fish may argue that people have the right to speak and write in their own language, and that he’s not here to take that language away, he’s here to teach a new one, people like Aneesa and Min-Zhan Lu demonstrate how the superiority of Standard Language has not provided them with spaces to engage in a dialogue where they can code-mesh and negotiate their languages. Shamim and Uzma write that although Aneesa holds English as a highly valuable asset for academic and career prospects, and Urdu allows her to communicate with her friends, she finds it “difficult to sustain a conversation in Gujarati” her mother tongue. Furthermore, Farina has “no literacy skills in her mother tongue which sometimes gives her a sense of loss” (49). Min-Zhan Lu in “From Silence to Words” talks about how she grew up speaking and writing Standard Chinese and Standard English. But because her parents and teachers “contrived to provide a scene free of conflict for practicing my various languages” (445), she was unable to formulate and engage in a dialogue where she could negotiate between Chinese and English. Although Fish may argue that Standard English provides the tools to be able speak to the present condition of the world, when the freedom to negotiate language to articulate the argument will not help people respond to the world the way they see it. Language is a part of cultures, and allows people to communicate and express their identities and beliefs. Students should have the right to their own languages but at the same time, should be taught other languages so they can develop an appreciation for language and the ways that people utilize it to convey their messages. 

Garrard McClendon criticizes, “How can a person call him or herself a professional educator if you are not willing to correct a person’s grammar.” But I, as a student, can say that the best educators have been the ones who have allowed me the freedom to write and say what I want to say, and have provided me the tools to convey my message. Although Fish believes that Standard English is a “tool” that can be used to respond to the present condition of the world, I argue that Fish really means that people have to follow the “rules” of Standard English: correct grammar and the adoption of an academic voice to find professional and social success. But as exemplified by Lysicott, Aneesa, Farina, Kamran, and Shamim and Rashid: NO rules, just tools and the way that a person implements them can help people articulate their purpose to their audience. 

Works Cited

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach? Part 3.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Sept. 2009, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/what-should-colleges-teach-part-3/.

Greenfield, Laura. “The Standard English Fairytale.” Writing Center.Oregon State, writingcenter.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/media/GreenfieldStandardEnglishFairyTale.pdf.

Lu, Min-Zhan. “From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle.” College English, vol. 49, no. 4, 1987, pp. 437–448. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/377860. Accessed 25 Apr. 2020.

Lysicott, Jamila J. “About Jamila’s Work – Jamila J. Lyiscott, Ph.D.” About Jamila’s Work – Jamila J. Lyiscott, Ph.D, http://www.jamilalyiscott.com/bio.

Lysicott, Jamila. “Why English Class is Silencing Students of Color.” YouTube, uploaded by Tedx Talks, 23 May 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4dc1axRwE4&feature=youtu.be

Lysicott, Jamila. “3 Ways to Speak English.” YouTube, uploaded by TED, 19 June 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9fmJ5xQ_mc

McClendon, Garrard. “Fox News and Black English-Ebonics.” Fox News and YouTube, 04 January 2007, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_KKLkmIrDk&feature=youtu.be 

Shamim, Fauzia, and Uzma Rashid. “The English/Urdu-Medium Divide in Pakistan: Consequences for Learner Identity and Future Life Chances.” Journal of Education and Educational Development, vol. 6, no. 1, June 2019, pp. 43–61. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url&db=eric&AN=EJ1216773&site=eds-live.