Students' Right to Their Own Language: A Half-Century Retrospective

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of a resolution that profoundly impacted writing pedagogy: "Students' Right to Their Own Language" (SRTOL), adopted by the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). This article examines the origins, rationale, and lasting effects of SRTOL, considering its implications for students, educators, and the broader academic landscape.

The Genesis of SRTOL

The "Students' Right to Their Own Language" (SRTOL) resolution was approved in 1974. The resolution was initially a response to the increasing diversification of the student body in higher education during the 1960s and aimed to promote appreciation for students' use of non-standard Englishes, such as Black English. Progressive social movements shaped the development and political significance of the resolution.

In 1974, the CCCC released a position statement focused on "Student’s Right to Their Own Language." The statement challenges the expectation that students in the United States should exclusively use Standard American English in their classwork. Arguing that it is both unjust and racist to require all students to use the Standard American Dialect, STROL acknowledges that doing so enables one social group to dominate and marginalize others.

The resolution's primary argument is that, in the context of academic writing, students have a right to their own linguistic varieties, whether it be the dialect of their upbringing or one they adopt later in life. Language, according to the resolution, is connected to culture and self-esteem, and that educational practices should respect this connection.

Core Tenets of SRTOL

The SRTOL resolution strongly affirms the students' right to use their own language patterns and varieties-the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style. It is grounded in the finding by language scholars that "the myth of a standard American dialect has no validity."

The resolution asserts that claiming any one dialect is unacceptable is an attempt by one social group to dominate another, and that such a claim offers false and "immoral advice for humans". It advocates that a nation proud of its diverse heritage must preserve its heritage of dialects.

The architects of SRTOL could have justified the resolution simply on these moral and political grounds, arguing that it was the right thing to do. But they went further. They claimed that by deemphasizing traditional standards and conventions in the evaluation of student writing, SRTOL would produce better writers.

The Rise of Process Pedagogy

In the years after 1974, the overwhelming majority of college writing teachers would elevate the composition process over the actual writing that students produced. This approach came to be called “process pedagogy,” which was a teaching method that eventually developed as a response to the sentiments expressed in SRTOL. After all, SRTOL did not offer pedagogical strategies-it was just an expression of moral sentiment. Its proponents insisted that standards related to spelling, grammar, syntax, voice, and argumentation were just tools for maintaining the purportedly unjust sociopolitical power that accrues to SWE. Teachers committed to SRTOL and process pedagogy preached the idea that all English dialects were equally valid and useful vehicles for written communication in professional and academic settings.

One of the impacts of SRTOL has been criticized to be the emphasis on "process pedagogy" a teaching method that considers all English dialects to be "equally valid" for written communication in both academic and professional arenas.

Challenging the "Myth" of Standard American English

The SRTOL resolution explicitly says “Language scholars long ago denied that the myth of a standard American dialect has any validity.” This statement is not easily verified because in the official justification of SRTOL, the authors deliberately avoid backing up their claims with in-text citations. Instead, they tack on a bibliography of dozens of scholarly sources that supposedly verify the claims of the resolution at large. In short, the authors took pains to make it difficult for readers to verify their arguments.

Read also: Enrollment at Notre Dame

CCCC tries to convince readers by lamenting that so many teachers have made the mistake of believing that “somewhere a single American ‘standard English’ … could be isolated, identified, and accurately defined.” But has anyone ever really said that? This is a straw man-the authors are playing rhetorical games. Simply because the Platonic ideal of the American hamburger cannot actually be found out in the world doesn’t mean that there isn’t a basic conception that the general public shares about what that hamburger would be like. Standard American English is the same. You will never run into a single person who speaks the living embodiment of standard American English. But there is most certainly an identifiable way that the American majority speak the language. Everyone’s speech deviates from the standard to some degree, but not all to the same degree-and some deviations are more significant than others.

The CCCC’s experts assure us that “sophisticated research” has “demonstrated incontrovertibly that many long held and passionately cherished notions about language are misleading at best, and often completely erroneous.” Again, they don’t specify which sophisticated research debunks each of the myths that we cling to when it comes to writing and language. How do we know that speakers of other dialects can’t learn a new one? According to CCCC, it’s because there isn’t research that proves they can. Does anyone doubt that the soaring Ciceronian oratory that Frederick Douglass delivered in perfectly grammatical American English was not the dialect that he first learned in the slave houses of his early youth? Neither do we need such a rare example as Douglass. In short, people learn dialects (and entire languages) other than the ones they spoke at home all the time.

The Socio-Political Underpinnings of SRTOL

There are still other “myths” that the CCCC had to debunk before writing teachers all accepted the “truth” that every student has “a right” to his “own” language. For example, they chide those teachers who have taught “as though the ‘English of educated speakers’ … had an inherent advantage over other dialects.” Again, the advocates of SRTOL are playing games. Yes: it’s true that there is no pre-social, pre-historical, pre-cultural reason as to why standard American English is more advantageous than any other American dialect. The ability to communicate in the standard dialect signals many things about the person who is speaking or writing. Unquestionably, aptitude in standard English is a class and cultural marker, and as such it corresponds with certain powers, privileges, and advantages.

Clearly, the people at CCCC in 1974 understood this: they just thought it was an injustice. Therefore, instead of trying to teach individuals who were less familiar with the standard dialect to use it effectively (thereby helping those people lay claim to a share of that power and privilege), they explicitly refused to teach it. Indeed, it would be a very bad thing if by teaching standard writing conventions and verbal dialects, we were rejecting individuals on the basis of their race and cultural origins. But of course, that’s not at all what is happening. It may look like that’s what’s happening-because (obviously) people who belong to racial and cultural minorities will often speak minority dialects. It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that those groups will often require more instruction in the features of the majority dialect.

Thus, it might appear that CCCC is calling for a policy of neutrality in regard to the many dialects that Americans speak. But such a neutrality is not possible. Once again, the CCCC authors are tilting at windmills. Every educated person understands there are different ways of speaking the language. It’s fine for someone to speak one dialect at home, another with friends, and still another at work-most of us do this all the time. Context is the essential factor here. No dialect is ever totally “unacceptable,” but all dialects are unacceptable in certain rhetorical situations. The scholars at CCCC envision a world where there are no consequences for choosing to disregard the rhetorical expectations of certain audiences. Again, this borders on adolescent delusion. People expect others to conform to established routines for navigating recurrent communicative situations. Refusing to do so will make it harder for you to get what you want-but you always retain the ability to defy those expectations. Choosing defiance (consciously or otherwise) may have consequences.

Read also: Movies for Student Success

The Introduction of "White Language Supremacy"

The CCCC has expanded its claims about "Students' Right to Their Own Language" through the introduction of another idea surrounding academics in language, which is the idea of "White Language Supremacy" (WLS). The CCCC wrote a position statement on this topic as well. The introduction of "White Language Supremacy" is a supporting argument as to why students deserve Right to their own language. WLS as an argument also affirms the CCCC's belief that standard American dialect is inherently racist; this sentiment was brought up in their 1974 position statement. The CCCC’s argument throughout the statement focuses on normalized "White Language Supremacy." The statement then goes on to say that WLS is a tool for white supremacy as it defines and evaluates ideas, writing, rhetoric, and pedagogies.

Asao B. Inoue, CCCC chair in 2019, reflected and expanded on both "student’s right to their own language" and "white language supremacy." Inoue's speech as CCCC chair touches on points that contribute to the conversation about "students' right to their own language." Inoue argued that educational racism has been powered by white supremacy and its manifestation in language and education. He further echoes the sentiments from the 1974 position statement that white supremacy has seeped into the inner workings and foundation of language and education.

"This Ain't Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice!"

In June 2021, the CCCC created a position statement that reflected on the teacher duties from the 1974 position statement entitled, "This Ain't Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice!" This statement is written in African American Vernacular English and includes a list of demands that teachers must abide by. This includes:

Teachers must stop perpetuating the idea that academic language should be the communicative norm.
Teachers must stop encouraging code-switching and teach about white language supremacy.
Teachers must create a safe environment for politics and activism in the classroom.
Teachers must develop Black Linguistic Consciousness in order to decolonize their mind and classroom.
Black dispositions are centered in the research and teaching of Black Language!

This statement expands the role of the teacher from the 1974 position statement, as it shows how teachers can support Black Linguistic Justice while also attempting to shame teachers who were not supporting it.

Critiques and Counterarguments

The biggest myth is that refusing to teach students the conventions of standard written English will somehow make them better writers. But a close second is the notion that students have a “right” to their “own” language. Any language is a tool for communication between people. In other words, no one has their “own” language-and if someone does, it doesn’t count as a language because it can’t serve as a medium of communication. The truth is that languages belong to nations and peoples and tribes: to the extent that a language is “owned,” it is always owned communally. Every linguistic community has norms and conventions that are largely determined by the will of the majority. There is no alternative to that. Ultimately, then, no individual has a “right” to their own language because no individual has a language to call their “own.”

CCCC’s assertion that individuals can and should exercise sovereignty over the medium of communication isn’t just impossible-it’s dangerous. SRTOL never conveyed any empirical realities about language that would help improve students’ writing-but that was never its aim. Rather, it was an expression of teachers’ political preferences. SRTOL was just a means for activist teachers to give high-minded justifications for not doing what they didn’t want to do. Instead of protecting the value of academic credentials, today’s faculty opted to abdicate their responsibilities as teachers. They said standard English is just a fantasy. They silenced skeptical instructors by pretending that SRTOL’s fabulist claims were so manifestly evident that they needed no demonstration.

The Lasting Impact and Contemporary Relevance

SRTOL was just a means for activist teachers to give high-minded justifications for not doing what they didn’t want to do. Instead of protecting the value of academic credentials, today’s faculty opted to abdicate their responsibilities as teachers. They said standard English is just a fantasy. They silenced skeptical instructors by pretending that SRTOL’s fabulist claims were so manifestly evident that they needed no demonstration. The resolution ultimately did what it was supposed to do. But it came at a cost: on the whole, today’s students are far less equipped to meet the writing demands of collegiate study.

In committee meeting rooms and faculty workshops, writing program administrators and writing faculty like me have defended the continued teaching of this mythical monolith by telling ourselves and others that the kind of standardized English that most resembles white, middle- and upper-class English is what’s expected of students in other classrooms and in professional settings. And we’re not necessarily wrong: problematic, racist assumptions about language facility and variety pervade any number of spaces within and beyond academia, such as in business environments where assumptions about “proper” writing and speaking often mean a default to white, middle- and upper-class English varieties and linguistic bias continues to harm jobseekers of color.

There are numerous ways that devoting first year composition (and other college writing classrooms) to so-called “academic writing” reifies racist and colonialist language practices. We know that there are benefits to helping students connect to topics, questions, and rhetorical practices that are meaningful to them. We also know there is no such thing as “academic writing” as a single genre, that what we mean by “academic writing” shifts from course to course, institution to institution, and discipline to discipline.

Moving Forward: Reconciling Linguistic Diversity and Academic Expectations

Knowing all this, how do we make good on the promise of SRTOL? I want to suggest three places we might begin. First, I’d point us to the work of the Institute of Race, Rhetoric, and Literacy (once known as the CWPA Outcomes Statement Revision Task Force), whose members note that, “there is still a tendency among FYC practitioners to rely on predetermined, singular, habits of White language (HOWL). Too often in writing courses, HOWL purposefully excludes a diverse array of rhetorics and other habits of language that are, at base, equal to and, when used effectively, add to and even surpass the communicative and rhetorical effectiveness of HOWL.”

I’d also point us to April Baker-Bell’s Linguistic Justice, which shows us, in no uncertain terms, that English language arts pedagogies are doing lasting harm to Black students. And I’d point to the 2020 CCCC Special Committee on Composing a CCCC Statement on Anti-Black Racism and Black Linguistic Justice’s “This Ain’t Another Statement!

Taken together, these resources also offer us a way forward. Resist efforts to use a single standard to judge our students’ writing by eschewing rubrics that assume there is a single correct version of English and eliminating outcomes that emphasize mythical academic English. Faculty in programs that use a standard, program-wide rubric should push for its elimination or expansion of such assessment tools, or experiment with ungrading and other approaches that center students’ goals, needs, and approaches. Writing Program Administrators for such programs should revise rubrics, heuristics, and criteria to reflect the value of multiple Englishes.

Gathering data (quantitative AND qualitative) on equity gaps. This necessarily includes actual discussions with students of color who’ve gone through our programs and courses. Writing programs share any number of traits, but they are also idiosyncratic things, and local conditions, values, and experiences can have a significant impact both on the ways that programs make decisions and how students experience those decisions. To really understand what linguistic justice means for students in our specific programs, we need to understand their specific experiences. All of these are concrete steps I can take in my own classroom and program. But, as the first post in this series reminded us, all writing and teaching work is local.

We can also insert ourselves, as often as possible, into conversations about writing and literacy on our campuses; we can be a voice for our students’ rights to their own language. But we have to start. Writing faculty, writing programs, and English departments, as well as the humanities more broadly have the history, experience, and knowledge to lead conversations on our campuses about the harm of mythical “academic writing”. ‘Cause if we don’t, who will?

tags: #students #right #to #their #own #language