1
THE EBONICS DEBATE AND AFROCENTRICITY: DIMENSIONS OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION
by
PÁL CSONTOS
Barely eighteen months ago, on December 18, 1996, the Oakland Unified School District (hereinafter referred to as OUSD) in Northern California passed a resolution containing, among others, the following statements:
Whereas, numerous validated scholarly studies demonstrate that
African American students as part of their culture and history as African
people possess and utilize a language described in various scholarly
approaches as ``Ebonics'' ... and
Whereas, these studies have also demonstrated that African
Language Systems are genetically-based and not a dialect of English; ... (Orig. Board Resolution 1)
Be it further resolved that the Superintendent in conjunction with her
staff shall immediately devise and implement the best possible academic
program for imparting instruction to African American students in their
primary language for the combined purposes of maintaining the legitimacy
and richness of such language ... (2)
As in the case of Asian-American, Latino-American, Native American
and all other pupils in this District who come from backgrounds or
environments where a language other than English is dominant,
African-American pupils shall not, because of their race, be subtly
dehumanized, stigmatized, discriminated against or denied. (3)
The controversy and uproar prompted by the above resolution, and the ensuing debate on the pretext of Ebonics, appear to have marked the final point of a long process and, at the same time, a new initial stage of what “Catharine R. Stimpson of Rutgers University has called ‘cultural democracy,’ a recognition that we must listen to a ‘diversity of voices’ in order to understand our culture, past and present” (Ravitch 275).
The January 13, 1997, issue of Newsweek magazine reported that an “America Online poll about Ebonics drew more responses than the one asking people whether O.J. Simpson was guilty” (Leland 50). While Jesse Jackson commented that the decision was “an unacceptable surrender borderlining on disgrace,” and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume called it “a cruel joke,” California Governor Pete Wilson vowed that he would not fund what his press secretary called “a ridiculous theory” and Secretary of Education Richard Riley declared that “[e]levating black English to the status of a language is not the way to raise standards of achievement in our schools” (Leland 50-51).
To illustrate how widespread the concerns of people in the electronic media about Ebonics became, let me just refer to the fact that web page after web page was posted on the WWW on Ebonics and, pretty soon, even jokes appeared about the issue. “Hooked on Ebonics” is not only the title of the Newsweek article mentioned above but also the name of a web site which contains jokes based on puns facilitated by Ebonics:
Leroy is a 9th grader. This is Leroy’s homework assignment. He must use each vocabulary word in a sentence.
.. 3. Disappointment -- My parole officer tol me if I miss disappointment they send me back to da big house.
... 5. Catacomb -- Don King was at da fight da other night, man sombedy oughta give dat catacomb.
... 9. Stain -- My mother in law stopped by and I axed her do you plan on stain for dinner?
What I will do in this paper is take a look at the reasons for the emergence of the issue, together with an attempt on my part at clarifying some of the misunderstandings around what Ebonics is. I will look at how the Ebonics Debate evolved into a bone of contention of a nationwide size that even Congress and the members of the Senate got their teeth into, yet I will also devote some attention to the available basic data, facts and figures, so that it would be easier for us to scan the overall picture. In the process of this query, I will address the following questions:
What is Ebonics?
Ebonics, when translated literally, means "Black Sounds." It has been variously referred to as Ebonics, or “Pan-African Communication Behaviors,” or “African Language Systems,” (Wolfram 1-2) or “Vernacular Black English,” or “African American Vernacular English” (“Linguistic Society Resolution” 1).
“By whatever name,” as Ladonna Lewis Rush rather succinctly assesses, “Ebonics is a way of communicating used primarily by African Americans” (Rush 1).
The term was coined in 1973 by Robert L. Williams, currently Professor Emeritus of Psychology and African-American studies at Washington University at St. Louis, Missouri, and Ernie A. Smith, a Southern California linguistic researcher, who conducted studies of cognitive and language development of Black children with funding from the National Institute of Mental Health” (Harris 2).
According to Dr. Katherine Harris of Central Connecticut State University, the term is a misnomer, since "Ebonics" is composed of "ebony," which is English, and "phonics," which is Greek. She insists that while "Ebonics" has been translated literally as "Black Sounds," the use of “a Greek/Latin expression seems incongruous when trying to connect African American speech to African linguistic bases” (Harris 2).
Mary Camelon and Jennifer Wilson, with the purpose of offering teachers and other interested parties a guide to the basic characteristics of Ebonics, have decided to place a posting on the WWW that they called “The Teacher’s Guide to Ebonics.” Apart from the introduction and a section on “Ebonics and Education,” they list 13 variations, as guidelines for differences between standard English and what they call Black English:
1. One verb form for all subjects: I love, you love, she love, he love, we love, they love
2. Use of singular noun form: one dollar, fifty dollar
3. Tense is not obligatory: He go yesterday. He go today.
4. Negation: ain , don, and ditn
Some Restrictions: ain is used to negate on going actions: He ain sick. (He isn't sick.)
don is used with verbs that use the word 'be' to be formed, i.e. He don be goin. (He is not going.)
5. Prepositions at and to are often omitted, the verb implies the meaning
We go grandma house. We live home.
6. Incan be used instead of at or to: We were in home.
7. The preposition from is rarely used and is often replaced by out or off:
I bought it off this store. I ranned out the house.
A mathematical example would be that 'subtract from' is a phrase rarely used in BE. Grammatical examples would be subtract by, subtract into, subtract for, or subtract to. In this case neither out or off is used to replace from.
8. The adverbs twice and half are often used interchangeably, or sometimes exactly the opposite of the use in standard English: 'twice as small' instead of half the size
9. Into is used instead of in or where no preposition would be required in standard English:
I need assistance into getting home. (I need assistance getting home.)
10. No inflectional /s/ for possession: That John toy (That's John's toy.)
11. The standard English /ing/ is pronounced two different ways. If the sound is part of a word (morpheme) as in thing or sing, it will be pronounced as /ang/ as in thang, or sang.
If the sound in a suffix like it is in thinking or waiting, it will be pronounced as /in/--thinkin, waitin.
12. The standard English sound /th/ is pronounced three different ways. If it is word final, it is pronounced /f/--mouf, breaf, souf (mouth, breath, south)
If it starts a word, it will often be pronounced /d/--dem, dis, de (them, this, the)
Occasionally it will be pronounced as /th/--as in thinkin and thang even though it starts a word. This exception is probably because of the voicing level of the sound /th/.
13. Frequently meaning is conveyed through the tonal quality of the language. How the speaker says it or the musical quality of the words will tell the listener much more about the meaning.
These 13 points should more or less give even the totally uninitiated an idea of the character of Ebonics in general. However, some explanation of why the notion has become such a hot issue in current American sociolinguistic discourse should not be amiss either.
Why is Ebonics so important?
As it was pointed out by the OUSD in their policy on Standard American English Language Development, language skills are directly related to success in academics. The fact that African-American students are lagging behind in measures of academic success can be illustrated through the following statistics: 53% of the total OUSD enrollment of 51,706 was African American, while 71% of the students enrolled in Special Education were African American. Only 37% of the students enrolled in Gifted and Talented programs were African American, while 80% of all suspended students were African American. The 1.80 average GPA of African American students represents the lowest GPA in the district (Rush 1). As these figures might indicate, it was in a rather desperate situation that the school board decided to take the step they deemed necessary for potential improvement.
Even the already mentioned Newsweek article on Ebonics suggests that the Oakland school board has some evidence on its side. The subtitle of “Hooked on Ebonics” reads “A muddled plan to teach black English in the schools made outraged headlines, but the actual teaching methods may make sense” (Leland 50). Nevertheless, the OUSD resolution did make the headlines, and brought about a great deal of discussion in the media and the American public for some other reasons as well.
What were the chief areas in the debate on the OUSD resolution?
The most controversial points about the School Board’s resolution, according to Charles Dorsett, arose from the fact that the document was “poorly-worded” (Dorsett 1). This was probably part of the reason why it created such a nationwide outrage. Let me just pick three titles at random to illustrate how public opinion became divided on the subject: “Language Shortcuts Do Not Benefit Students” by Tracy Wasserman , “Four Truths About the Ebonics Debate” by Joan Walsh, and “Ebonics Is Not A Separate Language” by Zakk Bathon.
It was not just that the School Board recognized the worth of Ebonics as a language, calling it “not a dialect” but, at least in the original wording, they also contended that its speech patterns were genetically based (Dorsett 2). The terms and notions applied by the school board that were not clearly defined, and thus proved easy to misunderstand by many, included language (home language; primary language; separate language), dialect, and slang, among others. It is important for us to note that there is a significant difference between the popular and the linguistic interpretation of these terms, as it is pointed out by Charles J. Fillmore in his “A Linguist Looks at the Ebonics Debate” and by Walt Wolfram in “Ebonics and Linguistic Science: Clarifying the Issues.” Apart from these sources, perhaps the best assessments of the Ebonics craze have come from John R. Rickford at Stanford University, whose postings are also available on the net under the title “The Ebonics controversy in my backyard: A sociolinguist’s experiences and reflections” and “Using the Vernacular to Teach the Standard.”
Following the backlash in the media, the board quickly clarified and restated its position. With the help of a hired publicist, they made it clear that they did not intend to teach kids how to speak black English, just like they did not have any intention to seek bilingual funds. Instead, they maintained, their resolution called for teachers to accept Ebonics as a native language and teach students to translate into standard English, rather than correct them for speaking wrongly. In the revised resolution, they omitted the ominous phrase “genetically-based”, and also explained that it was meant to refer to linguistic genesis and not racial DNA in the first place (Leland 51).
The Linguistic Society of America did not wait too long to indicate that they also have an opinion on the matter. In their “Resolution On The Oakland ‘Ebonics’ Issue Unanimously Adopted at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America” in Chicago, Illinois, on January 3, l997, they issued a declaration of the following four points:
1. The variety known as "Ebonics," "African American Vernacular
English" (AAVE), and "Vernacular Black English" and by other names
is systematic and rule-governed like all natural speech varieties. In
fact, all human linguistic systems -- spoken, signed, and written --
are fundamentally regular. The systematic and expressive nature of the
grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years. Characterizations of Ebonics as "slang," "mutant," "lazy," "defective," "ungrammatical," or "broken English" are
incorrect and demeaning.
2. The distinction between "languages" and "dialects" is usually made
more on social and political grounds than on purely linguistic ones.
For example, different varieties of Chinese are popularly regarded as
"dialects," though their speakers cannot understand each other, but
speakers of Swedish and Norwegian, which are regarded as separate
"languages," generally understand each other. What is important from a
linguistic and educational point of view is not whether AAVE is called
a "language" or a "dialect" but rather that its systematicity be
recognized.
3. As affirmed in the LSA Statement of Language Rights (June l996),
there are individual and group benefits to maintaining vernacular speech varieties and there are scientific and human advantages to
linguistic diversity. For those living in the United States there are also
benefits in acquiring Standard English and resources should be made
available to all who aspire to mastery of Standard English. The
Oakland School Board's commitment to helping students master
Standard English is commendable.
4. There is evidence from Sweden, the US, and other countries that
speakers of other varieties can be aided in their learning of the
standard variety by pedagogical approaches which recognize the
legitimacy of the other varieties of a language. From this
perspective, the Oakland School Board's decision to recognize the
vernacular of African American students in teaching them Standard
English is linguistically and pedagogically sound.
Finally, the misunderstandings resulting from a perfunctory reading of the resolution could give rise to speculations on how Ebonics is just another thinly guised ploy launched by Afrocentrists.
How can Ebonics be connected to Afrocentricity?
Ladonna Lewis Rush, a member of the Association of Black Psychologists, notes that “[s]ome people have stated that the movement to recognize Ebonics is Afro-Centrism at its worst. I would argue that the attempts to squelch Ebonics are Euro-Centrism at its worst and most vehement. (...) The systematic de-valuation of Ebonics in American society is consistent with the de-valuation of African-Americans in general, and must be addressed” (Rush 1).
Two seminal articles, published originally in the Spring 1991 issue of The American Scholar, by Diane Ravitch and Molefi Kete Asante can provide the basic tone for the discussion of Afrocentricity. Ravitch, the Assistant United States Secretary of Education, argues for “cultural pluralism” as a generally recognized organizing principle of US society (274) in “Multiculturalism: E Pluribus Plures,” while Asante, chairman of the African-American Studies department at Temple University, calls his response “Multiculturalism: An Exchange.”
Here is how the Assistant Secretary describes the way pluralistic [i.e. commendable] multiculturalism must contend with a new, particularistic multiculturalism:
Advocates of particularism propose an ethnocentric curriculum to raise the self-esteem and academic achievement of children from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. Without any evidence, they claim that children from minority backgrounds will do well in school only if they are immersed in a positive, prideful version of their ancestral culture. (276)
Ravitch’s contention that “[o]ne can scarcely pick up an educational journal without learning about a school district that is converting to an ethnic curriculum in an attempt to give ‘self-esteem’ to children from racial minorities” (280) sounds like an early warning about what would occur in 5-6 years’ time in California.[1] She also characterizes particularism as responsible for teaching children “that their identity is determined by their ‘cultural genes.’ That something in their blood or their race memory or their cultural DNA defines who they are and what they may achieve” (277). I wonder if it very difficult for any one of us to see the connection...
Afrocentricity, as represented by Molefi Kete Asante (Allen 1-2), Martin Bernal (Burke 1-3), or Frances Cress Welsing (Quest 1-3), would valorize Ebonics as part of the African heritage within the triple objective to “reclaim - reconstruction [sic] - realize” history and culture (Young 1). The use and maintenance of Ebonics in education --not only as a means but also as a goal--does fairly neatly fall in line with Asante’s and his implied predecessors’ efforts to break away from “the intellectual shackles of Europe” (Asante 302). However, regarding the practical consequences of such disposition as far as e.g. job opportunities are concerned, I would not be a hundred percent positive.
When, in the 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton declared that greater accountability should be demanded and it was time to end social promotion in America’s schools (SOUA 4), quite a few might have interpreted his words as a reference to the OUSD resolution. His utterances of “Discrimination against any American is un-American.” (10) and “We are many; we must be one,” (10) not to mention the one that went “We must prevent the misuse of genetic tests to discriminate against any American,” (11) seemed to reverberate the message Americans were supposed to learn out of the experience related to the Oakland resolution on Ebonics. Indeed, the United States should heed the lessons available to them in this respect when there are barely 600 days left in the 20th century. If they really intend to strengthen the union for the 21st century, they should make sure they do not become divided on important issues like the proper handling of a language variety spoken by a sizable proportion of the largest minority in the nation.
Works Consulted
“Afrocentricity: What it is/what it ain’t.” Online. Internet.
Allen, Norm R., Jr. “Blind ‘Afrocentricity’ Likely To Lead Blacks Astray.” Online. Internet.
“Alternatív kultúra: Afrocentrizmus.” Online. Internet.