WTF? ‘Researcher’ Says GRAMMAR Is OPPRESSIVE — Teachers Should Accept EBONICS

Published on April 13, 2017

Oh, Lawdy! Does this mean ‘white privilege’ is old news already?

‘Posse scholar’ (definition) Erika Gallagher is on a mission. She wants to normalize Ebonics.

An undergraduate researcher at the University of Wisconsin–Madison has gained national acclaim for her research showing, she says, that members of minority groups feel oppressed by standard, grammatical English.

Ultimately, she explained, she wants to expand her research and eventually create a nonprofit group which urges teachers across the United States “to be more accepting” and to present their classes with disclaimers urging students to speak using the language which makes the students most comfortable.

Gallagher said her experience as a writing fellow, which involves helping other students improve their writing abilities, led her to believe that a focus on details such as proper English grammar causes minority students to feel excluded.

The social welfare major’s acclaimed research involved talking at length with three minority students about how they perceive language. Using standard English as “the biggest form of cognitive dissonance that exists,” one of the students said.

“Just because you speak a different way doesn’t mean you’re not smart,” Gallagher told the Cardinal. —DailyCaller

She thinks that as a ‘white-passing person’ she has a certain level of power and privilege that she wants to use to benefit others.

Nobody questions that helping those who — for whatever reason — didn’t finish school get back on track and enter the workforce is a worthy goal. But in seeking change, she’s insisting that culture adapts and her students do not.

There’s a problem with that.

Just like an Oxford scholar might struggle putting together a chart-ranking rap song — because it is incumbent on the singer to adapt to the expectations of his audience, not the other way around – it is incumbent on the person Marketing his talents and services to adapt to the needs of his customers.

There already WAS a time when language wasn’t standardized. But now people are literate.

For the same reason, you don’t see Criminal Lawyers dressed as surfers, or speaking like, say, dock workers in their legal briefs.

There’s the other matter of clarity of communication. Most work sites have some kind of written documentation. And if there is no unifying convention of language, feelings are spared, but clarity is lost.

If a report describing a patient’s symptoms were written in whatever language, spelling or punctuation the writer felt like writing it, lives could be put at risk.

It’s also setting people up for disappointment. Language changes organically, not because someone puts a demand on it.

Informal words that were in common use a generation ago are discarded and forgotten. Someone looking back at records written in less formal language (whatever community it was prevalent in) could find it as hard to understand as some find Shakespeare.

What did the guy mean when he wrote ‘sick’ or ‘dope’. There are a few meanings, at different points in time.

She might THINK she’s doing someone a ‘solid’. But she’s not.

She’s like the ship’s captain in the old joke telling the lighthouse to move out of his way.

Share if you think her research probably wasted your tax dollars.