In her Jan. 16 column, “Ebonics is actually just bad English,” Theresa Wilson said “Ebonics is not black English. It is bad English.” She also said “I am not a linguistic anthropologist, but my heart tells me that Ebonics is not a language.” That’s not just bad reasoning. It isn’t reasoning at all.

As for “Ebonics,” despite what Ms. Wilson’s heart may tell her, black English isn’t bad, just different. At least that’s what people who really are linguists say. In fact, the Linguistic Society of America supports the Oakland school board’s efforts and passed a resolution to that fact calling Ebonics an acceptable derivation of English. In fact, John R. Rickford, a Stanford University professor who serves on the society’s governing board said black English — while the uniformed or simply biased may believe otherwise — is “systematic, regular and complex insofar as it involves a vocabulary or lexicon, phonology or sound system, and a grammar — set of rules.”

In truth, Ms. Wilson’ s reaction is understandable (if not defensible). As a child, “incorrect” English was not permitted and I came to think there was a good way to speak and write and a bad way to speak and write. However, since becoming trilingual I have come to realize that the true purpose of language is the communication and expression of ideas, thoughts and feelings.

To Ms. Wilson, and those of you who support her position, I’d suggest you consider the English language that you cherish so is in the minds of many as a bastardization of “proper” British English. In fact, here in Europe there was quite a controversy stemming from the desire of Continental Europeans to use American English instead of British English for a truck driver’s manual. The British were stunned and appalled, but the other Europeans said that’s what they understood best, so the perverted American deviation of the Queen’s English was used.

But then , say an English monk from the sixth century they would most likely observe that even modern day Brits speak a bit funny. While his modern counterpart (more or less) might say, “I am monk, and I sing each day seven tides (with) brothers; and I am busied (in) reading and (in) song, I would between learn (to) speak in English among mine other manifold businesses…, he would think that it would more properly be said, “Ic eom munuc, and ic singe aelce daeg sofon tida mid gebroprum: and ic eom gebysgod on raedinga and on sange; ac ic wolde betweonum leornian sprecan on Englisc ongemong minum oprum manigfaldum bysum… “

Got that? If not, that’s OK. Don’t feel bad, you just don’t speak Old English (a fact you may have discovered in high school trying to read “Beowulf”) because our wonderful cherished language has changed quite a bit over the centuries. But you don’t even have to go back that far, Shakespeare, the founders and even Fitzgerald would probably be a bit confused by the modern American vernacular.

Does that mean we’re speaking and writing incorrectly? Certainly not. After all, it’s not just us. The Spaniards have to deal with Latin Americans who have abandoned an entire spoken and written form of the English equivalent “you” called the vosotros form. The French would prefer that everyone say soixante-dix and quatre-vingt-dix when saying 70 and 90, but the Belgians prefer to say septante and nonante.

Who’s right?

Nobody and everybody. Language is always in transition (just as we are) and there is no one true right way to speak. This is a fact that we should accept rather than denigrate, especially since we can’t stop the process.

In any event, some may call Ebonics a language others a dialect, it really doesn’t matter to me. If the use of that language/dialect will help black students who are presently being denied a good education learn the standard English that Ms. Wilson and, admittedly, employers love, let Oakland try. For while you criticize, a generation of potential is being lost.

So chill out and let these educators do their jobs. The only ones who have anything to lose are losing out already.

It’s been said drastic times call for drastic measures. I’d say the rather shocking drop out and failure rates that Ms. Wilson so accurately quoted speak of drastic times. Wouldn’t you?

Peace.

David G. Mosby

Iowa State Alum

Former Daily Opinion Editor and Columnist

U.S. State Department Intern

U.S. Delegation to OECD, Paris