way, but to open up a discussion and examination which has been
suppressed for too long.
There is another kind of chance I take here, one that is not new to me.
Many people take strong exception to the ideas presented here. Beliefs
about the way language should be used are passed down and protected in
much the same way that religious beliefs are passed along and cherished.
Some will call me a language anarchist and a liberal elitist; I know this,
because I have been called such things before, and by colleagues I respect.
This kind of reaction I take as further proof of the power of the standard
language ideology that we are all exposed to.
In fact, some colleagues have suggested that you, the reader, could take
offense at the material presented here. The concern is that you may
consider yourself judged and found lacking. My own experience tells me
that most university students have more intellectual rigor than they are
given credit for, and will at least attempt to think critically before taking
offense. This has been borne out by research classrooms where race and
conflict are central themes:
The more comfortable instructors are to openly engage difficult
dialogues (and not simply gloss over substantive issues), the more willing
students are to share openly (Simpson et al. 2007). In addition, students
are often willing to move into and through emotional tension when other
class members move beyond blaming, condescending or patronizing
(ibid.: 43). What we have learned generally from critical analyses of race
(particularly whiteness) is that the analysis of student (and teacher)
responses lends insight into the ways that whiteness is both challenged and
reproduced in the everyday spaces of education (Cooks 2003; Johnson et
al. 2008: 116; Warren 2001).
In the hope that it will provide some perspective, this quote from
Murray Rothbard, an economist:
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a
specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a
“dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and
vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state
of ignorance.
(Rothbard 2000: 202)