DW3b

Patrick Bruch, Richard Marback

Race, Literacy, and the Value of Rights Rhetoric in Composition Studies

 

            In this recent article by Patrick Bruch and Richard Marback, the use of language is discussed in both composition studies and by public policy.  The authors compare and contrast the ways that language is allowed to be used and how it is to be used appropriately. 

            First, talking about the CCCC’s resolution of Student’s Right to Their Own Language (SRTOL), the authors discuss how language is accepted in composition studies.  The CCCC’s resolution describes the right to their own language in the classroom, but not necessarily outside of the classroom.  In this way, the right to one’s own language is very limited due to the racial judgments made by people outside of the classroom.  The authors demonstrate these differences in their writing, “For at least the last twenty-five years, the use of a rights rhetoric in composition studies to advance the cause of racial equality contrasts with uses of rights rhetoric in public policy that limit the prospects for racial equality.”  In this passage, the authors are explaining one of the flaws of SRTOL.  The rights rhetoric have been working for racial equality in the field of composition studies and yet rights rhetoric by public policy is not helping to work for the same goal.  In order to truly give students a right to their own language people need to accept that language in both the classroom and in everyday life.  Later in the journal:

 “While the President could and did aggressively deploy National Guard troops for the purpose of safeguarding the right to vote of southern blacks, placing this force in the service of the legislative rhetoric of civil rights ultimately did not compel a culture of toleration.”

            This passage brings the comparison of the civil rights movement to the fight for the end of linguicism.  Although people high up in the government were working for equality in the 1960’s, nothing could truly happen until people within the communities accepted everyone as equals.  This is what the authors mean when they talk about “rights rhetoric by public policy”.  Without public policy being that linguicism is unacceptable, it will be impossible for SRTOL to make a difference in the classroom because it will have no weight outside the classroom.

            In this journal, AAVE is viewed as something that should be accepted in communities.  Although it is not directly discussed, the tone and examples of the authors show that AAVE is seen as something that is good and something that can help people express themselves.