Most African-American parents in Oakland, California, were probably taken aback by a recent announcement. In December, the school board proclaimed that the native language of African-American children-and by extension that of their parents-was not English but Ebonics. In fact, there is a dispute among linguists, those who make a scientific study of languages, as to whether African-American speech patterns constitute a language, a dialect or a kind of American slang. This is not an issue nonlinguists are qualified to decide, but the Oakland board rushed boldly in to dub Ebonics a language.
This decision gave rise to many questions and the controversy much criticism. Did the board intend that Ebonics be taught along with English - the way Hispanic also gives us students, for example, often continue studying something Spanish as they learn English? Did they intend it to be an alternative to mainstream English? Would to be hopeful teachers who were not proficient in Ebonics have to about go to school to learn it-or risk losing their jobs?
Board members made it clear that they did not intend to set up a program in which kids would study Ebonics. On the contrary, they recognized that people who want to be successful in American society must be proficient in mainstream English. Many of Oakland's African-American students are not, and they are at a disadvantage when they try to get jobs or further education. The board deserves high marks for recognizing a serious problem. However, declaring Ebonics a language will not help them solve it.
As the Oakland board is using it, Ebonics is basically a self-esteem strategy, a pat on the head for African-American students. If Black English is a real language, and not just a dialect or slang, then students are not wrong when they use it in class, just different. This is supposed to help kids feel better about them, but it will make raising their proficiency in mainstream English harder, not easier.
According to a New York Times article (December 30 1996), the school Board's resolution calls Ebonics "genetically based" and it makes "maintaining the legitimacy and richness of Ebonics" a "purpose" of the program. These phrases reveal the contradictions inherent in the Oakland policy. How can teachers juggle "maintaining the legitimacy of Ebonics" with teaching children not to use it? How will they tread the fine line between respecting a real language that is in their students' genes and correcting them because this language is a ticket to failure in the wider world? Teachers who are put in this bind will be under great pressure to be soft. And the more you soften things, the more standards dissolve. When nothing is really wrong, pretty soon there is nothing to teach because what the kid comes to school with in the first place is fine. And the more you soften things other with the more you open the door to kids asking why they should bother with English: "I hear that what I speak is Ebonics and it's a real language. So why are you pestering me to talk white?" Instead of deciding that it is important to become proficient in mainstream English, some African-American students will decide that it is unnecessary or even disloyal-just the way some African-American youngsters have decided that working hard in school is "acting white."
The Oakland school board has a worthwhile goal. Its members should be tough enough to pursue it without introducing an issue that will only make it harder for them to succeed.
However, the Ebonics controversy also gives us something to be optimistic about. We have not moved nearly as far as we hoped we would in the 1960s when Martin Luther King talked about achieving a colorblind society. There is discord and anger between black and white Americans. African-Americans is suspicious -- often with good reason -- of white Americans and particularly those in power. Nevertheless, the people who were loudest in their criticism of the Oakland scheme, and most categorical in their demands that African-American children learn Standard English, were African-Americans. Jesse Jackson and Maya Angelou spoke passionately about making sure that black children master the common tongue. The NAACP concurred. On a TV show that I watched, black parents and teachers joined in saying that the Oakland policy is a mistake and even an insult to black children. This is a hopeful sign. Ten, fifteen years ago, few would have dared to challenge people who said that African -American English is a separate tongue. Now, these people have to defend themselves against black parents.
There is another interesting and hopeful feature of this controversy. Right now, we are seeing a well-publicized movement in charter schools and elsewhere-to reject the idea of common educational standards. Here, we have black teachers and parents rejecting what they perceive as a special standard and insisting that their children learn what all youngsters need to be part of the larger society. This is a triumph of common sense over ideology. We should all be glad--and consider it a good omen for 1997.