ADVERTISEMENT

Rutgers English Dept: standard grammar is biased (No, they did not say that)

GoodOl'Rutgers

GoodOl'Rutgers

Legend
Sep 11, 2006
59,388
18,080
113
Anyone here think this is a good idea?

https://reason.com/2020/07/22/its-g...-distinguish-satire-from-earnest-wokeness-ii/

EDIT: Just wanted to come back and EDIT this thread OP to say that Skillethead on the other board explained the relevant material and showed me that the department head was actually arguing the opposite of what the alarmists assumed she had said. In essence.. that while "accented English" is arguably NOT something that should be penalized.. using reasonably proper grammar could HELP with that. She was arguing FOR teaching proper grammar and NOT abandoning it in some effort to be more inclusive of "accented English".

In other words, I was 100% wrong to assume the alarmists were onto something here.
 
Last edited:
Well that's pretty sad. Not that it matters much since grammar is barely taught anymore & good grammar is rarely practiced.
 
GoodOl'Rutgers said:
Anyone here think this is a good idea?

https://reason.com/2020/07/22/its-g...-distinguish-satire-from-earnest-wokeness-ii/
Click to expand...

Rather than going off what a random commentator is saying based on an overly dramatic article from a college junior at TCU, I recommend you read the passage in question, and possibly this paper on "critical Grammar"

--

Actual statement:
Incorporating “critical grammar” into our pedagogy. This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents.

--

It appears that at least some of the philosophy espoused in the new policy may have been based on this dissertation from Sarah Elizabeth Stanley in 2011.
"The Writer and The Sentence: A Critical Grammar Pedagogy Valuing the Micro"

I haven't had the time to read the entire paper, seeing as it is somewhere in the realm of 160 pages of scholarly work, but my basic understanding from skimming the paper is that the point is to not only correct grammatical errors, but also to critically examine why student's make grammatical errors. For example, in some cases a grammatical error is made by a typo, but in other cases it is a linguistically ingrained habit that comes from a cultural background. The theory seems to be that by examining that background rather than simply correcting it, the students will both learn more, and be better prepared to not make the same mistake in the future.

I look forward to reading the paper in my own time, and I hope at least some of you will do so as well, then we can have a legitimate debate regarding it, rather than simply throwing out wild accusations based on the angry writings of a college junior from Texas Christian University. (A school which, incidentally, has a department of English ranked 113 places behind our own.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight66 and cyrock3
Increasingly, the adjective form of a word is being used as an adverb. It is a small sign of the unintended consequence of Rabid individualism in the US
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUnTeX
From a pure "image" perspective.. good idea? bad idea?

Will this attract good students and professors?

Will it help the reputation of future graduates?

Will potential employers like this?
 
Last edited:
GoodOl'Rutgers said:
From a pure "image" perspective.. good idea? bad idea?

Will this attract good students and professors?

Will it help the reputation of future graduates?

Will potential employers like this?
Click to expand...

potential employers for English majors? This must be something new. I didn’t think there were any potential employers for English majors
 
ElmiraExpress said:
potential employers for English majors? This must be something new. I didn’t think there were any potential employers for English majors
Click to expand...
You make a joke about it but it could very well be a positive thing. Corporations have to handle the political climate just like Rutgers English Department seems to be.
 
SkilletHead2 said:
Not sure folks are reading this issue accurately. Here is what the email from Walkowitz (not Volkowitz) actually says:

Incorporating “critical grammar” into our pedagogy. This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents.

It's really the only paragraph about grammar in an incredibly long email, and it says that the University should challenge the dogma that emphasis on grammar should be de-emphasized. If you are scoring that at home, it means that Walkowitz is saying that de-emphasizing grammar should be challenged, not encouraged. Being an academic, she employs three negatives and litotes to make her point, so it is understandable that it might be misread. And it appears, although it isn't clear, that she is probably mostly talking about people for whom English is a second language.

At the end of the day, when we work with students in any area, if their standard English is weak, we want to work with them to improve that as standard English is the coin of the realm. At the same time, we don't want to overly punish students on their grades because they grew up in a non-standard English-speaking home. We want to grade them primarily on their ideas and comprehension of the course material, and at the same time, improve their writing. I've only encountered one or two students in 45 years of college teaching whose writing couldn't stand some improvement (as can mine, and my tenth book is coming out in a couple of months -- watch this space).

At the same time, not all writing has to be standard English and in some settings, vernacular, jargon, and even just bizarre writing are rewarded (try reading some Joyce or cummings). You even occasionally see some non-standard English on this board.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight66
There, their, they're. Don't be upset about our language being watered down in favor of eliminating bias. The most important concept in the world right now is not to hurt anybody's feelings. "Bias", "prejudice" and "otherness" must be eradicated even if it costs our country its very own language.
 
added this to the OP.. I see Sir Scarlet Knight above beat me to it

EDIT: Just wanted to come back and EDIT this thread OP to say that Skillethead on the other board explained the relevant material and showed me that the department head was actually arguing the opposite of what the alarmists assumed she had said. In essence.. that while "accented English" is arguably NOT something that should be penalized.. using reasonably proper grammar could HELP with that. She was arguing FOR teaching proper grammar and NOT abandoning it in some effort to be more inclusive of "accented English".

In other words, I was 100% wrong to assume the alarmists were onto something here. Instead of something to be "ashamed of".. we should be proud there is some defense of English going on at Rutgers and being done so in such an "academic" way. This is exactly the kind of thing to be expected from a fine university.
 
leftoright said:
There, their, they're. Don't be upset about our language being watered down in favor of eliminating bias. The most important concept in the world right now is not to hurt anybody's feelings. "Bias", "prejudice" and "otherness" must be eradicated even if it costs our country its very own language.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Left and Right, in post-revolutionary America, spelling was kind of fluid. Not sure what a review of newspapers and popular books of the time would reveal about grammar and syntax, but have strong suspicions. What would Veblen say about our emphasis on the rules of grammar? The proper use of commas has always been my particular bane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodOl'Rutgers
Your inaugural post on this board and you chose to be confrontational? Well, actually, kind of like your "work" on the Iowa football board.
 
Tonight, 8/6/20, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, one Prof Jason Hill of Depaul U claimed...

"Rutgers University has declared grammar, racist"

.. then went on to tell us how this means the end of freedom and democracy and our history.

While I made the same mistake based on the early reporting of this issue.. I am not a Professor making my living from presenting on issues like this, nor did I seek national exposure.

Prof Jason Hill got it wrong and should hear from Rutgers U lawyers. And Tucker Carlson's show should hear from the English Department Chair who should be given the opportunity to set the record straight.

 
RC1966 said:
Maybe this is a good time to stop relying on rabidly right-wing blog sites and "news" programs for "information".
Click to expand...
Sir, do you have anything to say about the English Department Chair's message on this topic which has not been mentioned on any of your "rabidly left-wing blog sites and "news" programs" where you get your information.

In short, my reply to your suggestion is, no, thank you. The reason FoxNews is popular is that they cover topics and ask questions that the leftist media.. the mainstream media.. will not touch. And they got a lot more correct about the, going on 4-year long, Russia Hoax than the rest of the media combined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caliknight
You don't know me, so you don't know what sources I go to for news, but I rely almost exclusively on straight reporting and C-SPAN rather than editorials and opinion pieces disseminating undocumented, biased, selective assertions of fact. I made the earlier comment because you initiated this thread with an opinion piece that misrepresented the statements of the Rutgers English Department Chair. Fortunately, that distortion was debunked by others on this site by actually going to the source of her comments. To your credit, GoodOl'Rutgers, you acknowledged that by editing your initial post. I doubt Tucker Carlson will invite Chair Walkowitz on his show to "correct the record". That's not what he does because he's a propagandist/entertainer, not a news journalist, and he's already thrown the red meat to his following. Regrettably, many people eat that up and the false accusation on national TV damages the reputation of our Alma Mater. I hope you are as bothered about this as I am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scripts, Sir ScarletKnight and NotInRHouse
Oh, he would love to invite The Chair. He can out-debate any lefty intellectual you got. (you have? you choose? you favor?) (favour?)
 
Read ten AP stories to see if there is one complimentary or even one without diminishing or disparaging any act that Trump has accomplished. USA Today and Reuters not far behind in their antipathy.
 
Knight66 said:
You don't know me, so you don't know what sources I go to for news, but I rely almost exclusively on straight reporting and C-SPAN rather than editorials and opinion pieces disseminating undocumented, biased, selective assertions of fact. I made the earlier comment because you initiated this thread with an opinion piece that misrepresented the statements of the Rutgers English Department Chair. Fortunately, that distortion was debunked by others on this site by actually going to the source of her comments. To your credit, GoodOl'Rutgers, you acknowledged that by editing your initial post. I doubt Tucker Carlson will invite Chair Walkowitz on his show to "correct the record". That's not what he does because he's a propagandist/entertainer, not a news journalist, and he's already thrown the red meat to his following. Regrettably, many people eat that up and the false accusation on national TV damages the reputation of our Alma Mater. I hope you are as bothered about this as I am.
Click to expand...

First, I did read the original document after I saw it mentioned on FoxNews and elsewhere. So this "debunking" thing was more of a case of explaining a needlessly confusing collection of sentences. I think the problem was that the Chair was clear-minded about what she was saying and her intended audience, likewise, understood the context. But people not directly involved in teaching college-level English TODAY might not have the necessary background to connect the dots to arrive at the intended meaning. I certainly did not.

If you saw the Tucker video with the DePaul Prof.. you might have noticed that he did not follow up at all on the Rutgers comment. But the next night Laura Ingraham did mention how "grammar is now racist".. which clearly is an echo to the original "reporting" on the issue as well as that DePaul prof's take.

But it all stems from what was a difficultly worded post by the English Department Chair. It was not immediately clear what she was saying and with so many far-left prognostications from Rutgers profs from other departments, it was probably fairly easy to assume that she was saying that "proper grammar is racist". Which is why this thread exists.

It took a former Rutgers prof, @SkilletHead2 , to set the record straight. But that this is still be talked about in the media means that something should be done to correct this impression.

BTW.. I had replied to @RC1966 and the next post, which seems to reply to me, is from @Knight66 .. are you the same person?
 
Last edited:
It is unfortunate that the chair of our English Department is unable to express herself in clear, simple English without resorting to jargon-laden gobbledygook. What are we to make of "encourages students to develop an awareness of the variety of choices available to them with regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on 'written' "accents"." Looks like she strung together a group of buzz words. The primary purpose of writing is to convey what you are thinking to the readers so that they will understand exactly what you are saying. There should be little or no room for misinterpretation.
 
RUinFla said:
It is unfortunate that the chair of our English Department is unable to express herself in clear, simple English without resorting to jargon-laden gobbledygook.
Click to expand...
Have you every spoke with, or read, any academic?
It's like lawyer-ese or any other jargon. Lots of insider knowledge signaling but it makes perfect sense to them.
 
srru86 said:
Have you every spoke with, or read, any academic?
It's like lawyer-ese or any other jargon. Lots of insider knowledge signaling but it makes perfect sense to them.
Click to expand...

To be fair, spent 35 years at NSA, which had its own jargon that users had to master to understand some of our reports. Served a couple of sentences as an editor, and managed to clarify some stuff without mangling or writing it as I would have. As in any field, people were writing primarily for consumers that knew--and expected--the jargon.
 
RUinFla said:
spent 35 years at NSA
Click to expand...
That's a whole other level of through the looking glass - house of mirrors stuff.

Not one myself, but spent a bunch of years working for academics. It was refreshing to find a few that could still communicate clearly without the trappings. If you heard Holloway's interview on the B1G, or some of his other stuff online, it seems we might have found one.
 
GoodOl'Rutgers said:
First, I did read the original document after I saw it mentioned on FoxNews and elsewhere. So this "debunking" thing was more of a case of explaining a needlessly confusing collection of sentences. I think the problem was that the Chair was clear-minded about what she was saying and her intended audience, likewise, understood the context. But people not directly involved in teaching college-level English TODAY might not have the necessary background to connect the dots to arrive at the intended meaning. I certainly did not.

If you saw the Tucker video with the DePaul Prof.. you might have noticed that he did not follow up at all on the Rutgers comment. But the next night Laura Ingraham did mention how "grammar is now racist".. which clearly is an echo to the original "reporting" on the issue as well as that DePaul prof's take.

But it all stems from what was a difficultly worded post by the English Department Chair. It was not immediately clear what she was saying and with so many far-left prognostications from Rutgers profs from other departments, it was probably fairly easy to assume that she was saying that "proper grammar is racist". Which is why this thread exists.

It took a former Rutgers prof, @SkilletHead2 , to set the record straight. But that this is still be talked about in the media means that something should be done to correct this impression.

BTW.. I had replied to @RC1966 and the next post, which seems to reply to me, is from @Knight66 .. are you the same person?
Click to expand...
Sorry to have missed your question about my usernames until now. I do have two usernames, but it's inadvertent because, while traveling away from home, I'd forgotten my password and had to sign up under a new username to revisit the site. As you might have seen in the statistics for either username, I visit this site very infrequently, and even more rarely post a comment. I first signed up a little over 4 years ago before leaving for my 50th year class reunion to catch up on Rutgers-related news. It was my first visit to campus since graduation because, after living in NYC to complete post-graduate studies, I've been living in places that are thousands of miles away, first in Latin America and later (and presently) in Hawaii. I regret posting a message with political overtones because I don't like engaging in this type of thing, especially on-line. It's pointless because it can quickly degrade into sniping and doesn't promote reasonable dialogue at all, as evidenced by the posts that followed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodOl'Rutgers
Knight66 said:
Sorry to have missed your question about my usernames until now. I do have two usernames, but it's inadvertent because, while traveling away from home, I'd forgotten my password and had to sign up under a new username to revisit the site. As you might have seen in the statistics for either username, I visit this site very infrequently, and even more rarely post a comment. I first signed up a little over 4 years ago before leaving for my 50th year class reunion to catch up on Rutgers-related news. It was my first visit to campus since graduation because, after living in NYC to complete post-graduate studies, I've been living in places that are thousands of miles away, first in Latin America and later (and presently) in Hawaii. I regret posting a message with political overtones because I don't like engaging in this type of thing, especially on-line. It's pointless because it can quickly degrade into sniping and doesn't promote reasonable dialogue at all, as evidenced by the posts that followed.
Click to expand...
Spoken well like the classic "Rutgers Man". Enjoy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RC1966
Many people want to learn English grammar, but they don't even know what it is. You can't just suddenly start talking in a foreign language. Even if you know the words, you won't be able to put them together in a way that makes any sense. Words are combined according to special principles. In each language, they are different.
I'm not saying that English grammar is the only key to success, and it should come first. But I think it's much better to talk with a minimum of mystics, or not to make them at all. I used englishlinx.com to improve my English grammar skill, and it worked well for me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back