In addition to the problems you've identified, calling the teaching and use of standard English racist has always struck me as an extremely narrow and unequal definition of racism. For English learners, most of whom are not white, standard English is much easier to understand than dialects that deviate from it in significant ways. The world that people like Inuoe are ultimately trying to build, where no one dialect is privileged by being considered the standard, would be a nightmare for learners.
Thank you so much for this article (written, incidentally, in a tone and style appropriate to the topic and audience). The type of thinking described here is yet another manifestation of the condescension rampant in the ideology: "here, let me hold your hand and guide you through this big, scary world because you're not equipped to make your own decisions."
Very interesting, well argued essay and more evidence that liberals, who used to encourage having a broader range of options, more inclusion and more tolerance, are increasingly compelling fewer options, binary choices between extremes and have no tolerance for pragmatism or (a) common sense.
Agreed, "Teaching standardized English isn't racism, it's education". I think these seven words are enough to put any counter argument to rest. Frankly, shortening the title to, "Teaching standardized English is education" should be enough, but...no it isn't enough, so you had to write an entire article on the subject. Seriously, it's absurd that an article like this is necessary. And it's even more dumbfounding that you're arguing against people who teach rhetoric... I commend you sir.
Thinking about this may have induced a minor stroke but I think it's over now so I can move on. After reading the article, I then perused Inoue's HOWL site and learned about the six "habits" contributing to "White language supremacy", I found three statements Inoue wrote that hint at how narrow-minded, pompous, and hollow Inoue's ideas about standardized English and racism in college rhetoric are based on how he structured the statements.
1. "I want to emphasize at this point that having habits of language and judgement, even ones from White racial groups, is not a problem... It’s when one group’s habits get used as the standard by which all other people are judged, regardless of their own habits or their goals as students or people." The second half of this one is interesting, Inoue's opposition to standardized English which he thinks is "White language supremacy" and his devotion to how this affects groups is clear. However, is he referring to only groups being judged or does he hint at some individuality within the groups? Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I don't know why/how people like Inoue reject individualism and favor groups when groups are comprised of individuals.
2. "Thinking and anti-sensuality are primary and opposed to feelings and emotions. Logical insight, the rational, order (often linear), and objectivity are valued most and opposed to the subjective and emotional."
In some instances this may to true to a certain degree, but I think this is a tired argument relying on his own assumptions about what white people think about objectivity vs subjectivity and logic/rationality vs emotions insofar as which should be prioritized. I think this assumed preference he thinks white people have is outdated and irritating. While some may disagree with me, I don't think objectivity/rationality and subjectivity/emotions are mutually exclusive. Perhaps Inoue thinks this as well but it's hard to tell when he's simply regurgitating an argument started 50 years ago.
3. Under the section, Rule-Governed, Contractual Relationships, Inoue writes
"This habit focuses on the individual in a contractual relationship with other individuals, either formally or tacitly... understood as benefiting the individuals in the contract, not the whole community or group".
This last statement I don't really have any questions I just think what he wrote here is utterly stupid simply because I'm not sure Inoue has any understanding of how individual relationship contracts are different from a group or social contract. Typically, the individuals and/or group in a contract are supposed to benefit from said contract because last I checked unless your part of a contract you won't benefit from one.
To conclude, my thoughts may be somewhat incoherent and I should work them out to a greater extent. Otherwise I thought the article was great and want to say keep up the good work. Inoue and his colleagues, who apparently think it's 1960, need to be called out more often for their bullshit and for saying and writing a lot on inequalities but never actually doing anything to help the people they claim to be fighting for.
Exceptionally clear thinking and writing as always. These critiques are broadly applicable to many other fields including STEM. This view really needs to be heard, thank you.
As I was reading your article, I was thinking about southern dialect. I speak in a very southern way. I do not write this way. I don't want to write this way. It allows people to presuppose too many things about who they think I am. There's nothing wrong with the way I speak, but I don't feel it necessary to write dialect to convey meaning. I prefer we all write in a common language to make sure we are all understood. The anti-racist is racist.
This type of nonsense makes me angry. What would the professor expect of biracial students? Write half time as authentically black and half time as authentically white? This is just dumb. Given that most American college students can’t write at all, I would encourage promoting one universal standard. Thank you for your reporting. I feel bad for the students who must take this freshman seminar. This professor should stop stereotyping his students and dividing them into groups that are encouraged to antagonize each other due to their immutable characteristics.
Wow. This was a really well-written article, and not too much needs to be added.
My random observations:
Inoue and these other preachers of anti-racism essentially make it all about them, appointing themselves as messiahs to the oppressed races and insisting members of those races validate their messianic pretention by falling in line behind them.
The first year students are of course as the article points out interested in learning how to communicate with and be read and respected by a wide audience. And this isn't really any different than, say, a white kid from the suburbs who wasn't born learning to communicate to a wide audience in standard English.
Moreover, as a self-observant person who reads widely I find myself adopting writing styles from the authors who impressed me, at least for a time after reading them. Human nature.
Then again I use a few expressions from characters in Patrick O'Brian's "Master and Commander" series just because they're unusual and quaint.
And I still quote from the 60's/70's comedy troupe "Firesign Theater" at times, though most people around me don't know what I'm talking about.
I am not in the field of rhetoric but wonder, are students at Inoue's Arizona State University paying tuition (working jobs, taking out loans, getting help from their parents) to hear this stuff???
"Inoue clarifies throughout his response that his real purpose in teaching is counter-hegemonic activism, not giving young people the writing skills they need to be successful in the professional world. "
And yet, as I was reading the things Inoue was writing, I noticed how well he wrote with clarity in a style that was easy to understand even though he is an 'academic'. It got me thinking - would he advise his own children to avoid writing (and speaking) with the simple clarity he uses and embrace 'code-meshed dialect'? Would he encourage them to avoid the 'habits of white language' as they enter the adult /professional world where clarity of thought and the ability to translate one's thoughts into ideas that people can comprehend is rather important?
My thoughts are your thoughts, Erec, with one exception. That Inoue's real purpose in teaching is counter-hegemonic activism, which seems undebatable to me, reflects an infection with evil. In another context we would call it grooming. Evil is revealed any time an educator uses his/her control over a classroom of children to advance the educator's ideology.
As always, Eric nails the essence of teaching English/writing as a tool for empowering all citizens. Steven Pinker describes this as classical English style that elevates a composition over all other English dialects (anybody's casual speech) and meant to be consistent but intellectually rigorous.
In addition to the problems you've identified, calling the teaching and use of standard English racist has always struck me as an extremely narrow and unequal definition of racism. For English learners, most of whom are not white, standard English is much easier to understand than dialects that deviate from it in significant ways. The world that people like Inuoe are ultimately trying to build, where no one dialect is privileged by being considered the standard, would be a nightmare for learners.
Thank you so much for this article (written, incidentally, in a tone and style appropriate to the topic and audience). The type of thinking described here is yet another manifestation of the condescension rampant in the ideology: "here, let me hold your hand and guide you through this big, scary world because you're not equipped to make your own decisions."
Very interesting, well argued essay and more evidence that liberals, who used to encourage having a broader range of options, more inclusion and more tolerance, are increasingly compelling fewer options, binary choices between extremes and have no tolerance for pragmatism or (a) common sense.
Dr. King would like a word.
Agreed, "Teaching standardized English isn't racism, it's education". I think these seven words are enough to put any counter argument to rest. Frankly, shortening the title to, "Teaching standardized English is education" should be enough, but...no it isn't enough, so you had to write an entire article on the subject. Seriously, it's absurd that an article like this is necessary. And it's even more dumbfounding that you're arguing against people who teach rhetoric... I commend you sir.
Thinking about this may have induced a minor stroke but I think it's over now so I can move on. After reading the article, I then perused Inoue's HOWL site and learned about the six "habits" contributing to "White language supremacy", I found three statements Inoue wrote that hint at how narrow-minded, pompous, and hollow Inoue's ideas about standardized English and racism in college rhetoric are based on how he structured the statements.
1. "I want to emphasize at this point that having habits of language and judgement, even ones from White racial groups, is not a problem... It’s when one group’s habits get used as the standard by which all other people are judged, regardless of their own habits or their goals as students or people." The second half of this one is interesting, Inoue's opposition to standardized English which he thinks is "White language supremacy" and his devotion to how this affects groups is clear. However, is he referring to only groups being judged or does he hint at some individuality within the groups? Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I don't know why/how people like Inoue reject individualism and favor groups when groups are comprised of individuals.
2. "Thinking and anti-sensuality are primary and opposed to feelings and emotions. Logical insight, the rational, order (often linear), and objectivity are valued most and opposed to the subjective and emotional."
In some instances this may to true to a certain degree, but I think this is a tired argument relying on his own assumptions about what white people think about objectivity vs subjectivity and logic/rationality vs emotions insofar as which should be prioritized. I think this assumed preference he thinks white people have is outdated and irritating. While some may disagree with me, I don't think objectivity/rationality and subjectivity/emotions are mutually exclusive. Perhaps Inoue thinks this as well but it's hard to tell when he's simply regurgitating an argument started 50 years ago.
3. Under the section, Rule-Governed, Contractual Relationships, Inoue writes
"This habit focuses on the individual in a contractual relationship with other individuals, either formally or tacitly... understood as benefiting the individuals in the contract, not the whole community or group".
This last statement I don't really have any questions I just think what he wrote here is utterly stupid simply because I'm not sure Inoue has any understanding of how individual relationship contracts are different from a group or social contract. Typically, the individuals and/or group in a contract are supposed to benefit from said contract because last I checked unless your part of a contract you won't benefit from one.
To conclude, my thoughts may be somewhat incoherent and I should work them out to a greater extent. Otherwise I thought the article was great and want to say keep up the good work. Inoue and his colleagues, who apparently think it's 1960, need to be called out more often for their bullshit and for saying and writing a lot on inequalities but never actually doing anything to help the people they claim to be fighting for.
Exceptionally clear thinking and writing as always. These critiques are broadly applicable to many other fields including STEM. This view really needs to be heard, thank you.
As I was reading your article, I was thinking about southern dialect. I speak in a very southern way. I do not write this way. I don't want to write this way. It allows people to presuppose too many things about who they think I am. There's nothing wrong with the way I speak, but I don't feel it necessary to write dialect to convey meaning. I prefer we all write in a common language to make sure we are all understood. The anti-racist is racist.
This type of nonsense makes me angry. What would the professor expect of biracial students? Write half time as authentically black and half time as authentically white? This is just dumb. Given that most American college students can’t write at all, I would encourage promoting one universal standard. Thank you for your reporting. I feel bad for the students who must take this freshman seminar. This professor should stop stereotyping his students and dividing them into groups that are encouraged to antagonize each other due to their immutable characteristics.
Wow. This was a really well-written article, and not too much needs to be added.
My random observations:
Inoue and these other preachers of anti-racism essentially make it all about them, appointing themselves as messiahs to the oppressed races and insisting members of those races validate their messianic pretention by falling in line behind them.
The first year students are of course as the article points out interested in learning how to communicate with and be read and respected by a wide audience. And this isn't really any different than, say, a white kid from the suburbs who wasn't born learning to communicate to a wide audience in standard English.
Moreover, as a self-observant person who reads widely I find myself adopting writing styles from the authors who impressed me, at least for a time after reading them. Human nature.
Then again I use a few expressions from characters in Patrick O'Brian's "Master and Commander" series just because they're unusual and quaint.
And I still quote from the 60's/70's comedy troupe "Firesign Theater" at times, though most people around me don't know what I'm talking about.
I am not in the field of rhetoric but wonder, are students at Inoue's Arizona State University paying tuition (working jobs, taking out loans, getting help from their parents) to hear this stuff???
Outstanding and objective critique. Thank you.
"Inoue clarifies throughout his response that his real purpose in teaching is counter-hegemonic activism, not giving young people the writing skills they need to be successful in the professional world. "
And yet, as I was reading the things Inoue was writing, I noticed how well he wrote with clarity in a style that was easy to understand even though he is an 'academic'. It got me thinking - would he advise his own children to avoid writing (and speaking) with the simple clarity he uses and embrace 'code-meshed dialect'? Would he encourage them to avoid the 'habits of white language' as they enter the adult /professional world where clarity of thought and the ability to translate one's thoughts into ideas that people can comprehend is rather important?
My thoughts are your thoughts, Erec, with one exception. That Inoue's real purpose in teaching is counter-hegemonic activism, which seems undebatable to me, reflects an infection with evil. In another context we would call it grooming. Evil is revealed any time an educator uses his/her control over a classroom of children to advance the educator's ideology.
An eloquent and cutting response to Inoue, Erec. Thank you for your disciplined and courageous voice. Bravo.
As always, Eric nails the essence of teaching English/writing as a tool for empowering all citizens. Steven Pinker describes this as classical English style that elevates a composition over all other English dialects (anybody's casual speech) and meant to be consistent but intellectually rigorous.
Bravo. Thank you, Erec!