The Notorious Ebonics Resolution of Oakland, California

On December 18, 1996, the Board of Education of Oakland, California, passed a resolution concerning "Ebonics" or what used to be called Black English.

The press made lots of comments on it, and has been accused of getting it all wrong. People have asked many questions about what it really said, the main one perhaps being, "Are they saying street talk is as good as standard English?" This question is really too vague to be answered by reading the text; it's the kind of question you can argue about for hours without bothering to figure out whether any two people mean the same thing by it.

But there are other, more specific, questions, of which I call your attention to three:

Are they really saying that Black English, or Ebonics, or whatever, is a separate language, and not one of the dozens of dialects of English?
Did they really say that it's more suited than standard English to people of a certain race because of their genetics?
Are they proposing to teach in Ebonics?

Two of these questions can be answered with certainty by reading the resolution. One of them may be trickier than that. The exact text of the resolution, as published in the San Francisco Chronicle on January 2, 1997, is below. After that, I've provided my own comments interleaved and hyper-linked with a second copy of the text.

As of the week of January 13, the task force that wrote the resolution seems prepared to back down slightly. Proposed changes, as published on January 13, are incorporated in the commentary.

And since January 13, there has been more action, ending (apparently) with the withdrawal of the whole idea, or much of it; this is covered mostly in the Postscript. I've made some attempt to insert suitable cross references in the text. And in all fairness, here is (was) a link to the official version of the . It shows amended text in bold-face; unfortunately, the person editing it did not use ~~strikeout text to show deletions~~, so the display is less than perfect. But that's OK, they've taken it down, so that link is no good any more.

And after that, things got better yet; read about it in the second and final document in this series.

The Resolution of December 18, 1996

WHEREAS, numerous validated scholarly studies demonstrate that African-American students as a part of their culture and history as African people possess and utilize a language described in various scholarly approaches as "Ebonics" (literally "Black sounds") or "Pan-African Communication Behavior" or "African Language Systems"; and

WHEREAS, these studies have also demonstrated that African Language Systems are genetically based and not a dialect of English; and

WHEREAS, these studies demonstrate that such West and Niger-Congo African languages have been officially recognized and addressed in the mainstream public educational community as worth of study, understanding or application of its principles, laws and structures for the benefit of African-American students both in terms of positive appreciation of the language and these students' acquisition and mastery of English language skills; and

WHEREAS, such recognition by scholars has given rise over the past fifteen years to legislation passed by the State of California recognizing the unique language stature of descendants of slaves, with such legislation being prejudicially and unconstitutionally vetoed repeatedly by various California state governors; and

WHEREAS, judicial cases in states other than California have recognized the unique language stature of African-American pupils, and such recognition by courts has resulted in court-mandated educational programs which have substantially benefited African American children in the interest of vindicating their equal protection of the law rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Bilingual Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1402 et seq) mandates that local educational agencies "build their capacities to establish, implement and sustain programs of instruction for children and youth of limited English proficiency; and

WHEREAS, the interests of the Oakland Unified School District in providing equal opportunities for all of its students dictate limited English proficient educational programs recognizing the English language acquisition and improvement skills of African-American students are as fundamental as is application of bilingual education principles for others whose primary languages are other than English; and

WHEREAS, the standardized tests and grade scores of African-American students in reading and language arts skills measuring their application of English skills are substantially below state and national norms and that such deficiencies will be remedied by application of a program featuring African Language Systems principles in instructing African-American children both in their primary language and in English; and

WHEREAS, standardized tests and grade scores will be remedied by application of a program with teachers and aides who are certified in the methodology of featuring African Language Systems principles in instructing African-American children both in their primary language and in English. The certified teachers of these students will be provided incentives including, but not limited to salary differentials.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Education officially recognizes the existence, and the cultural and historic bases of West and Niger-Congo African Language Systems, and each language as the predominantly primary language of African-American students; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Education hereby adopts the report recommendations and attached Policy Statement of the District's African-American Task Force on language stature of African-American speech; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Superintendent in conjunction with her staff shall immediately devise and implement the best possible academic program for imparting instruction to African-American students in their primary language for the combined purposes of maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language whether it is known as "Ebonics," "African Language Systems," "Pan-African Communication Behaviors" or other description, and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English language skills; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Education hereby commits to earmark District general and special funding as is reasonably necessary and appropriate to enable the Superintendent and her staff to accomplish the foregoing; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Superintendent and her staff shall utilize the input of the entire Oakland educational community as well as state and federal scholarly and educational input in devising such a program: and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that periodic reports on the progress of the creation and implementation of such an educational program shall be made to the Board at least once per month commencing at the Board meeting of December 18, 1996.

COMMENTARY

Introduction

First, the answers to the three questions:

A separate language, and not English? Yes, says the resolution, unequivocally.
Genetically the suitable language for persons of African descent? This is the trick question. You may say, "Well, it says 'genetically based', doesn't it?" Yes, but spokespersons claim that it doesn't really mean that; it means that the alleged language had its genesis in Africa. It is possible to believe that explanation, as noted later. (And the wording was changed in the amended resolution.)
Teach in Ebonics? Yes, says the resolution, unequivocally and more than once. But with the motivation, in part at least, of helping the students master mainstream English. No, says the amended resolution.

Next, an acknowledgement: the analysis of edu-jargon used here, especially in the footnotes, owes a great deal to Richard Mitchell, as will be obvious (I hope) to any of his readers who see this. If you think that it works, you'll want to read Less Than Words Can Say, and his other books. If you don't, maybe you should look at the books anyway, to see it done right.

For those who came in late, specifically those who have not been watching U.S. racial politics for the last 30 years or so, here's a bit of background. Others may as well skip this.

The home talk of millions of Black people in America (to use the most neutral description I can think of) has been called a lot of things: a language, a dialect, vulgar slang, bad grammar, and worse. By worse, I mean something like "a stupid attempt at English that's the most you can expect of people who can sing, dance, and play baseball but are born with thick lips and dull wits."

Pardon me while I wash out my mouth with soap; but that last is not an unfair description of the beliefs of millions of people today. These opinions should not be dignified with further mention. But in the real world, we must take them into account: if you say that the language spoken by Black people is "genetically based" without any further qualification, there is no one in America (the America in this universe, anyway) who will fail to hear you as subscribing to the They Talk That Way Because of Their Racial Inheritance theory.

You may find it unreasonable that such an idea would ever be imputed to people who obviously are trying to defend the rights of Black people. Clearly, you haven't heard about Black Arithmetic, or how Black people just learn differently from other folks (like, good at memorizing things, but not at that other stuff). Almost any racist insult has been picked up and treated as a mark of distinction, if not superiority, by some people.

Leaving aside the purely racist stuff with a sigh of relief, we've got the characterization of Black English as Bad Grammar. For the past 30-some years learned people have been pointing out that the talk in question is not "ungrammatical" in the sense of lacking grammatical structure, but has a consistent grammar that just isn't the same as the one I'm writing in. There seems to be no reason to argue with that position.

If it's a living way of using language, not just a misunderstanding or a patois used to confuse outsiders, then it's truly a dialect. Or is it a language? And who cares? Here are some reasons why some people might care:

A language might seem more dignified than a mere dialect.
A language with its roots in West Africa might be seen to show stronger ties to that land.
A distinct language implies greater difficulty in learning standard English.
A distinct language might justify a grant of funds for bilingual education.

The last two items have practical significance. As to number 4, the federal government has already rejected the claim out of hand. As to number 3, learning a particular new language or new way of speaking English is exactly as hard as it happens to be, no harder and no easier, regardless of how anyone classifies languages and dialects.

The Text and Comments

I have chosen to interleave my comments on the substance of the resolution with the paragraphs of its text, because reading that kind of thing is more congenial to literate human beings than flipping back and forth in hyperlinks. For comments on the style and grammar of the resolution, which are certainly of importance (these people are claiming to teach kids how to use English, right?) I have primarily used hyperlinks, to unclutter the text. Footnotes to my own comments are also in hyperlinks.

We'll comment on those validated scholarly studies in a moment.

You know, anti-racist white people would once have been about as ready to refer to those of African descent by likening them to a black tropical hardwood as they would have been to use Darkie Toothpaste. Times change, I guess. Nonetheless, anyone who says that Ebonics means literally "Black sounds" needs to improve his or her vocabulary.

Speaking of which, the validated scholars appear not to know the meaning of the prefix Pan. The murderous Pan-Germanic dolts who disgraced the civilization of Goethe in the first part of this century knew, as do their now resurgent brothers the Pan-Slavs: it means All. So, All-African Communication Behavior? These language patterns apply to all of Africa, like Zanzibar? Morocco? Ethiopia? Egypt??

WHEREAS, these studies have also demonstrated that African Language Systems are genetically based and not a dialect of English; and

OK, there we have it. In the world of today we have a science of genetics, a technology of genetic engineering, and a pseudo-science of The Bell Curve, not to mention a not-dead-yet political pseudo-science of eugenics. It is hardly possible to publish a single issue of a serious daily paper without a couple of stories on these subjects. And the coupling of genetics and race politics and language is politically explosive, as we've shown.

So, when the authors say genetically based, they mean something else entirely! According to spokespersons, they mean that Ebonics is derived, genetically as it were, from West African languages. Or maybe they mean that the West African languages are related to each other as Indo-European languages are. (Surprise!) The spokesperson's statement didn't actually make it quite clear.

Even when you've been given the key, it is nearly impossible to construe "African Language Systems are genetically based" to mean something like "Black English is actually a member of an African language family"; but that appears to be the claimed meaning.

I think it's possible, without joining the White Queen in believing three impossible things before breakfast, to accept that they really didn't intend the racist interpretation. Conceivably this is a genuine piece of pathetically confused prose written by somebody who couldn't read it well enough to see what it would mean to readers. The rest of the document lends some credence to that position, as we'll see. With educationist prose, all things are possible.

Here's the latest news as of January 13, and the January 17 posting on the board's web site: The wording has been changed to reflect the non-racist meaning. The new text follows.

WHEREAS, These studies have also demonstrated that African Language Systems have origins in West [African] and Niger-Congo languages and are not merely dialects of English; and

We still have the ludicrous claim, discussed below, that these dialects are not dialects; but at least the look of racism is gone. I wonder if the task force knows that an Irish brogue is not merely a dialect of English but has its origins in Gaelic language systems.

There is still more on the "genetic" business, I'm afraid, in the postscript.

Now we must ask, just what is a "validated" scholarly study? A paper in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, why not say so? Or does it mean a paper that some other paper has agreed with? In the occasional peer-reviewed journal that I look at, I haven't run into the term yet.

You can, of course, find purportedly scholarly studies to support anything, including Creationism. The question is, is there anything like a consensus on the matter among linguists (philologists) who have studied English and/or West African languages?

Better yet, suppose we were to do what the Surgeon General did in 1962 in the debate on smoking and lung cancer: assemble a group of duly qualified people who haven't taken a position on the question, give them the existing evidence, and see what conclusions they come to. It would be easier than finding biostatisticians who hadn't reached a conclusion on lung cancer by 1962, and you could include some people with no Indo-European bias from centers of scholarship in, say, China, Egypt, Japan, and Turkey.

Can there be any doubt about the result? If you can read American English, you can read a transcription of Black English at least as easily as you can read the Middle English of Chaucer. A little instruction in grammatical differences, a feel for the odd-looking spellings, translations for some unfamiliar words and phrases, and you're on your way. Your progress may be slow and painful at first (and how much harder it would be if you were a little kid just learning to read), but with a little concentration you can understand it.

Contrast this with an actual foreign language like German, or the Anglo-Saxon (or Old English) of Beowulf, which is completely opaque to an English speaker without a proper course of study, even though it's genetically related to English.

Experts might explain that I've missed the point: this is genetically a West African language structure with a largely English vocabulary, as English is a Germanic language with a considerably Latin-based vocabulary. Yeah, but neither a Frenchman nor a German (nor even a Dutchman) has any hope of picking up English, or Middle English, and reading it with a few helpful pointers on the differences. That's because English (current, Middle, or Old) really is a different language.

And does Black English have a West African structure? Can the structure of West African languages be so much like that of English as to give rise to the grammar of Black English? To anyone with even a passing acquaintance with a couple of foreign languages, this will seem flatly incredible.

When it says, "such ... languages" I assume that it means the various African-influenced types of speech used in this hemisphere. The phrase assumes that they really are African languages and not forms of English; that's quite all right, since they've stated the assumption; we just note that we haven't accepted it.

But about those studies. We seem to have a peer-reviewed scholarly paper that proves (a) the technical linguistic point that X is a language and not a dialect, and (b) the sociological or political point that some schools have decided that studying X will cause good things to happen. In fact, it's claimed that we have several such papers. Do peer-reviewed journals of linguistics actually accept the unfocused sort of research paper that would cover two such disparate points? Frankly, I don't believe it. Somebody is trying to snow us with all this scholarly stuff.

Or did these validated scholarly studies appear in journals of education? If so, they may be very worthy efforts; but when they talk of technical points of linguistics, we laypersons need not concede anything to the authority they carry on the subject, because they carry none.

On a positive note, this paragraph pays its respects to the teaching of English, if only in a confused way.

It would be interesting, and there is no sarcasm here, to know what this legislation actually was. Maybe some of us would campaign to get it passed if we knew. Certainly it's no news that governors can veto good legislation that gets through the legislature a couple of times. In fact, some citizens got together just this year (well, last year) and bashed the governor's veto soundly; this was called Proposition 215, and authorities in Sacramento and Washington have been positively [scatological reference deleted] over it. Maybe the Ebonics folks should try the same.

But the governor is even more evil here: he's vetoing things unconstitutionally! Tell me, someone: in 200 years of judicial history in the country that invented the written constitution and judicial review, how many cases are standing in which a veto was found unconstitutional? If you decide to start a pool on the answer, I've got dibs on zero. Even if the concept of an unconstitutional veto exists, this is plain nutty political rhetoric. (And in fact it was zapped in the amended version.)

Again, it would be genuinely interesting to know about these cases. Can we get citations? A lot of staggeringly inaccurate information about court cases is circulating at present, and it would be good to know exactly what this is. Which is not to say that the resolution is necessarily wrong on this point.

However, if Fourteenth Amendment rights are being violated, why hasn't California been hauled into federal court?

Can you find the subject of the verb are? I put this question in-line, with the answer in a footnote, to avoid spoilers. But this is such a colossally bad bit of English that its chastisement shouldn't be confined to a footnote anyway. When you've found the subject, you can check your answer.

My commentary ought to include one positive note, so here it is. Note that the resolution is specifically concerned with the English-language skills of kids. (Well, actually, with their skills in acquiring and improving the English language. Our language is always open to improvement, of course, but is this relevant just now?) The statement may be a bit fuzzy, but it's clear enough that spiffing up the kids' English is considered a good thing. This, quite seriously, answers some of the criticisms like "They just want to teach the kids street talk." And these comments apply to the original unamended resolution.

The idea of this Whereas clause is that lots of American kids of ultimately African descent need special help mastering the language that most other people born here take for granted, just as recent immigrants from Nicaragua or Vietnam do. Though the point may be severely overstated, it's a valid one. How appalling to think that the people who wrote that paragraph will be in charge of teaching English to those poor innocents.

(In the January version the clause has been considerably edited. None of the editing makes any difference.)

Here the January amendment makes an unequivocal change:

... application of a program featuring African Language Systems principles to move students from the language patterns they bring to school to English proficiency

Here was the first declaration that they would be teaching in Black English, as so many people feared. Or maybe they will just pay people extra for having the skill, but won't make use of it?

But in the January revisions, there is a change of heart:

... will be remedied by application of a program featuring African Language Systems principles used to transition students from the language patterns they bring to school to English..

This is a fundamental change, and a welcome one to a lot of people. Some people whose ancestors were slaves, who have worked against appalling odds to get into the mainstream of this society, will not be entirely mollified: the language patterns their kids bring to school are quite adequate as to English proficiency, thank you very much. The good news is that there may even be a concession on this point in the next clause.

Actually, I didn't know that anybody doubted the existence of West African language systems (and Niger-Congo African ones, if you need to make the distinction). So why assert it? The question is whether that which millions of Americans speak at home is such a language. The idea appears to be to assert that it is so, but to do so in jargon that obscures the point.

Now, what does that each mean? It appears to mean that there are multiple W&NCA language systems spoken by Black American kids. This is news. Or could each be a misprint for such? (No telling whose fault it is if so, but it's not mine.) Let's assume that it is. Anyway, the point is moot as of January.

The board also asserted that this dialect, or language, or bunch of languages, is the primary talk of a large enough majority of Black kids to justify its description as "the predominant[ly] primary language of African-American students". It may well be so. The board's assertion is not likely to sway anyone.

And, sure enough, some people were not swayed, and they made the matter clear to the task force, which changed the text:

...African Language Systems, and these are the language patterns that many African-American students bring to school;

Here we have (or had, before the January revisions) the second explicit assertion that things will be taught in Black English or whatever you call it. The first one allowed the contrivance of a way of weaseling out of it, but this doesn't.

("Weasel out" is decidedly a negative term. It is not meant to imply that teaching in Black English in the public schools is necessarily a very bad thing; rather, it comes from a distrust of the board's spokespersons, who do not seem to have been very straightforward in answering direct questions on the subject, despite the unmistakable wording of the resolution.)

We see here that helping kids to master standard English is not the sole reason for using Ebonics in the classroom. The wording here doesn't even give it the look of the primary reason. The explanations and clarifications from the board and its friends seem to have been disingenuous on this point.

Maintaining the legitimacy and richness of the language may be a worthy thing, or it may not. But is it part of the mandate from the state of California, which sets the rules and, in its maliciously and suicidally stingy fashion, provides the taxpayers' funds for the effort?

And again, the January changes turn the thing around almost completely:

The Superintendent ... shall immediately devise and implement the best possible academic program for the combined purposes of facilitating the acquisition and mastery of English language skills, while respecting and embracing the legitimacy and richness of the language patterns...

There are four points to note about this wording, the most important of which is that it drops any statement about "imparting instruction ... in their primary language" (after the assertion that that primary language is not English).

The next thing it does is to speak of learning standard English first, rather than making it look like an afterthought. It almost unambiguously states that what the board has in mind is to educate people in the use of English, as it is known and used all over the world.

Then it drops the idea of maintaining the legitimacy and richness of the languages in favor of respecting and embracing them. You'd almost think they'd read my comment about the mandate for the use of the taxpayers' money. More likely, they heard about the matter in very clear terms from somebody who was in a position to get their attention. As to the respecting and embracing: the authors are probably sincere about that; otherwise they'd have used the deadly edu-jargon word "appreciating." However much or little respect you may have for the dialect, this looks more likely to work as an educational technique than the classic methods of persuading people that the way they talk is nothing but a sign of stupidity.

Alas, the other thing that the new wording does is to set a lousy example of English. It seems that the Ebonics program is for the combined purposes of facilitating while respecting and embracing. This could be parsed: one purpose is to facilitate while respecting, and the other is to embrace. No, it doesn't work. This mess is politically significant, and not just as a bad example from people who are supposed to be setting a good example. The political problem is, one guesses, that there was no agreement on whether the teaching of worldwide English should get top billing, or the respect for Ebonics should, or they should be absolutely equal. Since no one on the committee was able to word it ambiguously enough while sticking to the grammar of some known language, we get this camel-like result.

Odd that they have to deliver a monthly report on progress in carrying out the resolution, on the very day the resolution is adopted; but so what?

Wrap it up, for Heaven's sake

If what has been said doesn't speak for itself, why try to fix it at this point?

Well, we still have to close the question of the Press. Just how badly did they mess up the story? I can't say, but if they didn't interpret the resolution quite as the board wanted them to, it's clear they're not the only ones, or the primary ones, to blame. You want to be read right, you have to write right.

But that comment is too polite. Around the time of the amendment, there was much talk of how the resolution "could be read as saying" or was misunderstood to say, that there would be teaching done in Ebonics. Now that you've read the text, with or without my commentary, you know that this is nonsense. The language was unmistakable, and the Press got it quite right.

In closing, one thing needs to be said about "what the resolution really means": This is a political document, produced by a political body. That's not a defect, unless your model of governance is someone who is above political compromise, like Adolf Hitler or Idi Amin or Pol Pot.

Because it is a political document, we would be wrong to assume that it means exactly what it says. Close analysis is useful, as well as being lots of fun; but it doesn't give the whole story. What really happens in the schools will depend at least as much on the teachers as on the board's ideas; and these groups have about as much in common as journalists (Democrats) and publishers (Republicans).

You can see one compromise peeking through and wasting words throughout the document: an agreement to disagree about which of three terms to use in place of the obsolete (1960s) "Black English". How many compromises, satisfactory to none of the parties, sneaked into the document less visibly and confused the sense of the document?

And which pieces of the document are things that just got stuck in because somebody wanted them? Such things would be impossible in a policy document adopted by literate people who cared intensely about what they were saying: they would not vote for the document until they had studied it and debated the problematic parts, and agreed to each (or accepted being voted down on specific points). One of the uses of careful analysis is to show how far this is from being such a document. But even here, as we'll see in the postscript, there is moral if not intellectual ambiguity.

Which, now that we have had more coverage of the whole issue, leads us right into the actual closing remarks.

Postscript

Let's see, first of all, genetics. In the San Francisco Examiner of January 19, 1997, there was an article by one Ernie A. Smith, Ph.D., professor at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, explaining the use of "genetic" in linguistics. Though I've never heard of the gentleman or his university, I think it reasonable to take his word on the usage. The article was predictably scornful of those who disliked the resolution, and of those who failed to understand the usage of "genetically" or to inquire what it might mean. As for me, in my Philistine way, I think that a linguist who considers it appropriate to use obscure terms of art (as the lawyers call terms that mean something completely different from their meaning in ordinary discourse) in a public document without any qualification or explanation, and thinks it incumbent on the readers to inquire what the words really mean when the apparent meaning is clear, should ask for a tuition refund from whoever awarded his Ph.D. in linguistics.

The learned professor also points out that the grammar of Whatever You Call It is not Indo-European. Bullbleep. But while I'm up, if Chaucer is too obscure for you, try this for grammar. Mark Twain picked up a French translation of The Jumping Frog of Calaveras County and translated it back into English with hilarious literalness. ("I no see not that that frog is of better than each frog.") Set that side by side with a piece of Ebonics, with spelling regularized but with no "correction" of plurals or other grammatical points. One of these shows the grammar of an Indo-European language with close cultural ties to English and much historical influence on it; the other shows the grammar of an utterly foreign, non-Indo-European language. Believe that before breakfast, and you're one-sixth of the way to matching the White Queen.

By way of contrast, there was in the Chronicle's section of the same Sunday paper, an interview with Cook, a member of the school board and apparently the prime mover of the Ebonics resolution. (The report has the byline of Nanette Asimov, who, along with Lori Olszewski, seems to have done all the good coverage of the story in the Chronicle.) Ms Cook is not some kind of linguistic nutcase or a nationalist who wants to throw off the chains of English, but a speaker of good Worldwide English who feels pain at seeing poor kids who are deprived of that part of their American birthright (my characterization, not hers). She has also experienced the pain of having her daughter accused of "talking like a white girl." You get the picture.

Here, reprinted without permission in hopes that copyright holders won't be offended by this free plug, is an example.

Well, I go to classes to read to the kids. Everybody knows Dr. Seuss, so I made the presumption that I could read a page and the child would read a page. I found two things: Either the kids could not read, or they could read, but the words the pronounced were definitely not on that piece of paper.
Interviewer: What were they saying?
-ing's left off words, consonants left off words, and you begin to think: "Does this kid have dyslexia? Half the word is falling off."

You get the picture again: Further from a rabid admirer of West African Language Systems you can't get. She then goes on to tell of classes in which the kids were learning real English and having a great time doing it. She figured that these classes were doing their job better than others were, and whatever the teachers were doing would be good to emulate.

Remember Abraham Lincoln, the results-oriented chief executive? Tell him you think Grant is drinking too much, and he asks you to find out what brand of whisky Grant buys, so that he can send a case of it to his other generals.

Ms Cook dismisses the idea of bilingual education funds: "It's a useless fight. Those bilingual kids don't get enough money already."

She also gives a hint of the reason for the uncritical way in which the original resolution was adopted: "I didn't get home [from the meeting] until 2 a.m. ..." In another story that I seem to have lost, it was explained that the December 18 meeting ran to great length before it got down to the Ebonics item on the agenda. Wanting to get done with business, the board adopted what was in front of it without any real debate. This kind of thing happens in the real world. People who get righteous about such errors, as I have done, need to consider whether they are without sin. While we're doing that, the board members can contemplate the results of their own unthinking action.

However, while we're up, was it really unthinking? A friend with a more cynical approach than mine, and a better acquaintance with Oakland politics, points out that this was the last meeting before a change in the composition of the board. At the next meeting there would be a couple of new members, at least one of whom disapproved of the whole Ebonics thing. Ramming the resolution through that night was a good way of avoiding the kind of reasoned deliberation that I'm advocating here. I see no good reason to doubt his cynical analysis; to the extent that it's correct, the board thoroughly deserved the punishment it took from the press and everybody.

I highly recommend reading the interview: go to http://www.sfgate.com/wais/search/chron-pro.html (or go to www.sfgate.com and follow the menus to search). Then search January 19 for the byline Asimov.

So, if this person is as sensible as I say, why on Earth would she have fought against amending the thing? Why, in particular, did she take a strong position against getting rid of the damn "genetically based" disaster? That's hard to say; possibly she knew what she meant, did not see that no one else could be expected to read it the same way, and wasn't going to be pushed around by a bunch of racists; and make no mistake, the real genuine racists really came out of the woodwork on this issue. A streak of mulishness, of not backing down under pressure even when it's right to do so, is pretty common in people who actually get things done. The Victorians spoke of having the defects of your qualities; that's a pretty good explanation here.

But that's not the whole explanation for standing by the unrevised text. A local columnist, probably in the Pacific Sun, a weekly paper unknown outside of Marin County, analyzed it better than anybody I've seen:

You don't fight in front of the white people.

Gee, that's a terrible principle, nothing like the color-blind society that Martin Luther King Jr. wanted and that some people claim to believe has been so well achieved that King would now support Proposition 209. But it's the truth. At worst, maybe it's a self-destructive habit forced on Black people by their appalling history. At best, maybe it's a necessary defense. In either case it explains a lot.

Even at its best, though, it can conflict with other good principles, such as "Don't talk nonsense." Once the conflict has been brought out into the public in front of white people and everybody, where's the difficulty in choosing between the principles?

In the end, the board members did choose: the worst of the substantive nonsense was amended out of existence, even if the completely unnecessary assertions about a separate language stayed in.

But in the end, very good people like Toni Cook still don't get it. They eventually bent under political necessity, and deserve credit for doing so, but they still don't see what was wrong in the first place.

Date last modified: May 10, 2001

Dan Drake's Home Page
Mail to dd@dandrake.com

Copyright (C) 1997 Daniel Drake. A royalty-free license to reproduce this document in whole or in part is hereby granted provided (i) all additions, omissions, and other changes are clearly marked; (ii) the work is not reproduced as, or as part of, a work for which payment is charged; (iii) this notice is reproduced without change. Quotations for critical or polemical purposes, with proper attribution, are permitted in any case, being obviously fair use.

Document: http://www.dandrake.com/ebonics.html