Just before the second day of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, snippets from a 1994 column written by Iowa first lady Christie Vilsack were released to the public. In the column, Vilsack shared observations on various English dialects and related her comprehension problems.

Republicans and Democrats alike rightly charged her with ignorance, and some people accused her of racism. Other Democrats wrote the issue off as typical politicking.

The ignorance charges hold up, but there is nothing inherently racist in Vilsack’s Aug. 24, 1994 column that made possible this discussion. David R. Guarino, writing for the Boston Herald, broke the story on Monday with a tacit charge of racism.

As evidence he provided a quote from Vilsack’s column, which reads, “I am fascinated at the way some African-Americans speak to each other in an English I struggle to understand, then switch to standard English when the situation requires.”

With that statement, Vilsack acknowledged her difficulty understanding a recognized dialect. She made no value judgment — only an observation and an implication of acceptance.

By “standard English” she probably meant Standard American English — another recognized dialect. SAE can be thought of as a very tempered and plain flavor of English. Members of the media aim for SAE, and it is about as close to the predominant Iowa dialect as possible.

Like Vilsack noted, it is indeed fascinating from a sociological perspective how some blacks have to switch to SAE due to societal pressure. It raises a number of important questions that we as a people must address.

It is also fascinating that Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a black Republican, called for an apology from Vilsack. This is the same Steele who is comfortable with Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich proudly saying that “There is no such thing as a multicultural society that can sustain itself, in my view, and I think history teaches us this lesson.”

Yikes. What can one say in response? If your name is Michael Steele, you say it’s OK, and, “I’m comfortable with my governor.”

Not surprisingly, there is a glimmer of truth to both Republican and Democrat assessments of Vilsack’s column: Mix one part ignorance with one part politicking, and we get a typical partisan debate.

While her 1994 column isn’t racist, it is certainly ignorant about language. She refers to southern speech as “slurred,” implying an impairment on the part of southern speakers.

What Vilsack failed to recognize is that dialects other than her own are not deviations from “proper” English. All dialects are scientifically rule-based and systematic. Certain dialects may seem to have random properties, but that isn’t the case.

Just as no language (apart from pidgin) is more functional than another — as they all have known grammars and essentially the same lexicon — no dialect is more functional than another.

Vilsack clearly recognized the existence of English dialects. Only a basic understanding of phonetics is required to understand her attempt to physically reproduce “New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania” English, as she put it. She mentioned switching between dialects, and albeit awkwardly, refers to them each as “an English.”

Her problem is that she placed functional values on the various English dialects. She showed genuine interest in the unique lexicon each dialect brings, but when it comes down to it, Vilsack propped her own dialect above all others. She three times mentioned “correctness” of one dialect over another.

In one tongue-in-cheek solution, she suggested taxing “those who prefer not to be grammatically correct.” Grammar is simply an evolving ruleset governing syntax, lexicon and other linguistic goodies. Since every language-specific dialect has its own distinct (albeit, similar) grammar, judging one dialect by the grammar of another is ignorant.

Vilsack even (jokingly) suggested that we fine “those who choose to speak the dialects of their geographical areas,” and double the fine for “those who use slang or colloquialisms.” She admitted that her nutcase suggestions were “far-fetched” and “ridiculous,” but that doesn’t erase the fact that she tacitly declared deviations from SAE as bastardizations of what I fear she likes to think of as God’s language.

The next time you hit a dialectic language barrier with someone, don’t pull a Christie Vilsack. Know that all dialects are valid, functionally equal and based on scientific rules — even if those rules aren’t immediately apparent.

Dialect supremacy stems from the same root as bigotry, and that, my friends, isn’t the way to be.