People often ask how they can use their privilege for good. The answer is you can't. A more productive starting point may be to ask what you can do to ensure that you no longer have these privileges.
Using white privilege in the name of anti-racism reinforces white supremacy. Using male privilege in the name of gender equity reinforces patriarchy. Using cis-het privilege in the name of queer rights reinforces heteronormativity. And the list goes on.
For example instead of trying to use their privilege for good white people could center POC voices over their own, men could work to ensure that women in their workplace are not burdened with more responsibilities and cishet people ensure that they use more inclusive language.
Most importantly, it means taking actions to doing everything you can to ensure that you no longer have these privileged without expecting gratitude or thanks. It means doing these things because they are the right things to do not because you want brownie points.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Jim Cummins has a new book organized around a critique of translanguaging and a raciolinguistic perspective. I am not going to link to it but I would never have predicted that this is where the discomfort that I experienced when I first read him as an undergrad would lead me 😅
Cummins and I will never agree because we are coming from completely different epistemological orientations and begin from a completely different locus of enunciation. Basically he assumes his normative white locus of enunciation is objective and I don’t so we are at an impasse.
Cummins and I can’t even agree on how to evaluate claims. He insists on claims having “empirical adequacy” or supported by all of the relevant empirical data. Meanwhile, I want to know who decides what counts as empirical data and how those decisions silence marginalized voices.
So in addition to the hatred of Latinx from the Brotinos who insist that Latino is already gender neutral are people who hate Latinx because they say everybody should be using Latine instead. Prescriptivist impositions is never the path to liberation though.
The idea that one term should be the only correct way of describing a large and diverse group of people with different nationalities, social classes, religions, phenotypes, gender identities etc. (which is true for literally every ethnoracial category) is misguided at best.
So instead of insisting that everybody should use your preferred term(s) maybe a more useful point of entry might be to explain to others why you prefer a specific term and assume that they have put as much thought into their preferred term(s) as you have
Researchers committed to making the case that “academic language” is more complex than “social language” are actually committed to making the case for their own intellectual superiority over people from low-income communities of color that most of them are too scared to enter.
Because these researchers have never been in low income communities of color they describe their homes as “lacking a strong foundation in academic language” not based on any empirical data but just based on what feels right to them.
Researchers who insist that they are not arguing that academic language is more complex than social language are even more disingeneous because they want to be able to maintain a dichotomy while claiming innocence about their complicity in reproducing deficit perspectives.
I was first introduced to Cummins’ work in my teacher education program. It provided the first justification I have ever seen for bilingual education and was hugely important in my professional trajectory. I would have never predicted that years later I would be debating him.
That said, the BICS/CALP dichotomy always rubbed be the wrong way. I remember pushing back against the description of certain language practices as “basic” and was told he didn’t mean it literally. I was like how did he mean it then?
But it was when I became a classroom teacher that I began to see the real harm of the dichotomy. I worked with students classified as “long term English learners” who I found myself describing as lacking academic language in either English or Spanish. I saw my job as to fix them.
Over the years I have confronted a great deal of academic gaslighting from scholars in the field who constantly tried to get me to second guess myself. Some examples of this academic gaslighting are included in this thread of receipts:
1.) Scholars who insisted that "we already know that" when I sought to bring attention to how white supremacy shapes the concepts used to describe the language practices of racialized communities despite having never written the words white supremacy in any of their scholarship.
2.) Scholars who took personal offense at my critiques of their work with one prominent scholar going as far as sending me multiple e-mails questioning my intelligence without ever addressing any of the points I made in the article that they had clearly not read.
It is interesting to see how comfortable many white liberals have become with Lisa Delpit's work since the 1990s when it caused many white tears. They often cite her in defense of the importance of teaching POC the codes of power. Yet, this was only one part of her argument.
Delpit’s main point was that white progressive educators were systematically silencing the voices of Black educators. In particular, she examined the ways that the race evasive discourse of progressive education ignored the racialized realities of BIPOC.
Delpit's point was that progressive education did not account for the importance of preparing BIPOC for the realities of white supremacy and positioned Black educators working to prepare Black children for a racist world as “traditional” educators (i.e as part of the problem).