Rutgers English Department to deemphasize traditional grammar ‘in solidarity with Black Lives Matter’

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm bemused by the Woke nonsense of Rutgers English Department, but.

FAKE GRAMMAR

 

[Jarhyn]

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

I assume this is a rhetorical question, given how very easy it would be to look this up when you're already on a computer.

Actually, it's amazing that Rutgers didn't think to ask random guys on the internet how to design their program, given that they clearly know nothing about teaching English.

It apparently means that Metaphor doesn't read at a very high level.

Essentially it means "reducing emphasis on grammatical rhythm in sentence structure, and instead favoring clarity of intent, especially in the face of people with a superiority complex with regards to language". They probably could have said it more directly, but they're still English majors.

 

[TSwizzle]

Incorporating “critical grammar” into our pedagogy. This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents.



What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

It means they assume that non white students are too dumb to learn higher level English. I guess this really is a case of institutional racism. Burn the place down.

 

[TSwizzle]

Grading is a great way to protect the white property of literacy in schools

Hilarious;

MUNCIE, Ind. — Ball State University recently hosted a presentation to “engage with the question of how English language practices in college classrooms contribute to white supremacy.”

“Freeing Our Minds and Innovating Our Pedagogy from White Language Supremacy” was the title of the 75-minute guest lecture given on October 14 by Asao Inoue, a professor and the associate dean of the College of Integrative Sciences and Arts at Arizona State University.

“We are all implicated in white supremacy,” Inoue said during his presentation, co-hosted by Ball State’s English department, university writing program, and Office of Inclusive Excellence.

“This is because white supremacist systems like all systems reproduce themselves as a matter of course,” he said. “This includes reproduction of dominant, white, middle-class, monolingual standards for literacy and communication.”

thecollegefix

 

[Politesse]

Incorporating “critical grammar” into our pedagogy. This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents.



What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

It means they assume that non white students are too dumb to learn higher level English. I guess this really is a case of institutional racism. Burn the place down.

That is literally the exact opposite of what they're saying. Did you even read the article before shitposting your response to it?

 

[Derec]

It means they assume that non white students are too dumb to learn higher level English. I guess this really is a case of institutional racism. Burn the place down.

Exactly! It's soft bigotry of low expectations.

And given the ideological state of US universities, can "critical math" and "critical science" be far behind?
Would any of you fly in a plane designed by a "critical aerospace engineer"?

 

[Politesse]

And given the ideological state of US universities, can "critical math" and "critical science" be far behind?
Would any of you fly in a plane designed by a "critical aerospace engineer"?

Absolutely. Critical thinking is not your enemy, even if you are an enemy to it.

 

[Derec]

Absolutely. Critical thinking is not your enemy, even if you are an enemy to it.

Nice try, but "critical X" as used in contemporary academia has nothing to do with critical thinking, but is a mindless rejection of established concepts for ideological reasons.
Case in point: claiming that proper grammar is an example of "white supremacy".

 

[Derec]

That is literally the exact opposite of what they're saying. Did you even read the article before shitposting your response to it?

Did you read it? That's exactly what they are saying. According to them, it's "racist" to expect non-whites to use standard English.

 

[laughing dog]

That is literally the exact opposite of what they're saying. Did you even read the article before shitposting your response to it?

Did you read it? That's exactly what they are saying. According to them, it's "racist" to expect non-whites to use standard English.

Apparently you do not understand standard English. "This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues " means do not concentrate solely on grammar, spelling and punctuation. Something, by the way, most English departments have been doing for years.

 

[Politesse]

Absolutely. Critical thinking is not your enemy, even if you are an enemy to it.

Nice try, but "critical X" as used in contemporary academia has nothing to do with critical thinking, but is a mindless rejection of established concepts for ideological reasons.
Case in point: claiming that proper grammar is an example of "white supremacy".

No, but elevating the vernacular speech of the mostly-but-not-entirely-white upper classes as "proper" and degrading all other forms as "improper" is definitely a presumption that critical theory has (very justifiably) challenged. Your (apparent) belief that only Blacks speak "improperly" enough to merit proof-reading is more than a little bit racist, but that's not what the Rutgers story is about.

 

[Politesse]

That is literally the exact opposite of what they're saying. Did you even read the article before shitposting your response to it?

Did you read it? That's exactly what they are saying. According to them, it's "racist" to expect non-whites to use standard English.

It doesn't say anything of the sort... Like, it says quite the opposite, that they refuse to abandon traditional proof-checking as such, even though they are modifying their approach to it.

 

[Metaphor]

Perhaps the problem is that you were not the audience. It was written by the chair in communication with the faculty, staff and students in the English department in Rutgers not some reactionary Australian pedant. Now, if the intended audience did not understand it, that would be an issue.

I'm glad you think it was a well constructed, lucid paragraph.

As for whether the intended audience understood it, I've no idea.

That seems to be true so it's a bit puzzling why you chose to start a thread about it.

i didn't.

 

[Metaphor]

That is literally the exact opposite of what they're saying. Did you even read the article before shitposting your response to it?

Did you read it? That's exactly what they are saying. According to them, it's "racist" to expect non-whites to use standard English.

Apparently you do not understand standard English. "This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues " means do not concentrate solely on grammar, spelling and punctuation. Something, by the way, most English departments have been doing for years.

No. That sentence means the exact opposite. The fact that you and others have interpreted this paragraph differently is good evidence to me it's extremely poorly constructed.

Incorporating “critical grammar” into our pedagogy. This approach (ie critical grammar) challenges (as in, somehow differs from, opposes) the familiar dogma (why 'familiar' dogma? Is most dogma obscure?) that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues (so, criticism of "grammar/sentence-level issues" should be limited, according to the 'familiar dogma' that isn't critical grammar) as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds (what is a non-standard "academic" English background?) at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness (as opposed to a standard awareness, I suppose) of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues (that is: "point out" that their composition has "micro-level" issues as seen from some particular perspective) in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents. (don't encourage them to change the "micro-level" issues but let them know they are free to reject the criticism of the writing as not conforming).

In other words, the "familiar dogma" already limits criticising of "nonstandard" "micro-level" issues of a student's writing because feelings. The 'critical approach' will continue to limit the criticism but will 'empower' the student to know that the (presumably racist) idea that they are free to reject the very notion that "micro-level" issues exist.

 

[ZiprHead]

Hilarious;

MUNCIE, Ind. — Ball State University recently hosted a presentation to “engage with the question of how English language practices in college classrooms contribute to white supremacy.”

“Freeing Our Minds and Innovating Our Pedagogy from White Language Supremacy” was the title of the 75-minute guest lecture given on October 14 by Asao Inoue, a professor and the associate dean of the College of Integrative Sciences and Arts at Arizona State University.

“We are all implicated in white supremacy,” Inoue said during his presentation, co-hosted by Ball State’s English department, university writing program, and Office of Inclusive Excellence.

“This is because white supremacist systems like all systems reproduce themselves as a matter of course,” he said. “This includes reproduction of dominant, white, middle-class, monolingual standards for literacy and communication.”

thecollegefix

Media Bias/Fact Check: College Fix

RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Overall, we rate The College Fix strongly Right Biased based on story selection and editorials that consistently aligns with the conservative right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed checks.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180

History

Founded in 2011, the College Fix is a conservative news blog run by the Student Free Press Association which is a nonprofit organization run by veteran journalists to help beginning journalists. The veteran journalists in this case are all conservatives. The College Fix typically writes about higher education news, but also covers politics.

Read our profile on United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

The College Fix is owned by the Student Free Press Association, which is a nonprofit run by journalists. The website lacks transparency as they do not disclose top donors. However, a search reveals they have been funded by Koch Industries and The Bradley Foundation. Revenue is also derived through advertising.

link

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently you do not understand standard English. "This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues " means do not concentrate solely on grammar, spelling and punctuation. Something, by the way, most English departments have been doing for years.

No. That sentence means the exact opposite. The fact that you and others have interpreted this paragraph differently is good evidence to me it's extremely poorly constructed....

Nope. It is very clear to me - do not focus exclusively on grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Incorporating “critical grammar” into our pedagogy. This approach (ie critical grammar) challenges (as in, somehow differs from, opposes) the familiar dogma (why 'familiar' dogma? Is most dogma obscure?) that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues (so, criticism of "grammar/sentence-level issues" should be limited, according to the 'familiar dogma' that isn't critical grammar) as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds (what is a non-standard "academic" English background?) at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness (as opposed to a standard awareness, I suppose) of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues (that is: "point out" that their composition has "micro-level" issues as seen from some particular perspective) in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents. (don't encourage them to change the "micro-level" issues but let them know they are free to reject the criticism of the writing as not conforming).

In other words, the "familiar dogma" already limits criticising of "nonstandard" "micro-level" issues of a student's writing because feelings. The 'critical approach' will continue to limit the criticism but will 'empower' the student to know that the (presumably racist) idea that they are free to reject the very notion that "micro-level" issues exist.

Cool word salad, but the presentation of the meal is off-putting and the ingredients are indigestable. Before you try reading between the lines, you need to actually read and comprehend the lines.

 

[Metaphor]

Nope. It is very clear to me - do not focus exclusively on grammar, spelling and punctuation.

The "standard dogma" approach already did that.

 

[Metaphor]

Nope. It is very clear to me - do not focus exclusively on grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Incorporating “critical grammar” into our pedagogy. This approach (ie critical grammar) challenges (as in, somehow differs from, opposes) the familiar dogma (why 'familiar' dogma? Is most dogma obscure?) that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues (so, criticism of "grammar/sentence-level issues" should be limited, according to the 'familiar dogma' that isn't critical grammar) as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds (what is a non-standard "academic" English background?) at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness (as opposed to a standard awareness, I suppose) of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues (that is: "point out" that their composition has "micro-level" issues as seen from some particular perspective) in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents. (don't encourage them to change the "micro-level" issues but let them know they are free to reject the criticism of the writing as not conforming).

In other words, the "familiar dogma" already limits criticising of "nonstandard" "micro-level" issues of a student's writing because feelings. The 'critical approach' will continue to limit the criticism but will 'empower' the student to know that the (presumably racist) idea that they are free to reject the very notion that "micro-level" issues exist.

Cool word salad, but the presentation of the meal is off-putting and the ingredients are indigestable. Before you try reading between the lines, you need to actually read and comprehend the lines.

Reading between them? Non. I was trying to understand the original intent.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. It is very clear to me - do not focus exclusively on grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Incorporating “critical grammar” into our pedagogy. This approach (ie critical grammar) challenges (as in, somehow differs from, opposes) the familiar dogma (why 'familiar' dogma? Is most dogma obscure?) that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues (so, criticism of "grammar/sentence-level issues" should be limited, according to the 'familiar dogma' that isn't critical grammar) as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds (what is a non-standard "academic" English background?) at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness (as opposed to a standard awareness, I suppose) of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues (that is: "point out" that their composition has "micro-level" issues as seen from some particular perspective) in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents. (don't encourage them to change the "micro-level" issues but let them know they are free to reject the criticism of the writing as not conforming).

In other words, the "familiar dogma" already limits criticising of "nonstandard" "micro-level" issues of a student's writing because feelings. The 'critical approach' will continue to limit the criticism but will 'empower' the student to know that the (presumably racist) idea that they are free to reject the very notion that "micro-level" issues exist.

Cool word salad, but the presentation of the meal is off-putting and the ingredients are indigestable. Before you try reading between the lines, you need to actually read and comprehend the lines.

Reading between them? Non. I was trying to understand the original intent.

Since you failed to understand it, you are either reading between the lines or completely off the page.

 

[Metaphor]

Reading between them? Non. I was trying to understand the original intent.

Since you failed to understand it, you are either reading between the lines or completely off the page.

Yes, at first I believe I failed to understand it. I had the shadow of an idea of what it might be trying to convey but doubted myself, because it's a typical member of the species 'academic gobbledygook'.

I applied more effort into understanding it, which is why I believe your understanding about the first sentence to be wrong, for the reasons I've given. But that I was able to pry the meaning out, kicking and screaming, doesn't mean it wasn't an awful piece of writing.