[Linganth] Kaimowitz and the Ann Arbor debate [long]

[Patrick, Peter L]

I have, thankfully, been getting a series of posts from Gabe Kaimowitz referring to a
not-yet-aired PBS program in the "Do You Speak American?" series, which will air in January.
I don't know if it is being heavily discussed elsewhere - if so, please forgive this redundant
posting to linganth (and a number of individuals, incl. those named by GK), and let me know where.

Below I introduce the topic, give a few quotes from Kaimowitz's messages to (I hope) clarify
his claims, and present a few of my own beliefs. I would be happy if people respond to this,
as much as anything to (a) point out where I may be in error, and (b) update me on aspects
of the debate that I may be missing over here in England.

First, let me say that I would be very grateful if one of my friends in the US could arrange to
record it for me, esp onto a DVD format, for my own educational uses only. 
(I will of course pay costs.) Any volunteers will be welcomed!

Second, I am not sure whose list I am on that is sending them, but as I say I am grateful. I missed
the NWAV meeting in Ann Arbor at which a rough clip was aired, and discussion took place. I am sure
it was well-aired there - sorry to come in late. Are people on the list interested in this topic? I don't 
have a lot of time to contribute, but would like to be in on any discussion. 

	Kaimowitz, who was lead litigator in the 1979 MLK school case about teaching English 
to Black English speakers in Ann Arbor, seems to take issue - not very clearly, at any rate I am 
not very clear on how, but very vociferously - with nearly everything that has happened since to 
legitimise AAVE as a dialect. He claims to have the broad support of Bill Labov for this, which 
I am pretty certain cannot be the case, and blames Geneva Smitherman (and James Baldwin, 
oddly enough) for it. He also suggests that there is a split along black/white lines, which is 
certainly not true among linguists, and along class lines within the black community, such that 

	"Black English dialect is spoken by poor blacks, reviled by middle class blacks"

and	"For most dialects, but especially Black English..., their development occurred as 
	a means of poor people to trade, to communicate with others with whom they had 
	business, not as a language in the schools.  As you will see, even Geneva feared 
	"Ebonics" which intended to legitimize Black English as a language."
and
	"Judge Joiner's opinion...recognizes specifically the applicability of the dialect in 
	the main to poor blacks...Once the Ann Arbor plaintiffs prevailed, Dr. Smitherman
	took off on her own into and with her middle class black community, e.g. The Black 
	Scholar, into academia and away from the street where Black English has real meaning"

He claims 
	"[PBS gives the] misleading impression that the litigation focused on establishing the
	legitimacy of Black English dialect, and succeeded in that effort, through its black
	attorney(s) and linguist(s), and their white supporters", but that "the plaintiffs received 
	little or no benefit"

He recognizes that
	"what we succeeded in doing was to legitimize Black English dialect, as a language 
	under a statute previously believed to have referred only to foreign languages. We 
	capitalized on the omission of the word "foreign" ..."

An old NY Times report, which GK endorses, notes that Kaimowitz's original
	"constitutional argument, rejected at the outset by Judge Joiner, [was] that the fundamental
	problem underlying [the] children's linguistic handicaps is not racial but social and economic."

Finally,
	"now... [much] later, along comes PBS, to "wish away" the debate which continues to this day, 
	and to envision a "melting pot" where each of us multiculturally speaks his or her tongue and it's all good...
	Class, intra-racial conflict, controversy are deleted from the current PBS vernacular.  So I objected."

I am less concerned to get Kaimowitz's objections exactly right - that may not be possible given what I see as his
somewhat confused expression of them, which I have tried to order a bit above - than to understand, from afar, 
what if anything is being debated now and why. I am also not inclined to go into his demonization of particular
linguists who are widely respected, both personally and professionally, in the field - though I regret it.

Here are some of the things I believe to be true, which both go against and agree with some of GK's points:

* There is a class dimension to the production of AAVE, as GK says.
* However, many middle class black people also speak AAVE, which he seems to deny.
* There is a class dimension to the evaluation of AAVE, as GK says.
* However, many middle class speakers also positively evaluate it, while many working-class speakers are also conflicted.
* This is due not to any simple class-based division, but rather to a powerful linguistic ideology which affects both class groups.
* Kaimowitz's statement that AAVE only has "real meaning" on "the street" is a typical classist/racist stereotypical interpretation of AAVE,
	the sort of thing argued against by many linguists, black and (then?) white, etc., in recent years.
* GK's argument also sounds to me like a classic leftist one, ignoring (the value of) ethnic distinctions in favor of (potentially unifying) class issues.
* This position may be being stretched here to include the rejection of dialect or language maintenance as an expression of ethnic identity,
	at any rate where such maintenance is the causal factor behind poor educational performance (as GK apparently believes).
* Such a view presupposes that achieving monolingualism in a dominant standard is the best thing for discriminated groups and speakers.
* However, there is certainly no consensus among linguists supporting the idea that maintenance of a discriminated non-standard language 
	is a causal factor behind poor educational performance - broadly, the opposite is generally believed (maintenance is good, also education 
	into standard speech which takes account of language/dialect background), with plenty of room for discussion and more research.
* Most sociolinguists would probably agree that any sea change in attitudes towards AAVE, and resulting educational changes, is too recent and
	incompletely achieved to have borne fruit yet in a general way. 
* Any legitimisation in law achieved by the case, or since, cannot be restricted in effect to one economic stratum, and should not be.
* Such legitimisation in law was in fact achieved by the case, as GK admits, but which he seems to wish had never happened.
* He as litigant appears to have knowingly and successfully taken advantage of the analogy to foreign languages to achieve this.
* This same strategy was one of the goals of the first 1996 Oakland Ebonics resolution, but it was not achieved, as witness the second one.
* GK seems angry at PBS specifically for claiming that there is a consensus on the positive valuing of AAVE, and the institutionalization
	(as halting and incomplete as it is) of that positive evaluation in the education system and society more broadly. 
* This anger seems to be motivated by a genuine belief that bad things for black people will follow.
* But nevertheless there is such a consensus among linguists, at least.
* GK seems to claim that there is much more controversy over it in the African American community, which is probably true,
* But this is at least partly due to the hegemonic acceptance of the prevailing linguistic ideology. (This can be supported by language
	attitudes literature - see my webpage on such lit. regarding AAVE, at http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~patrickp/aavesem/attitudes.htm)
* That would suggest there is also more controversy over it in other ethnic communities, which is probably true - partly for the same reason -
	though I don't think this rests on any firm foundation of research, it's just my own impression.

Well, I could go on, but I won't - please send me your responses, and feel free to repost this message in full. If you do it in part, of course I can't
be responsible for how it might be misinterpreted.

	-peter patrick-

Prof Peter L Patrick
Dept of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex
Wivenhoe Park
Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK

E:  patrickp at essex.ac.uk
Ph:  +44 (0) 1206 87.2088
Web: privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~patrickp


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/linganth/attachments/20041207/fb85ad0d/attachment.htm>