Delpit Response

I found Delpit’s article interesting because it brought up an important point. Many do not realize it but we live in a “culture of power”. It is important that students learn about this “culture of power” and how to compete in a society where not everyone is valued equally. I think that simply teaching acceptance and thereby raising an entirely new generation of citizens who do not discriminate between race, gender, and faith is an unrealistic goal. I think that if our education system is to produce intelligent and capable citizens it needs to empower those citizens with the ability to compete in a “culture of power”. One way of doing this is by teaching minority children the language of power and thereby giving them the communicative skills they need to be taken seriously by those who might otherwise ignore or even devalue them.

Question 1:

For me as a future High school teacher this article was very interesting and helpful. Her practical examples showed where and why problems can occur and how a professional teacher should deal with them. The kind of school I’m going to teach at in Germany is attended by many Turkish students. They have established their own kind of German which marks them off from “German Germans”. Although among teenagers their ‘slang’ is totally hip and accepted, they will have trouble in professional life. For me as a teacher it is important to accept their style of language to a certain degree, however as soon as it comes to writing essays, they just have to be able to use proper German. I am especially concerned about figuring out an appropriate borderline: to what degree is ‘slang’ acceptable and when do you cross the border? I think this is very hard to find out and then even harder to explain to students.

Delpit Response

I would say that the most important thing I would take away from Delpit's article is perspective. I think everyone should be taught proper 'Unedited American English'. I am not sure what level of teaching I will be doing, but I do know that keeping an open mind about students' cultural language boundaries is important. Not only because it would help me understand their background, but also because it gives me a base to begin their lessons. I would think so at least.
I honestly do not like Delpit's article because we seem to be trying our best to include everyone in society. It almost seems like a punch in the face to tell some non color student or poor kid that we are going to teach him differently because they are poor or non white, or that we are going to take into account the small percent of these students and form our class structure around that. Maybe I don't like this article because I have been reading so many racial issues in my other classes that it's beating it into the ground and I'm losing interest.

Language is a Tool, Not a Race

In regards to question 2, the idea of acceptance is not the real issue that needs to be dealt with. The article’s focus is on language and preparing working class children, regardless of race, to be able to communicate in a way that is intelligent and mature. Being able to express yourself in a way that crosses over any racial barriers is a very powerful tool. By focusing primarily on acceptance, these children would be missing out on a very necessary skill that would be largely beneficial for their mature adult life. Communication is something that must be adjusted to fit the audience at hand; teaching these children the language associated with the “culture of power” is just one arrow in their quiver of communication arsenal.

Delpit

I guess I'm going for my own topic. I feel that teaching ebonics is counterproductive. One of the purposes of school is to prepare children for the world. We can't go around preparing kids for a perfect world. We don't live in one. We can only give them the proper tools to survive and possible triumph in the real world. The best tool that can be given to a child who isn't a member of the "culture of power" is the ability to feel comfortable in that culture. That doesn't mean assimilating. It just means giving them the ability to move freely in another culture. I don’t think that minorities segregating themselves with language is going to help them become a majority. I understand that not everybody wants to become part of the majority, but I want to be part of the majority. I want a say in what happens in my house/town/country. If you don’t have a voice, you don’t have any power.

Prompts for Delpit

Your assignment is to respond to one of the following questions related to Lisa Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue.” Aim for about 100-150 words, and post it to your team blog. Please follow the following guidelines:
1. Identify your entry with a title that suggests the content.
2. Single space.

You may respond to other people’s posts through the comment feature. You may also read the blogs of the other groups by going to: http://writingcommonsone.blogspot.com/ http://writingcommonstwo.blogspot.com/ etc. through http://writingcommonssix.blogspot.com/ You can add a comment to other blogs by using the comment feature. You can only post to your own blog.

Questions (choose one):
1. If you are preparing to teach, what are you taking away from Delpit’s article regarding language and power that might help you as a teacher, and how could you apply these ideas to your proposed level of teaching?
2. One student asked, “Why do we have to discuss teaching minority children the language of power? Why not just teach everyone acceptance?” Respond.
3. For one of Delpit’s specific proposals (refer to the article), discuss the challenges of implementation. How could these challenges be addressed?
4. Your own topic.

Prompts on Delpit article and N.Y.Times article

I haven't actually seen any prompts concerning the Delpit article; however, I have plenty to say about the article itself. I really think that she hit the nail on the head when she was writing about how whites don't want to admit (or even don't realize) that they are part of a culture of power. It's unconfortable to even think about. I do think though that the ideas that Delpit expressed about being explicit vs being sort of passive in your communication, and how that applies to being part of a "culture of power," could also apply to the differences in how men and women communicate. I'm older than most of the students but when I was growing up, girls were still being told to be "lady-like," which meant not being pushy or assertive. It meant waiting to be asked and making gentle suggestions instead of just coming out and asking for or demanding what you wanted. It wasn't stated that men had the power in society but it was certainly what was communicated. I think sometimes when men say that they can't understand women and what women want, that it goes back to that idea of men being part of a power "culture." I wonder if this is still a little bit true today? Now about the N.Y.Times article: I was really surprised to learn that so much curriculum was being taught in English in foreign countries. I thought the idea of studying abroad was to strengthen your speaking abilities in your chosen foreign language. It doesn't seem fair to the local students and I do think the professors are right when they say that you don't learn as much information if the subject isn't being taught in your own language.