Week 15: Balancing Ethical and Institutional Imperatives

How do writing instructors deal on one hand with an institutional imperative that calls for them to make students ready to write in the rest of the university, and on the other hand with a personal, ethical imperative that says that molding students’ language use can be harmful to the students’ well-being? 

That is the million dollar question that in one way or another most composition articles dealing with language diversity work to address. Of course, it is not an easy question (if it was, it would have been answered in the 70s or 80s or 90s). However, as Lovejoy notes in her article, it remains a vital question because as teachers we must “think about what we communicate to students about language use through our teaching and curricula” (90). We must be self-reflexive.

The ways in which Lovejoy and Delpit try to escape the double-imperative bind is, I think, quite similar.  For Lovejoy, the answer hinges on the difference between language appropriateness and language correctness (100).  She says in her conclusion:  “I want my students to learn to make thoughtful decisions in their writing, decisions that are based on purpose and audience and context.  I want them to see how some pieces can be written appropriately in the students’ own language while other pieces are more appropriate in EAE” (106). She also encourages students to use their own languages in drafts of more academic assignments (104).  Lovejoy believes that as long as students can see the different kinds of audiences and contexts, and that they can see that their home languages are appropriate in certain situations, that she is both holding up her ethical and institutional imperatives. 

Delpit first focuses in her article on the importance of “access,” which is part of the institutional imperative that asks writing teachers to help students get ready to gain access to the world of the academy and eventually to the world of professional workers. She notes that while having access to the standard doesn’t necessarily guarantee success, “not having access will almost certainly guarantee failure” (94).  She also illustrates her attention to the ethical imperative, pointing out how important it is to not call students’ home languages wrong:  “the linguistic form a student brings to school is intimately connected with loved ones, community, and personal identity.  To suggest that this form is wrong or, even worse, ignorant, is to suggest that something is wrong with the students and his or her family” (95).  Similar to what we saw in Lovejoy’s article, she too finds her way out of the bind through a focus on context, and situational writing.  She says that a focus on the importance of context in the classroom will show that “certain contexts suggest particular kinds of linguistic performances” (95).

While I think both Delpit and Lovejoy are well-meaning in their attempts to leave behind the double bind of conflicting imperatives, I don’t believe that either succeeds in their efforts. 

I wonder if it really means anything different than “incorrect” when students are told that while they can draft in their home languages, they must adapt to more Standard English patterns that are “more appropriate” for academic contexts when they complete their final drafts? 

How does it feel to be told that your home language is not “appropriate” for serious, university writing or final drafts? Is this not also harmful to your group and individual identity?

The Johns’s article asks that teachers be explicit about their grading criteria and by what they mean by critical thinking.  She calls for “transparency” (141) and wants teachers to interrogate their own assumptions and practices.  I would argue that it is just as important to be explicit about the games that we ask students to play. It is not that “their” languages are any less “appropriate” inherently for any writing situation, or that as a result of being without them they have no chance at “access,” they cannot function in society and are doomed to failure.  

Instead, I would focus on being transparent about the racism inherent in these policies and expectations. I say, show them that it is an unfair game. Don’t cover the injustice with a nice layer of “context-is-key” frosting.