“I remember being caught speaking Spanish at recess—that was good for three licks on the knuckles with a sharp ruler. I remember being sent to the corner of the classroom for ‘talking back’ to the Anglo teacher when all I was trying to do was tell her how to pronounce my name. ‘If you want to be American, speak ‘American.’ If you don’t like it, go back to Mexico where you belong.’” Gloria Anzaldua
Earlier this year, public schools in Arizona began “auditing” English teachers who speak English with an accent. If they are deemed to be “poor speakers,” as measured by the so called Standard English dialect, they can be fired regardless of their years of teaching experience, training, or instructional excellence. Such enforcement has caused much outrage as you will see in the videos below.
But this unfortunate “crack down” in Arizona isn’t new. The privileging of standard dialect in the English teaching business has been going on long before Arizona began its ridiculous policy in May of this year. To teach English abroad, for instance, one must (in most cases) be a native. (Some EFL jobs don’t even require a degree. As long as you are a native, that’s all that matters.) Look at EFL job postings online, and you’ll see that I’m not kidding. I actually know about this from experience. While finishing up my bachelor in English, I became interested in teaching English abroad, but I noticed that all of the jobs I wanted required that I am a native speaker—and I am not. There are times when I still speak with an accent, and even though I have a B.A. and an M.A. in English, as well as a graduate certificate in TESOL, I am still deemed unqualified. Recently, our graduate director forwarded a job announcement for teaching in Korea or Hong Kong, and again, being a native speaker is a must to apply.
So how and when did “nativeness” and “proper” accent become such important issues in the teaching of English? When did it all being? We can trace the obsession with “correctness,” “proper” pronunciation, and “standard dialect” back to Edinburgh, Scotland in the 18th century, when a professor of rhetoric and belles letters in the name of Hugh Blair published his famous work: Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Letters.
In his work, Blair lays down the importance of using proper English, which he believes is a reflection of a man’s taste, gentlemanliness, refined character, and class. Blair goes as way as to claim that “good taste” is rooted within reason, good sense and nature. It’s a deep down part of our humanity. Thus, those who use “bad English”—i.e. speak with a provincial accent, mispronounce words, or use improper grammar—would be considered “ungentlemanly” and have bad taste. In fact, according to Linda Ferreira-Buckley and Winifred Horner, an important educational agenda in 18th century Great Britain was to rid British citizens of their “rusticisms” and train them to speak correct and proper English so that they could become English gentlemen and exhibit exquisite refined taste that is appropriate for an English man. Interest in English as the national language came to fruition in this period. Grammar, pronunciation, and standard accent were all important skills that English citizens must master.
Three centuries later, we continue to be obsessed with these 18th century standards and expectations. What’s happening to English teachers in Arizona today can be traced back to Blair’s influence. His beliefs and calls are now being enforced in modern day America. And this makes me wonder: How forward thinking is our educational system after all? Aren’t we witnessing another kind of linguistic terrorism that Chicana feminist writer Gloria Anzaldua has protested and warned against? What, then, might we, as rhetoricians and compositionists, do to create change—to tame all of the bigot’s tongues that are creating dissonance in Arizona and America at large? Thoughts?