According to an Arizona State University English professor, “White language supremacy” is the problem. The solution is to destroy grading standards.
Asao B.Inoue, a professor at ASU of Rhetoric & Composition, is urging his fellow (xello?) teachers to do the same. Teachers should fight “white language dominance” by using labor-based grading which “reparts power in ways that allow more diverse habits for language to circulate.”
Problem is: “White Language Supremacy in Writing Classrooms” is due to the diverse and uneven linguistic legacy that everyone inherits and the racialized, white discourses that are used to standardize, which gives privilege to students who already have those habits of using white language.
This means that when children learn proper English, they lose all their childhood vernacular. Then, we will all die from injustice, The End.
Perhaps Inoue means that people of color can’t learn English properly.
Tell James Earl Jones, Mr. Inoue.
I would also suggest that a professor in Rhetoric and Composition should avoid using this sentence from his unicorn-decorated twitter profile. “Our langauge changes as we do. This kind of conventioning work could help students become lifelong languagelings who can learn about conventioning throughout their lives.
Teacher, give me an F.
Inoue suggests labor-based grading to combat the power. This “structurally alters everyone’s relationship with dominant standards of English which come from elite, masculine and heteronormative groups of speakers.”
According to The College Fix, this is based on a presentation he gave recently on the subject.
According to Fix, labor-based grading refers to assigning grades based upon the labor students have put into their assignments rather than grammar, style, and quality.
Finally, we have the answer to the question that almost nobody was asking: What happens if Karl Marx’s labor theory is valued gets tenure?
Because it is absurd, the labor theory of value is popular among Leftists. Marx, who was never a laborer in his life, proposed that labor has intrinsic value. He said that “labor” had no use-value and that commodities have only one property, that is, the property of being products.
It sounds absurd in German, I’m sure.
In short, “labor” is what determines a product’s value and not its competitive market.
This is a crackpot theory that can be easily discredited.
Let’s take the example of a talented pastry chef, and… me.
You can give a few dollars of butter, flour, and sugar to the chef to make a beautiful and delicious cake that you’d be happy to spend a lot of money for.
I’m not a baker and don’t have any interest in baking. If you let me work on the same ingredients for two hours, the result will be a hot mess that is less valuable than the cost of the ingredients.
(Apologies, this is not my example. However, I cannot find any online resources listing the original author.
It’s not about the “labor”, it’s about the results.
This is how we are supposed to think about English paper grading.
We’re supposed to accept that one student’s craptaculently-written essay has the same value as another student’s beautifully written paper because they both put the same amount of labor into writing them.
Inoue asks college instructors to apply crackpot Marxism theory for those most in need of English instruction.
Inoue implies that black and brown children can’t learn English. He would also deny them the education they need to succeed in this world.
Inoue would sacrifice minorities college students for his “fairness”
James Earl Jones said that “When I read great literature or great drama, speeches, sermons, or sermons I feel that the human brain has not achieved anything more than the ability to communicate feelings and thoughts through the use of language.”
No matter what language or dialect they speak, they will never be able to communicate in English.