“genetics” is associated with highly controversial matters such as innate
intelligence, DNA research and manipulation, stem cell research among
others. See “Last Train to Oakland,” below, for an example of a public
reaction to the use of genetic linking.
Finally, the board set about authenticating their claims by drawing on
what they referred to as “scholarly studies.” This could be interpreted as
an attempt to reach over the heads of potential detractors by establishing a
link to academia and thereby claiming authenticity in a way that could be
challenged on facts. If in fact the Board had consulted with linguists about
the wording of the resolution, this appearance of falsely claiming
authenticity could have been avoided, but they chose not to.
Thus far we have the inferred claims from the resolution:
Our language is fully grammatical within itself; it is distinct and
it links us to our African origins in a way we celebrate.
Our children have suffered educational malpractice because
others refuse to recognize or accept our allegiance to ourselves
and our communities (Baugh 1999).
We can prove it; we have academics and scholars to back us up.Thus the stage was set for a panic of large proportions.
The panic cycle in Oakland
The following collection of media quotes and snippets originates from
more than two thousand items resulting from a database search for the
word Ebonics occurring in a headline or lead paragraph between
November 1996 and 2010. Included are news reports, editorials and letters
to the editor from newspapers, and news and commentary from the
broadcast media.
Representative selections have been divided into rough categories that
correspond with the hypothetical example provided above. As you read,
pay attention to the shift in tone from neutral to hostile by keeping track of
phrasing, descriptive terms, punctuation, and the evolution escalation of
false or distorted reporting of facts. For example, consider the word
primary in the extract from the December 20, 1996 issue of The
Chattanooga Times. How might that be interpreted? Is it meant to be
incendiary?