The Home Page ·  The Integral Worm ·  My Resume ·  My Show Car ·  My White Papers ·  Organizations I Belong To

Contact Me ·  FAQ ·  Useful Links

My Professional Writing Papers

Technical Writing ·  Exposition & Argumentation ·  Non-fiction Creative Essays ·  Grammar and Usage of Standard English ·  Analysis of Shakespeare ·  Analysis of Literary Language

Advanced Professional Papers ·  The History of the English Language ·  First Internship: Tutoring in a Writing Workshop ·  Second Internship: Advanced Instruction: Tutoring Writing

Visual Literacy Seminar (A First Course in Methodology) ·  Theories of Communication & Technology (A Second Course in Methodology) ·  Language in Society (A Third Course in Methodology)

The Writer's Guild

Journalism

UMBC'S Conservative Newspaper: "The Retriever's Right Eye" ·  UMBC'S University Newspaper: "The Retriever Weekly" ·  Introduction to Journalism ·  Feature Writing ·  Science Writing Papers

Structure of English Essays

Essay 1: American English ·  Essay 2: Ebonics

Essay 1: Should American English be Official Language of the United States?

Last Update August 10, 2004

         A nation defines itself through its language, borders, and culture. This has been true throughout history right up to modern times. So why is it that the United States is one of the few nations that evades the issue of establishing an officially used language, that being American English?

         "1.5 billion dollars is a rough estimate of how much the U.S. government spends annually on language education. Some programs are designed to replace minority languages with English; other funds are spent in support of "foreign" language studies to improve communication in the competitive global marketplace" (About the Issue). The figure of 1.5 billion dollars is distributed across various educational programs. Part of the funding is spent on second language education, other than English; the other part is spent on the education of immigrants who are learning English as a second language.

        1.5 billion dollars may sound like a huge investment of our economic resources, but consider who this money is being spent on. A portion of this money is being spent on immigrants who one day will become citizens of this country and will inherit all the civil liberties that you and I now possess. These immigrants will eventually be the voting citizens of tomorrow; therefore, they must have a command of the English language in order to understand the political issues that will affect all of our lives. The political issues could conceivably be published in various languages, but doing so propagates a trap. We would have to publish the issues in a wide variety of languages, which becomes a tremendous expense and side skirts the issue of having one uniform language. All legal and official documentation would also have to be published in a variety of languages, which is the problem we currently have. Additional expenses are incurred by the need of using translators to convert the documentation from American English to some other language.

        The argument of making American English the official language of the nation is not a new one. The great men who conceived of this experiment in democracy struggled with the issue at the Continental Congress in 1780. John Adams proposed that there should be an official language of the newly formed nation, but the proposal was rejected as being undemocratic and a direct threat to the individual's right to liberty. The first of the states to pass legislation establishing English as their official language was Louisiana in 1811. the reason for the English only policy was that a great deal of the population at the time spoke French, which created fear that part of Louisiana would be speaking French and part would be speaking English as is the case today in Canada. In Canada, residents of Quebec speak French while the rest of Canada speaks English. This has been an ongoing issue in Canada as there are those who want to establish Canadian English as the official language in order to establish conversational continuity throughout Canada and also to reduce expenses by publishing documents in only one language. As to date this issue goes unresolved. Here is the United States, as of 2002, twenty seven of the fifty states have created laws establishing American English as their official language.

        The issue of passing federal legislation to make English the official language has been brought up several times in Congress. In 1923, Washington J. McCormick, a Republican congressman from Montana proposed to displace English in favor of American as the national language. The bill died in committee. S. I. Hayakawa, a language scholar and a Republican senator from California, sponsored a constitutional amendment in 1981 which quietly died. In 1996, "The Bill Emerson English Empowerment Act" was passed by a vote of 259-169 in the House of Representative, but the Senate failed to act on the bill before the session was over. The House of Representatives once again in 1998 passed the "English Language Fluency Act" and once again the Senate failed to act on the bill before the close of the session.

        The issue of declaring English as the official language of the nation comes up every time there is a major wave of immigration into this country. Today, there is a tremendous influx of Spanish speaking people pouring into the country from Mexico, Central America, and South America. Due to the rise in immigration, one argument is that eventually we will become a nation speaking two different languages, English and Spanish. The opposing view to this argument is the citing of the first amendment of the constitution, which guarantees citizens of the United States freedom of speech. People who represent this side of the argument interpret the first amendment as meaning a U. S. citizen has the right to speak whatever language they choose. There is no federal law, which says that American citizens must speak English for legal purposes or otherwise. On the other hand, in order to conduct any transactions within this country it is for the most part understood that English is the common language as it is understood that when in Italy the common language of the people is Italian. For our government to declare English as the official language of the United States, clearly an amendment would have to not only be proposed, but it would also have to pass according to our legislative process. Many citizens oppose passing legislation that would make English the official language spoken in this country because this would clearly violate one of the most important rights we have as American Citizens, the right to free speech. The right to free speech can be interpreted in many different ways and maybe this is where the heart of the problem lies. Originally, this amendment was meant to cover the right of the press/media to have the freedom to release information on the government pro or con to the general public so long as it did not jeopardize national security and of course that the information was verifiably true. Through the years this law has been continually tested in the courts and the meaning of the right to free speech takes on a wider and wider connotation than its original meaning. As far as the right to free speech meaning that one has the right to speak any language they so choose would obviously have to be challenged and the only way for a definitive decision to be made as to how the law would apply in this case would be for it to be brought in front of the Supreme Court.

        In similar cases, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the freedom of speech in various ways. In the case "Pierce v. Society of Sisters the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff that the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments" (Adams, 148). In the ruling of the case of Meyer v. Nebraska the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school" (Adams, 148) According to Supreme Justice Douglas stated in his ruling over the case Griswold v. Connecticut, in 1961,

"The right to freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach - indeed the freedom of the entire university community. Without those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure" (Adams, 148).

As mentioned above, some states have established laws that have declared American English as their official language, but so far have gone unchallenged. In the event that a citizen does challenge the law established by said state most likely it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, most likely it will rule in favor of the plaintiff's right to speak whatever language they so chose. There is nothing within the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights that says an American citizen must speak American English. The only way this will occur is through legislation in Congress for an amendment to be added stating that American English is the language of the country and it is the language to be spoken by all.

        An implied issue that is rarely addressed by either the Democrats or the Republicans has to do with the energizing of a new voting base. The new immigrants are also new voters of tomorrow. Each side, Democrats and Republicans want those votes. That's how they remain in power. Both sides are afraid to take a definitive stand on the issue of making American English the official language because both sides are afraid that such legislation will anger the Spanish speaking population which is a considerably large and growing portion of the voting base. By not dealing with the issue, politicians are in essence dealing with the issue by forcing the population to either assimilate and learn English as all other immigrants have done in the past or to continue speaking their native language, mainly Spanish and providing all documentation in either Spanish or English.

         On the other hand, passing legislation that establishes English as the nationally spoken language could be considered unnecessary. There are small regions in some U.S. cities (such as Miami, Fla. and Los Angeles, Calif.) where only Spanish is spoken. For the most part, in order to conduct daily business whether it's legal or conversational, it is implied that we speak English in order to communicate, because the majority of the population speaks English. But within regions of Miami and Los Angeles, one conceivably would not ever have to learn how to speak English and could conduct all their business within a Spanish speaking community as many groups of Chinese have done for years.

        A nation typically defines itself through its culture, its traditions, its beliefs, and its language. Dr. Michael Savage, nationally syndicated talk show radio host of "The Savage Nation," puts this quite eloquently as "Language, Boarders, and Culture," which he recites as though it was a mantra. It is a mantra and it is exactly how a country defines itself. The United States is an exception. Or is it? We are a nation compromised of many cultures, many traditions, many beliefs and many languages. We do have established boarders, we do have a common culture and we do have a common language; American English. One only needs to venture overseas and soon as you open your mouth, a local person will say, "Oh, you're an American." The language is distinctive. It defines us as a nation. Boarders is easily defined; the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, the Canadian/United States boarder, and the Mexican/United States boarder.

        Culture is a little more obscure concept in a multicultural republic. What is meant by culture is that we all share in the pillars of the Judeo/Christian Bible, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. These documents and what they stand for are our common cultural heritage. Now the left can argue that including ethics found in the Judeo/Christian Bible is in violation of the concept of separation of Church and State. First problem is the left will argue that this is stated in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is not stated clearly or implicitly in either of these documents which is the fallacy in their argument. This point was in a series of letters between Thomas Jefferson and Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut, as philosophical argument from lessons learned from other great democracies. According to the Library of Congress, www.loc.gov web site, Jefferson in his final letter said,

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Therefore, there is nothing within the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically or implied stating that there must be a separation of church and state. Secondly, according to the teachings of the Judeo/Christian Bible, tolerance of others is explicitly stressed, which includes religious beliefs. This is to say that the Judeo/Christian ethic is not the only acceptable religious viewpoint, but that tolerance of other religious beliefs is the correct way to live and this was the viewpoint of the founding fathers.

        On a personal level, I've been in the process of seeking employment within the Federal government. While researching various positions on the USAJOBS web site, I came across a job vacancy announcement on July 20th, 2004, for a position as a Program Assistant from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I had all the qualifications for the position. Some were the functions of an information technologist a secretary, an English writing major, and a statistician. I had to have familiarity with a vast array of software programs, which drew on my Information Systems training, the ability to type a minimum of forty words per minute, a secretarial function, and the ability to write programs in SAS, SPSS and other statistical programs, import the results into Excel and then, create complex graphical analysis in Excel. This was exactly what I did all day long while employed at UMBC's Center for Health Program Development and Management (CHPDM). In addition, it was necessary for me to conduct interviews by telephone utilizing a questionnaire. As an Enumerator for the US 2000 Census, I possessed all the necessary skills for the position. It was a job designed specifically just for me.

        I had all the credentials except for one; I had to speak Spanish fluently in order to interpret information to be collected from individuals whose only language was Spanish who had received medical treatment in U.S. hospitals due to injuries using consumer products. Obviously, my function was to determine whether there was an actual problem with the product or whether the problem disseminated from the fact that proper instructions for using the product were provided in Spanish. The ability to speak fluent Spanish was considered a Selective Placement Factor and that without it one not need apply for the position. It's a very noble cause, but the problems that stem from this are many. One, why is it that in my own country, I have to be bilingual in order to obtain a position that I'm fully qualified for? Secondly, every ethnic group that has come to America had to eventually learn how to speak English, until now. This is the first time in American history that the entire country is bending all the rules in order to accommodate one ethic group. Now this may sound like a racist statement, but I have due cause to make such a statement.

        My grandmother, on my mother's side, immigrated to this country from Cuba in 1933 because of political strife in Cuba. This meant that she had to eventually assimilate into the culture and had to learn how to speak English in order to make a living and to be able to function within this country. My mother who was born in Cuba, came here as a little girl of three, and obviously learned how to speak both Spanish and English. As time went on, because my mother was not surrounded by others who predominantly spoke Spanish, she was not immersed in the language and lost her bilingual abilities. Hence, I grew up in a home speaking English only. I always had the chance to learn how to speak Spanish, but it was not something that my mother pushed for, so the opportunity was lost forever in order to be the typical American family. One of the reasons for this push for two official languages is fueled by organizations such as the NAACP who claim not allowing for the Spanish language is a violation of Hispanics civil rights and is racist. With my personal heritage it provides me with a unique viewpoint on this argument. I can't possibly be racist of my own ethnic background. In addition, if I was to apply for a position in Germany, France, Japan, or Brazil, would it not be understood that I must be fluent in speaking the dominating language of that country?

        Currently we have an influx of illegal immigrants into this country predominantly across the Mexican boarder. Federal officials quote a figure of there being 8 million illegal already here. Other experts push that figure up around 13 million. That's a significant difference. Little is done about it. We actually make it easy for them to function here. We offer almost everything in two different languages, English and Spanish so it makes it easy for these people to work and live here without having to assimilate into the culture. The laws are in place providing law enforcers the ability to send back offenders, but due a climate of political correctness, they do not enforce the laws out of fear of being reprimanded or being brought up on charges themselves for enforcing the laws. Therefore nothing is done to remove the illegal immigrants. Neither side of the isle does anything to solve the problem because Republicans see these immigrants as a cheap source of labor. They do the jobs that no one else wants in this country, such as unskilled labor in construction and farm labor. In addition Democrats see immigrants are seen as a source of future votes. Legislators accommodating illegal immigrants by changing state laws so they can obtain driver's licenses and then they can be registered to vote through motor/voter laws. We even provide instructions for obtaining a driver's license in Spanish making it almost foolproof to fail the exams.

        Having one official language would simplify matters in every facet of living within America. It would reduce costs that taxpayers now have to pay by a reduction in paperwork, and would also make it harder for illegal immigrants to function here. The problem is that we are an experiment in democracy and our constitution clearly states that we have the right to free speech. Therefore people within the United States can speak whatever language they choose unless an amendment is passed making American English the official language to be spoken within our boarders. The issue of establishing English as the official language of this country is clearly a complex issue which has gone unresolved for the past 227 years, and it appears that the issue will continue to go unresolved, unless we as citizens decide that this is an important enough issue. In order to change the situation, we would have to contact our senators and congressmen and tell them specifically that we feel our country is being sold wholesale, "Selling America by the pound." As citizens, we would have to stand up and let our elected officials know that as citizens we think this a primary issue for the country and that it must be addressed as part of their political platform. The first step towards ending this feeling would be pushing for an amendment that establishes American English as the official language of the United States.

Works Cited

"About the Issue." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.us-english.org/inc/official/about/

Adams, David M. Philosophical Problems in the Law. 3rd Ed. Canada: Wadsworth, 2000.

Savage, Michael, host. The Savage Nation. WCBM, Baltimore, MD. 30, June 2004.

Works Consulted

"About the Issue." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.us-english.org/inc/official/about/

Adams, David M. Philosophical Problems in the Law. 3rd Ed. Canada: Wadsworth, 2000.

"'American' as the Official Language of the United States." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.xefl.com/article111.html

"Ask Yahoo." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20011107.html

"English Must be the Official Language of the United States." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.imagrantsforamerica.com/english_official_language.html

"Facts and Figures." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.us-english.org/inc/official/factsfigs.asp

"From it's Inception, the United States has been a Multilingual Nation." (1996) Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbp6.html

"Manifesto." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.ogmios.org/manifesto.htm

Mujica, Mauro, E. "Bilingual Education Priorties." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.us-english.org/inc/official/horror/travell.asp

Mujica, Mauro, E. "Unblocking the Door to Opportunity." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003.

"Official Language." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.us-english.org/inc/

"Official Language of the United States." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.petitiononline.com/write1/petiton.html

Poynton, Charles. "English as the Official Language of the USA." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.wa.apana.org.au/~charlesp/usenglish.htm

Program Assistant. Vacancy Announcement Number: CPSC-067-04. Consumer Product Safety Commision. USAJOBS.opm.gov Online. Internet. Sourced 07/20/2004. http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/jobsearch.asp?q=271829&salmin=&salmax= &FedEmp=N&sort=rv&vw=d&brd=3876&ss=0&FedPub =Y&SUBMIT1.x=84&SUBMIT1.y=19&SUBMIT1=Search+for+Jobs

Schultz, Tim. "U.S. English Hails Judge's Decision Upholding Proposition 227." (16 Jul. 1998). Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.us-english.org/inc/news/preleases/archives/980806.asp

"Should English be the Official Language of the United States?" Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Official_Language

"Manifesto." Online. Internet. Sourced 02/07/2003. http://www.ogmios.org/manifesto.htm

Essay 2: What is Ebonics and why is it necessary to treat it as a language

in order to improve the public education system for African American students and society as a whole?

         On January 15, 1997, the Oakland school board of California decided it was going to introduce a program where Ebonics was to be utilized as a bridge language in order to aid African American students in learning American Standard English. This was a monumental decision, but it created a great deal of controversy. The media quickly reported the news incorrectly and informed the general public that Ebonics was going to be taught within the Oakland school system. A public outcry went out simply because linguists did a poor job in educating the media and the general public that Ebonics is a spoken language that is typically used to bridge between other languages. The general public does not recognize Ebonics as a language but simply as poorly spoken English and hence why the public outcry went out. Is Ebonics actually a language or is it just improper English? If linguists consider Ebonics a language then why have they not gotten the word out to the general public through the media?

         Ebonics is a nonstandard form of American English spoken by some African American people. Working class African Americans in urban neighborhoods or rural communities within the United States often speak Ebonics. Linguists generally prefer the term African American English, although some use the tern Ebonics, which saw widespread use in the late 1990's. It is an error to suppose that all African Americans regardless of their background speak Ebonics. In fact, the English spoken by African Americans is highly varied - as varied as the English spoken by any other racial group.

         Development of Ebonics has partial roots of origin from Atlantic Creole. A creole, traditionally defined, is a pidgin, which has become the primary or native language of its users, expanding its vocabulary and grammatical machinery in the process, but still remaining simpler than the original language. Most creoles don't use inflectional suffixes to mark tense as in "he walked," plurality as in "boys" or possession as in "John's house." The sound correspondences, the lexification processes, the syntactic, and morphology structures are strongly related to those creoles found in African languages such as Yoruba, Ewe, Fula, and the Caribbean languages. Linguists account for this difference in the fact that many African slaves, in acquiring English, developed a simplified fusion of English and African languages which linguists call a pidgin and that this influenced the development of Ebonics as it creolized. A pidgin is a contact language used to facilitate communication between speakers of two or more languages. The pidgin language would not be native to any of its speakers, but would be a mixed language, incorporating elements of its users' native languages, and also would have a less complex grammar and smaller vocabulary than the input languages.

         One must bear in mind that language is not static and that Ebonics, like other languages that come in contact with politically dominant ones, has changed through time. Politically dominant languages are the key factor in the development of most pidgins. Many Ebonics speakers are bi-dialectic and only use Ebonics when in the presence of other Ebonics speakers. Hence the difficulty for non-speakers: much of what we hear as non-speakers of Ebonics has been modified along Standard English rules. Thus non-speakers do not have access to "pure" Ebonics. The reason for this is when an Ebonics speaker is speaking with a non-Ebonics speaker, the Ebonics speaker is "bridging" between Standard English and Ebonics. When to people whom both understand Ebonics it becomes unnecessary to bridge between two languages hence the conversation is now conducted in pure Ebonics.

         What also must be clearly understood is that Standard Written English is not a spoken language, but it is used for formal communication. In order for students to succeed later in life when they enter the working world, they must master Standard Written English. Unfortunately, stigmas and prejudices exist in the world, especially in the work place where prospective employees are judged and evaluated on their mastery of Standard Written English and the accepted norms of dialects within Spoken American English.

         Ebonics has an erroneous stigma attached to it. The stigmas are based on characterizations of Ebonics as being "gutter slang," "a mutant language," " a lazy way of speaking," "defective speech," "ungrammatical," or a language of "broken English" which are incorrect and demeaning. Unfortunately these prejudices will continue to exist. These prejudices will be the obstacle that will prevent some African Americans from ever being able to thrive and succeed in obtaining the "American Dream."

         The ongoing controversy is whether "Ebonics" is indeed a language or is it "broken" English. If it is finally decided that Ebonics is a language, which is the direction most linguists are leaning according to John Rickford ("The Ebonics Controversy"). The next step is to recognize Ebonics as a primary language, as Korean, Spanish, Japanese, and others are recognized as being languages. The secondary controversy is whether it should be used in the educational system as a "bridge" language. A bridge language is the first language a child learns in the home without formal education. Hence, in a Korean family, the child is most likely to come to school already speaking Korean. For working class African American children, the child is most likely going to be fluent in Ebonics. Therefore, this language would be used to cross over to English.

         According to Thomas T. Field, Professor of Modern Languages and Linguistics at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, linguists themselves are primarily responsible for the controversy as to whether Ebonics is a language or not. The academic linguistic community has provided the public with the usual responses about the equality of dialects. The same mantra has been recited for decades, and has not convinced the general public that Ebonics is a language.

         The reason why the argument hasn't been convincing is linguists and prescriptivists use different metrics when they evaluate forms of language with respect to each other. This is where the problem begins. The linguistic metric is related to abstract concepts of linguistic structure and the prescriptive metric is related to the communicative tasks that face the speaker of the language in everyday life. Very few people outside linguistics can make sense of the metric. The linguists have not tried to lay out for the public the different metrics that are commonly used in evaluating language varieties. Linguists have continued to talk down to what they deem are the ignorant masses, assuring them that they know better and that the general public is ignorant and reactionary. Therefore, the problem is how to communicate to the general public the findings of linguists in a way that the general public can understand to eliminate the controversy.

         Robert Oshner, Associate Professor of English, at University of Maryland Baltimore County, has stated, "All children already speak a language before they first attend school. Primary languages are the patterns that children bring to school. The role of formal schooling in learning a first language is minimal within the home." Once Ebonics has been finally established formally as a language, the next step is to apply the principles used in educating a bilingual or second language learner whose primary language is other than Standard Written English.

         The Oakland school board's decision on January 15, 1997 was a landmark decision that affirmed the "systematic, rule governed and systematic nature of Ebonics," and the Oakland school board's decision to take it into account in teaching Standard English was "linguistically and pedagogically sound." This was considered a monumental step in establishing Ebonics as a formal language. The second affirmation was the response by the Linguistic Society of America [LSA] on the Ebonics issue, at the January 3, 1997 business meeting, the LSA approved the decision made by the Oakland school board.

         On January 23, 1997, a US Senate hearing was held on the Ebonics issue and the decision made by the Oakland school board. A number of linguists and educators such as William Labov, Orlando Taylor, Robert Williams, and Michael Casserly joined educators from Oakland, including Superintendent Carolyn Getridge, in providing pro-Ebonics testimony at the hearing. Several linguists who could not be present submitted pro-Ebonics letters to be read into the Senate record. This hearing was crucial, since it was chaired by Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, which overseas the Title I education funds that support the Standard English Proficiency [SEP] program. The SEP program is in use in over 300 California Schools. Oakland's Ebonics resolutions were essentially a proposal to expand the program - that involves contrastive analysis of Ebonics and Standard English - within its school district. The fear was that in the anti-Ebonics crossfire, Specter's subcommittee would yank title I funding from the SEP.

         Senator Arlen Specter was impressed with the pro-Ebonics testimony. Mr. Specter did not withdraw funding for SEP, but in addition, he later supported a line item in the 1997 appropriations budget providing $1 million dollars for research on the relation between the home language of African American students and their success in the learning to read and write in Standard English. An attempt to curtail SEP funding at the State level, through California Senate Bill 205 introduced by California State Senator Raymond Haynes, was also defeated, in April 1997.

         Explaining to legislators, the media and the general public the systematicity of Ebonics and all of its language varieties is not enough. The Oakland School Board turned to Ebonics because of the acute educational problems affecting African American students in their district, and that taking the children's vernacular into account might help to alleviate the problems. In 1997, Dr. John Rickford, in the Department of Linguistics at Stanford University, had documented the fact that the working class African American students in East Palo and Philadelphia do poorly in reading and writing at the elementary level and fall increasingly behind their White counterparts in middle and high school. Michael Casserly in his testimony at the US Senate Hearing on Ebonics presented summarized data from fifty urban school districts across the US. The data presented indicated that this was a nationwide pattern. As an example, in 1992-93, 60.7% of White elementary students in the fifty-school sample provided scored above the norm in reading and by high school that percentage had increased to 65.4%. In contrast, only 31.3% of African American elementary students scored above the norm that year in reading, and by high school, that percentage had slipped to 26.6%. This data indicates there will be dire consequences for the future of African American students and for the society into which they would graduate.

         The mainstream media refused to focus on this massive evidence of how public schools fail to teach African American students with existing methods. In the case of the decision made by the Oakland school board, the main stream media had manufactured content in order to promote mainstream perceptions and interpretations thereby preventing dissenting information and viewpoints from reaching the general public. This was done by using catchy headlines such as, "Ebonics to be taught in Public Schools." By using such headlines the media skewed the underlying issue that the Oakland school board had decided. The Oakland school board understood that the students had already learned a first language at home, Ebonics, the school would then begin to teach students Standard Written English as if they were learning a second language. The program was meant to be similar to children entering 1st grade whose first language was say Korean. The instructor would create a bridge to help the students master Standard Written English.

         The linguists who were consulted by the media received a more favorable response from national talk radio programs such as National Public Radio, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Michael Regan. Talk radio allowed linguists to get their message out that Ebonics was a language and should be considered as such. Once that has been established, the next step is to create a bridge program that allows a student to cross over and master Standard Written English. After this has been done, a substantial increase in SAT scores and other standard, state and national exams should be seen. This turn would indicate that the Ebonics to English bridge is an effective means in helping African American students excel in academics.

         Linguists have learned from experience that talk radio will be more favorable to their cause of getting the truth out about the Ebonics controversy. Having learned this, it is now up to the linguists to champion the cause by using talk radio as their main media source. By using talk radio, linguists would be able to explain why a Ebonics to English bridge is necessary in public school education. Linguists could also explain the repercussions that will follow if the general public continues not to recognize Ebonics as a first language. This may be the linguist's only hope in getting out their message

         Henceforth, it becomes the responsibility of all US citizens to demand government officials to design a program for public schools that will attract instructional assistants, who are certified in the methodology of African Language Systems principles. Once this has been done these instructional assistants could use their training to transition students from the language patterns they bring to school to Standard Written English. The certified teachers of these students should be provided incentives including, but not limited to salary differentials.

Works Consulted

Nunberg, Geoffrey. "Double Standard." Online. Internet. Sourced 05/10/2003. http://www.personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/wow/nunberg.html

Rickford, John R. "Writings on the Ebonics Issue." Online. Internet. Sourced 05/10/2003. http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/ebonics/

Rickford, John R. "The Ebonics Controversy in my Backyard: A sociolinguist's experiences and reflections." Online. Internet. Sourced 05/10/2003. http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/papers/EbonicsInMyBackyard.html

Center for Applied Linguistics. Last update 10/25/2001. Online. Internet. Sourced 05/10/2003. http://www.cal.org/ebonics/

"Linguists List 8.164: Ebonics." The Linguist List. January 30, 1997. Online. Internet. Sourced 05/10/2003. http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/8/8-164.html

"Linguists List 8.349: Ebonics." The Linguist List. March 4, 1997. Online. Internet. Sourced 05/10/2003. http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/8/8-349.html

"Ebonics." The Linguist List. Online. Internet. Sourced 05/10/2003. http://www.linguistlist.org/topics/ebonics/

"Amended Resolution of the Oakland School Board on Ebonics." The Linguist List. January 15, 1997. Online. Internet. Sourced 05/10/2003. http://www.linguistlist.org/topics/ebonics-res2.html

"LSA Resolution on the Oakland Ebonics Issue (Academia's Response to Ebonics)." The Linguist List. January 3,1997. Online. Internet. Sourced 05/10/23003. http://linguistlist.org/topics/ebonics/lsa-ebonics.html