letters ... the ability of Mr. Griffin to diagnose a ‘language-problem’”
(Sparks v. Griffin 442).^24
The letters written by Mr. Griffin regarding the dismissal of Ms. Sparks
and referred to by the court were, in fact, poorly written and contained
many spelling and/or typographical errors; nevertheless, the court is
clearly uncomfortable chiding an educator, in this case, an administrator
with advanced degrees, in matters of language use: “with no disposition to
be unkind.” More importantly, the court never addressed the content of Mr.
Griffin’s complaint (Ms. Sparks’ “negro dialect” and its appropriateness
for the classroom); it addressed only the superintendent’s qualifications to
make judgments on that dialect, given his poor letter writing skills.
Would the court have thought seriously about this criticism if Mr.
Griffin had written elegant, grammatically appropriate prose? If the
attorney had argued that Ms. Sparks’ teaching effectiveness was
compromised by her language use? It seems likely that the school systems
could have found a line of argumentation which would have pleased the
courts; they just failed to do so in this case. The court neatly sidestepped
the “concededly delicate subject” of language-focused discrimination for
Edwards as well: “The district court stated in its opinion that it was
‘apparent’ that the plaintiff could be easily understood and that there was
no evidence the plaintiff made grammatical errors rendering her speech
difficult to understand” (ibid.).
In these two cases, the schools were deservedly punished for racial
discrimination; for language-focused discrimination, they were slapped on
the wrist.
It is worthwhile looking at how race and national origin intersect in
cases involving persons of African origin. Figure 9.2 breaks down the nine
examined language-focused cases which were filed by such persons.