Heat and Light

In a debate entitled "Diversity in America" televised last month on the C-SPAN channel, the award-winning foreign correspondent Georgie Anne Geyer spoke about what it meant to be an American. She pointed out that the United States is, at this moment in history, the world's most influential nation, supported by an unrivaled combination of political, diplomatic and economic might. But Geyer is worried about the growing divisions that are afflicting the social fabric and polity of this country. In essence, she pleaded that society must amount to more than the sum of its parts, for otherwise the political process becomes simply a marketplace for lobby groups, stacking issue upon issue, until the voice of the silent majority is lost.

What particular relevance do Geyer's observations have for English language professionals?

The answer is clear: Many of the issues that constitute her vision of citizenship, such as language, immigration and civic responsibility, are integral to our work. Many teachers have already experienced at first-hand how easily language can cease to be a tool of communication and instead become yet another political football.

A potent example of the politicization of language can be found in the recent nationwide debate sparked off by the Oakland School Board and the question of Ebonics. This single issue clearly illustrates how a subject worthy of reasoned discussion can be hijacked by shock-jocks, political drum-beaters and ill-informed social commentators, and tailored to fit whatever political performance is being played to the house.

The legitimate constituents of the Ebonics debate, such as a simple acknowledgment that the lack of English language skills can deprive young people of a fair chance in life, have been lost. Yet given time, a proper assessment of these issues could have led to the introduction of appropriate policies taking into account all of the necessary and sensitive elements that are required in the implementation of social and educational policy.

The one-issue marketplace that Geyer fears is already in business. Last month in Los Angeles, the only black member of the school board introduced a motion to expand language programs to African-Americans, which was subsequently defeated. In the meantime the Hispanic lobby is worried that it will be the main loser in any new arrangement of funding for language education. Meanwhile, across the country in Fairfax, Virginia, the Legal Affairs Council has introduced a program entitled "Stop Ebonics/Save our Children," and Massachusetts faces a cut in its bilingual education program under new proposed legislation.

Who will hold the center in the Education debate? President Clinton obviously did not intend to get his hands burned when he revealed his Ten Point Plan for Education in the State of the Union Address. No one can disagree in principle with his propostion that there should be a high standard of educational excellence upon which all states can agree. More interesting to educators is how these standards can be applied and administered, particularly to a sector of education as diverse and financially undernourished as our own. It is only when these questions are properly answered that any form of concrete progress is likely to be made.

Money is only part of the answer. True, there is still a greater demand for places on expensive bilingual programs than there are places available. In addition, money is also required for the twin necessities of curriculum development and teacher training, without which no educational reform can succeed.

Most important however, is the change of heart required in Geyer's political marketplace. As long as the language debate is dominated by the battle between the rock of political profit and the hard place of academic standards, all we can expect, and all we will deserve, is more heat than light.