Implementing an Anti-Racist Pedagogy in the Basic Writing Classroom – Amanda Weida

Kelly Blewett; Kristie Marcum

16 Implementing an Anti-Racist Pedagogy in the Basic Writing Classroom – Amanda Weida

Amanda Weida has recently completed her Graduate Certificate in Composition Studies and plans to pursue her Master of Arts in English. This paper was written for Dr. Edwina Helton in ENG W590 and discusses how to implement an anti-racist pedagogy in the basic writing classroom.

Implementing an Anti-Racist Pedagogy in the Basic Writing Classroom

In the past, a typical American college classroom was racially uniform: white males were undoubtedly the dominating force in the world of academia. However, in the second half of the twentieth century, that began to change as a more diverse student population began entering the university. Academic language, based on Standard English, is quite settled into our academic institutions, yet as student populations become more diverse, we must ask ourselves the consequences of such a system on our students. Scholars such as Baker-Bell argue that academic language is a “proxy for WME” (White Mainstream English), revealing a “covert racist practice that maintains a racial and linguistic hierarchy in schools” (10). To step away from the WME that has shaped academic discourse will be a difficult task, but as Karla F.C. Holloway, Professor of English at Duke University, states, “the ‘limited ethnicity’ of our traditionally canonized academies no longer accurately specifies those who are teaching or those who are taught” (616). In accepting the fact that our classrooms are more racially and linguistically diverse than in the past, we must accept that we as educators must redefine academic discourse in our basic writing classrooms.

While academic discourse, based on WME, has been the norm in college writing classes in the United States for decades, it is time for a change. And in order to embrace the diversity that our students bring to the basic writing classroom, an Anti-Racist pedagogy should be implemented that questions the deep-rooted standards of academic discourse, ultimately subverting the racially homogenous expectations of language used. When discussing how and what language should be used in a basic writing course, we are, as Kinloch states, “participating in a rhetoric of rights” (43) – our students’ rights as individuals whose identities do not fit into the cookie-cutter mold of White Mainstream English that academic discourse subscribes to. In considering the unique discourses and backgrounds of our students, we can “affirm the rights of students to their own language by affirming the practices they bring into classrooms as they enhance their critical thinking, reading, writing, and performing skills” (Kinloch 53). Rather than forcing students to abide by the rules of academic language, we can celebrate their diversity, using it as a tool to allow them to reach a deeper level of understanding in the work they are being asked to complete.

Implementing a basic writing course based on Anti-Racist pedagogy will do more than disrupt the typical use and expectations of academic discourse in academia, it will demonstrate to students that their voices, experiences, and identities are all valid and worth exploring and sharing. In his essay, “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Vershawn Young, through vernacular language, explains that “teachin one correct way [to write and speak] lend a hand to choppin off folks’ tongues” (111). Young offers two truths in this statement: first, that even without the use of WME or academic English, his words are meaningful and perfectly understandable; and secondly, in forcing students (or anyone) to speak or write a certain way, we are robbing them of their individual voice. This can have profound consequences on one’s self-esteem if they do not believe their voice, which is tied directly to their identity, is valued. April Baker-Bell, an associate professor of English at Michigan State University contends that “when

Black students’ language practices are suppressed in classrooms “…[it] could cause them to internalize anti-blackness and develop negative attitudes about their linguistic, racial, cultural, and intellectual identities and about themselves” (10). While Baker-Bell focuses on African American students, the same can be said for other groups that do not use standard English as their standard. In Gloria Anzaldua’s essay, “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”, she offers a glimpse into the world of those who do not speak standard English (or standard Spanish, for that matter). She writes that “in childhood, we are told that our language is wrong. Repeated attacks on our native tongue diminish our self-worth” (Anzaldua 58).

While Anzaldua and Mellix are certainly not alone in their plights, their testimonies help to expose the idea that students who have not had the same access to WME or academic language may be at a disadvantage from the start of their academic careers as they are not considered to be as privileged as their White counterparts who grew up speaking and learning the language. Young explains the implications of such a lack of privilege as he mentions that “Standard language ideology insists that minority people will never become an Ivy League English department chair or president of Harvard University if they don’t perfect the mastery of standard English” (113). This is not an isolated sentiment, unfortunately, as Baker-Bell also explains that “most linguistically and racially diverse students begin at a disadvantage because their language and culture do not reflect the dominant white culture that counts as academic” (10). While academics of the early twentieth century would likely argue that WME is the only language fit for academia, in our world today, students should not be denied such access to higher education based on their linguistic differences.

Barbara Mellix, a Professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh, offers a firsthand account of her relationship with WME in her essay, “From Outside, In”. Mellix recalls her family speaking standard English to “whites” as their method of showing that they knew “their language and could use it”; however, she goes on to state that her family felt “reserved, shy in the presence of those who owned…the language” (260). Mellix is effectively describing feeling like an outsider to standard English, a feeling most non-standard English speakers likely share.

For Anzaldua, she shares that same feeling of otherness as she maintains that “as long as I have to accommodate the English speakers rather than having them accommodate me, my tongue will be illegitimate” (59). With these two writers, we can begin to understand what Young meant by “choppin off folks’ tongues” (111): we are stifling the individual voices of our students – and people who do not speak or write in standard English in general – by maintaining the stance that White Mainstream English is proper English, the standard. In implementing an Anti-Racist pedagogy in the basic writing classroom, we can start the arduous process of breaking down that rule, allowing for academic discourse to continue evolving in a way that benefits and celebrates rather than belittles students.

In her essay, “Revisiting the Promise of ‘Students’ Right to Their Own Language’: Pedagogical Strategies”, Valerie Kinloch highlights her attempt to dismantle student expectations of academic discourse in her writing course. Kinloch describes teaching her students to embrace the diversity in their languages and cultures, finding that “students who were silent because of perceived language barriers began to share interpretations of class readings”, and “began to critically understand the power of the ‘mother tongue’ in an academic environment” (52). As we encourage these students who would otherwise feel out of place or like “outsiders” to the language (standard English/WME) to participate in discussion, we are ultimately creating a space in which a WME is not the dominant form of discourse, allowing for more voices to be heard and more students to learn and grow in the writing classroom. Karen

Buenavista Hanna explains that in creating a space that questions the supremacy of WME, “privileged students…are unable to dominate discussions as they otherwise would”, and that while this certainly changes the dynamic of the typical English classroom, it is for the best as those “students learn a great deal from their classmates about the lived experiences of discrimination” (232). In the spirit of social equity and disrupting the long-standing language hierarchy that dominates the American writing classroom, an Anti-Racist pedagogy benefits not only the students on the margins but also those who are considered “privileged” as they begin (or continue) their journey toward the acceptance of language diversity, especially in academic settings.

So, as the students who enter higher education evolve and grow, so should higher education. In expanding on this change in academia and academic writing, Holloway writes that “we must embrace our diversity as our standard, the interdisciplinary project as our challenge, and the multicultural curriculum as our shared identity” (616). Through inclusivity of more diverse voices in the basic writing classroom, we are ultimately teaching students that there is nothing wrong with the language they speak or how they speak it. Their voice is as valid as any other student’s and learning to write is about the process and the message being conveyed, not sounding like someone else. In the words of Young: “there be more than one academic way to write rite” (113). With Young as an example, we can feel good knowing that more forms of writing are acceptable as “a wide range of published scholarship employs new forms of academic discourse” (Bizzell 10). This is certainly a step in the right direction, but in making racial and linguistic diversity the new standard in academic writing, encouraging the inclusivity of academia to allow for more voices and an acceptance of “otherness”, we must start in the basic writing classroom with the students who will be writing and advocating for such a subversion of the current academic system.

Of course, basic writing students must be given a space in which their sociocultural differences can be explored and utilized for the linguistic equity in the university. There are a number of ways of going about implementing an Anti-Racist Pedagogy in the basic writing classroom, but we must ultimately remember that “becoming insurgent intellectuals requires a personal investment in the world of and the sharing of ideas, however diverse or not, are the methods by which those ideas are presented” (Kinloch 51). Therefore, we as educators must invest wholeheartedly in this pedagogy, taking care not to fall into the trap of WME being the dominant form of discourse in the writing course. There are several schools of thought on how to implement such a pedagogy in the English classroom, but for the sake of a basic writing course, Young is most clear when he states that students should “mix the dialect they learn at home with whateva other dialect they learn afterwards” (111). However, in her essay, Kinloch refers to Smitherman’s vital question: “’How can I use what the kids already [sic] know to move them to what they need [sic] to know?” (47). The students are, after all, in a basic writing classroom to learn to write and communicate effectively.

Students in the basic writing classroom will likely already have a grasp of audience. Who are we speaking to? Who are we writing for? These are simple enough questions to consider when thinking of what to say or write. Building on a students’ rhetorical awareness in terms of audience is a necessary component in teaching the writing process, though there is some nuance involved as “the significance of which expression form to use depends on defining the audience and the context” (Kinloch 52). So, we must assist students in defining their audience and the context in which they are writing, all while focusing on the development of their rhetorical awareness to ensure they are able to continue this process in future endeavors. For Ede and Lunsford, the term audience [sic] refers not just to the intended, actual, or eventual readers of a discourse, but to all [sic] those whose image, ideas, or actions influence a writer during the process of composition” (168). With this in mind, the idea of one’s audience becomes slightly more abstract: our imagined audience is ultimately constructed through our own understandings and experiences. Therefore, to fully account for the audience when writing a paper, one must consider themselves, their reader, and ultimately “the matrix created by the intricate relationship of writer and audience to all elements in the rhetorical situation” (Ede and Lunsford 169-70).

Understanding of the elements of rhetorical situation may happen naturally, as with Mellix as she describes that through her experiences with Black vernacular and standard English, she “developed an understanding of when, where, and how to use” these two distinct forms of discourse (258). She even likens using standard English like we use the phrase “Sunday’s best” in terms of clothing, like something that must be put on. There seems to be this deep-seated belief among those who do not inherently subscribe to WME or standard English, those who did not grow up “privileged” to speak it, that it is for special occasions. Of course, with this form of the English language being the standard for academic discourse, it is no wonder it feels so special. It is, as Baker-Bell contends, a fact ingrained within us that language is tied to “identity” and “power”, whether we like it or not. Anzaldua makes this clear in her recollection of growing up Chicano, mentioning that “people who were to amount to something didn’t go to Mexican movies, or bailes [sic], or tune their radios to bolero [sic], rancherita [sic], and corrido [sic] music” (60). She, like Mellix, learned how to adapt to the standard English world of America. They, like many others, developed a rhetorical awareness that dictated when and where to conform to the dominant ideology of White culture.

While developing a strong rhetorical awareness can benefit students outside of the classroom, as in Anzaldua and Mellix’s cases, for a basic writing course, we can help guide our students toward a deeper understanding of rhetorical awareness through the teaching of rhetorical grammar. According to Laura Micciche, we can provide students with exercises in grammar analysis of other writers to “enrich our understanding of how writers use language to construct identity—both that of the self and other—and to position themselves alongside or in opposition of the status quo” (261). In a basic writing classroom focused on sociocultural and Anti-Racist pedagogy, it would be most beneficial to look at examples from multiples writers of different cultures and forms of discourse, engaging in-class discussion to analyze as a group. To that end, Micciche maintains that “rhetorical grammar analysis promises to offer students more tools for analyzing culture” (262). In the ability to think critically about different cultures and forms of language, students will likely recognize how they can utilize language in such a way that considers the rhetorical situation and context in which they are being asked to write. Students will not feel as if their voices are inferior to that which can be considered the typical academic discourse, rather, they will understand that through rhetorical grammar, they can communicate effectively and with meaning, even without the otherness that may be WME.

So, aside from teaching rhetorical awareness and grammar, how else can we implement an anti-racist pedagogy in the basic writing classroom? Many scholars agree that allowing for a free exchange of ideas is the way to go. Kinloch suggests that through “enact[ing] a democratic platform in which theorizations of student differences, incompetencies, and disadvantages become expressions of the contradictions of the struggle for success, acceptance, and competency as measured through schooling”, all students, multicultural or otherwise, will benefit (53). Once again, we return to the idea that academic discourse is a concept that was established

with White Mainstream English as the dominating force, a standard that is not at all the standard for every student in higher education today. By ignoring this fact, we are not doing our students any favors – we must confront this reality, bringing it to light in the basic writing classroom if we wish to have any meaningful discussion about the diversity of language that exists in our student populations. For Holloway, enacting such a platform in the basic writing classroom will cause students to think of the “ways in which literacy resonates as a cultural event”, allowing them to “appreciate the cultural expressivity” of others (616). This move away from WME and standard English is exactly what Anti-Racist pedagogy aims to achieve: the inclusion of more voices and cultures in academia.

On a practical note, Kinloch offers the following exercises for implementing her aforementioned “democratic platform” in the classroom. First, she suggests asking students to consider the “spatial location and demographic trends of their university community juxtaposed with their home community affiliations”, paying close attention to the terms students use and what those terms may signify (48). In doing so, students will become more aware of the distinctions that exist between these locations and their classmates, such as which forms of discourse dominate, and which are considered nonconventional and why. Kinloch also suggests educators “invite students into a discussion of phonology, semantics, syntax, accent, and dialect”, and prompt students to analyze and dissect song lyrics written by and for different demographics (49). While these are very specific examples, Kinloch states that “most important strategy is to create a comfortable, safe environment in which students trust one another enough to share their beliefs about language diversity” (50). This is echoed in Hanna’s statement that “learning happens best when students feel comfortable” (238).

In crafting this comfortable, Anti-Racist environment in the basic writing classroom, Sarah Stanley claims, much like Kinloch, that we must take a “sociocultural approach to style” through classroom discussion; this can be done based on the following recommendations, to: “affirm identities by opening ‘tiny doors,’ but not directing steps”; “build community by reflecting on what happens”; “cultivate leadership by becoming a student of your students” (22). In affirming identities by “tiny doors”, we can encourage students to voice their opinions and thoughts without judgment or the fear of being wrong. In building community, we are creating a space in which students feel as equals – standard English is left at the door, allowing all students the space to express their language diversity. And finally, in abandoning the teacher-student power dynamic for a position of equality, placing oneself on the level of one’s students, a deeper understanding will be gained of the experiences of others. The whole idea of such an environment in a basic writing course is that students feel comfortable in their own shoes, so to speak, learning that their own voices are valuable and that thinking deeply and critically is more important than using proper, standard English.

Admittedly, basic writing courses that employ Anti-Racist pedagogy do not exist in a vacuum: students need to understand that academic writing will be expected in other classes and disciplines outside of English. However, according to Ede and Lunsford, there is “a continued inability of teachers of writing…to agree upon the precise intrinsic features which characterize ‘good’ writing” (157). Therefore, students are left to their own devices anyway to determine how to write in each class and for each professor they encounter. According to Patricia Bizzell, “teachers use their own preferred linguistic standards in functioning as gatekeepers to higher education, limiting access along already established lines of class, race, and gender privilege” (6). This is where rhetorical awareness and grammar come into play – we can prepare

students for the eventuality of differing expectations in terms of writing by strongly encouraging or even introducing them to forms of discourse in their chosen major. For example, if a student aspires to major in Wildlife Biology, we as writing instructors can introduce them to the scholarly discourse of that area through scientific journals, giving writing prompts that require them to explore the discursive practices of that field. If a student is undecided in their intended major, perhaps they would benefit from writing prompts that require they explore various forms of discourse of different disciplines. Because the ultimate goal as writing instructors is to enable our students to become successful writers, we must not forget that assessment is a large component of how we can monitor and gauge that success.

Assessment is also a tool for encouraging growth in our students, guiding them toward becoming society’s expectations of what constitutes a “good” writer. In a study conducted by Arnetha Ball of Stanford University, a group of English teachers, most of whom were African American themselves, voiced their concerns for the mainly African American and Latino student works they were asked to assess, saying that “we do our students a disservice if we don’t provide them with access to conventional accuracy and… an understanding that assessment is often defined in terms of conventions of accuracy” (372). However, these teachers agreed that “surface level errors should not be a primary focus of writing assessment” and emphasized the importance of praising students for their use of writing in ways that conveyed their ideas effectively (372). According to Patricia Bizzell, in a linguistically diverse classroom, when “traditional ‘correctness’ is no longer the issue”, “student skill and application still will be important” (Bizzell 11). This is where rhetorical grammar reemerges as a critical component in the basic writing class.

With this in mind, we are still able to implement an Anti-Racist pedagogy in the basic writing classroom, allowing students to mix their discursive practices as long as they practice good writing conventions while considering and appropriately addressing their audience and the rhetorical situation at hand. There are two methods, according to Delpit, for writing instruction: first, “process-oriented writing instruction” which focuses “on fluency and creative expression, rather than ‘correctness’”; and second, “skills-oriented writing instruction” which focuses “on teaching students the technical skills of writing academic mainstream prose” (Ball 358). For the teachers in Ball’s study, the latter is a main concern when discussing the student work they were asked to assess, however, the former is equally as important: students must be able to communicate their ideas with fluency and purpose. According to Ball, writing pedagogy has shifted in recent years toward the process-oriented model, one which is “culturally sensitive” and embraces student diversity; however, assessment of student writing “has remained a contextless activity that emphasizes standardization and an ideal version of writing quality” (379). Given that not all students have the same backgrounds, forms of discourse, or level of grammatical training in WME, this standardization is a persistent crux in the question of assessment.

The differing levels of English knowledge that nonnative or bilingual students possess can be especially difficult to contend with as teachers are not necessarily trained to work with such students. In Liz Hamp-Lyons’s essay, “The Challenges of Second-Language Writing Assessment”, she highlights the challenge that many teachers face in assessing the work of nonnative speakers, explaining that because these students generally have poor English skills compared to native speakers, teachers are generally more tolerant of technical errors by nonnative speakers; however, “having to spend extra time and effort reading [nonnative students’] papers may negatively affect professors’ judgment” of their work (345). This implicit bias that some teachers may have against nonnative writers and their writing would ultimately be brought to light in a basic writing classroom that subscribes to an Anti-Racist pedagogy. However, this is not the only issue with the assessment of nonnative speakers’ writing: their bilingual backgrounds often result in a lack of literacy in English skills overall. In fact, studies have shown that these students may not be proficient in the technical aspects of writing in English, such as “agreement of subjects and verbs, correct choice of prepositions, correct use of definite or indefinite articles, or maintenance of proper time relations” (345).

While nonnative writers may be at a grammatical disadvantage compared to their native English-speaking counterparts, there is still hope that their work can be assessed in a similar manner. Through a “multiple-trait procedure”, instructors can be more involved in each student’s development, using student portfolios to teach basic writing and provide ample feedback, which is “especially useful for second-language writers” (Hamp-Lyons 349-50). One of the advantages of having students keep a portfolio of their work is that they can go back, as needed, and review their work, teacher comments, and have a visible representation of the amount of work and progress they have made. Furthermore, in utilizing the portfolio as a collection and method of analyzing student work, the idea of “timed writing”, such as timed essay questions, for example, is eliminated – which works toward an Anti-Racist pedagogy because timed writing is considered to be “particularly discriminatory against nonnative writers” (Hamp-Lyons 351). Portfolio assessment is also an excellent way to teach basic writing because according to Hamp-Lyons, nonnative writers “can be convinced that concentrating on ideas, content, support, text structure, and so on” is more important than being technical and grammatically correct (352). However, this grammatical accuracy is exactly what academia demands when standardization appears to be the more equitable method of writing assessment.

Perhaps assessment will always be up to the discretion of the teachers who are tasked with grading a student’s work. The standardization of assessment for student writing certainly makes grading easier, yet if we want to embrace the diversity of language that our students bring to our classrooms, we must determine how effective that method of assessment is in facilitating an environment in which multicultural students are able to thrive as writers. Ball submits that we should be looking toward diverse teacher populations to change the way we assess diverse student population writings, which becomes easier and easier as they join the dialogue of multicultural writing assessment (380). Young has a broader approach, claiming that we as educators must simply “enlarge our perspective about what good writin is and how good writin can look at work, at home, and at school” and “be mo flexible, mo acceptin of language diversity, language expansion, and creative language usage from ourselves and from others in formal and informal settings” (112). However one decides to assess the writing of students who bring diverse discursive practices to the basic writing classroom, the most important factor to consider is that for Anti-Racist pedagogy to work, we must not expect our students to all fit within the scope of standard academic English.

Ultimately, for an Anti-Racist pedagogy to work in the basic writing classroom, we must remember that not all students come from the same backgrounds, and some may even suffer from a stifling of identity that comes from WME in our academic institutions. We cannot pretend that WME has not affected our students, because, as Sarah Stanley notes, “Anti-racist Basic Writing must recognize the ongoing and historical reality of racism in ourselves, our classrooms, and our interpretations” (7). Instead, we must bring the racism and preconceived notions that have shaped academia in the United States to light, making it the topic of our discussions and writing prompts. All the while, we must adhere to the culturally sensitive ideals that promote inclusivity and discursive freedom, even when assessing student writing. In order to empower and promote the success of students who are not considered as privileged in WME as others, we must encourage them to believe “that in their language patterns are and varieties can be found sophistication, meaning, and power” (Kinloch 51). If we as writing instructors can keep the traditional racial biases that come with academic discourse out of the basic writing classroom, we can implement an Anti-Racist pedagogy that will benefit all students, empowering students and providing a community in which culture and diverse discursive practices are an advantage, not an obstacle to overcome.

16 Implementing an Anti-Racist Pedagogy in the Basic Writing Classroom – Amanda Weida

License

Share This Book