Correcting Grammar Is Not Racist

Claremont McKenna's Center for Writing and Public Discourse.

Alexandra Wofford contributed reporting.

This spring, we were hired by Claremont McKenna’s Center for Writing and Public Discourse (CWPD) and underwent a weeks-long onboarding process to prepare for our time as Writing Consultants. We expected to spend each of our eight meetings learning about writing in different genres and various approaches to assisting students. We certainly did not expect to be taught that correcting grammar is an inherently racist practice.

After our first meeting, we were assigned a research paper that detailed the ways that providing writing feedback can be racist – and the ways that writing consultants fail to effectively act as anti-racist advocates. 

The article is centered around the racist nature of language itself, specifically “Standard American English” (SAE). SAE is considered a formal and professional writing dialect, and is typically used in academic writing. However, according to the article, SAE is not just a particular register of writing, but also “represents the erasure of students’ other linguistic tools and languages.” As consultants, we were urged by our superiors to not correct student’s grammar or issues that may arise from dialectal differences and departures from SAE without request. We were expected to adhere to the belief that all dialects should be considered part of academic writing, and that to consider otherwise is to partake in racist ideology. The paper made it seem as though there was nothing we could do to be deemed an effective “anti-racist writing consultant.”

This idea, however, represents a flawed understanding of academic writing. Even students who grew up learning SAE and whose first language is English often do not write their academic papers in the same way that they speak. The same is true for everyone. SAE is considered a standard for a reason – it does not “erase” any form of spoken language, but instead standardizes use of language to an academic setting. This does not invalidate different dialects, but instead calls students to a shared academic standard. The CWPD-assigned article insinuates that students will feel as though they are being discriminated against if their paper goes through grammatical correction. Implying that students of different racial backgrounds are unwilling, or unable, to meet academic writing standards is insulting and diminishes their capacity to engage in professional, scholarly work.

One suggestion that the article gives consultants is to “not rank or judge writing as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ and try to provide multiple perspectives when giving feedback.” It references theories of “code-meshing,” in which, “writers are encouraged to use non-standard Englishes and other languages in conjunction with SAE in academic writing.” This theory opposes “code-switching,” where students adhere to SAE in academic and written discourse, regardless of the dialect they use outside of school. According to the article, this practice of “code-switching” can be seen as a linguistic form of “separate but equal.” Rather than simply correcting students’ grammar, consultants are encouraged to create a new style of writing to protect student’s feelings and prevent discrimination. 

Not only that, but the comparison drawn between grammar correction and Jim Crow laws  trivializes the racism and discrimination that civil rights activists fought to dismantle. Academic writing is not racist in the way that segregated train cars or schools are. By striking a false equivalency between academic writing standards and segregation era laws, the article diminishes the substantive work done by civil rights activists.

During our instructional period, the leader of the CWPD gave us a series of sentences, where we had to decide which one was “correct.” As we continued to choose the sentences that were grammatically accurate, the CWPD instructor tried to point out the racial biases of our language. She mentioned that we had a tendency to pick the “white English” over dialects that tend to be found among racial minorities. 

During this exercise comparing “white English” to other dialects, some consultants expressed confusion over the seeming promotion of grammatical subjectivity. The instructor explained that, yes, grammatical correction is inherently a form of oppression, originating in xenophobic and racist ideology. One consultant then asked: “For clarification, you’re saying that grammatical correction from a professor on an academic writing assignment–assuming said correction is within the framework of SAE’ –is oppressive to any student, of any race?” The instructor responded with an emphatic “yes,” saying that SAE originates from racist and xenophobic ideology and is inherently oppressive.

This opinion was similarly found in the required readings, where some anti-racist writing center researchers argue that “writing centers should offer no grammatical editing services in response to language discrimination.” This idea is not only impractical, but would also come at great cost to students. The majority of America subscribes to a shared understanding of grammar rules. It is important that Writing Centers prepare students for that reality. If students are not properly equipped with grammatical instruction, they will be at a serious disadvantage in the professional world. Adhering to these standardized grammar principles allows for students to put their best foot forward. By learning these structural guidelines, students will be better equipped to express their ideas in a professional and effective manner, both in college and beyond. Consultants cannot, in good faith, ignore a student’s grammatical errors and leave students with haphazard work. If consultants fail to teach professional writing, they set students up for failure.

The Center for Writing and Public Discourse is an important asset for students at Claremont McKenna, especially those who did not grow up in environments with sufficient access to grammar and writing resources. If the CWPD does not adequately assist those students in developing professional and academic writing skills, they fail to live up to their mission to “‘prepare students for thoughtful and productive lives and responsible leadership in business, government, and the professions’ by fostering excellence in written and oral communication.”