How do we (should we?) address differences?

In some of my previous blog posts I have described my concerns (and curiosity) about how
certain composition theories and strategies could be useful when working with international
students. I have also consistently noticed how some of the articles I read have specified
compositions growing focus on diversity and inclusion (the December 2000 issue of CCCs, for
example). I do have to agree with Chriss blog post, where he mentions the similarity between
this weeks readings and previous readingswhere shifting demographics and the importance of
student voice are consistent points of discussion historically. This is also reflected in
Shaughnessys piece, as she separates students into three groups based specifically on writing
ability. But I notice that this weeks readings focus on students that are not just different, they are
largely oppressed.

This distinction is important because academic discourse, the language of writing that teachers
attempt to instill in their students, is often the language that continues to oppress these students
in public spaces. Delpit discusses the results of this reality, and describes that in many
classrooms students of color reject literacy outright for they feel that literate discourses
inherently reject them. Delpit also separates discourse into two sections: primary, which is what a
student encounters in their home life, and secondary, which is what is encountered in groups and
institutions. She notes the certainty of a superior discourse within these, which often is not a
students primary discourse. The need for a students primary discourse or authentic voice to be
addressed is also difficult though, because students who are well-voiced in either discourse do
not feel as though one voice is more real than another (Royster touches on this as well, noting
that student voice is subjective). I have encountered this personallyI once had a professor ask
me which side was the real me after I described acting and speaking differently with the black
Haitian-American side of my family compared to the white Slovakian/French side of my family
and I also feel that there is no one facet of my personality that is more authentic or more
valuable than another. The question I got from reading through this and experiencing this
personally is: how can we create a comfortable environment where students are able to switch
into a different form of discourse in institutions without 1) feeling obligated to translate their
words into academic language, 2) being scrutinized, exploited, or even lauded for using a
different voice (as this contributes to the idea of having one true authentic voice that is
inherently more valuable, but only when it is used sparingly in academic settings), and 3) feeling
like the discourse they choose to express themselves in will not be respected?

Similarly, Scott Richard Lyons discusses the historical eradication of all traces of tribal identity
and culture by indoctrinating native American students into classrooms and stripping them of
their ethnic names. He focuses on the struggle for sovereignty within a rhetorically imperialist
system that has uses language to assert control of others [and] set the terms of debate. Lyons
argues that the language used to describe the terms of Native American sovereignty inherently
strip power from them; words such as treaty and nation are defined solely by the American
powers that have already manipulated and disregarded the Native population time and time
again. The question that arises here for me is: how can we acknowledge the historical struggle of
Native American students and simultaneously encourage them to use this language in schools? I
also want to draw on Keith Gilyards 2000 CCCs address, which described the importance of
noticing how we use language to both include and exclude certain groups from public discussion.
As educators, how can we teach students to recognize that the specific language they use has
significant impact on the experience and their own interpretation of their fellow students? How
can we recognize these issues in student discussion and correct it?

I thought these readings were insightful and I was able to relate to quite a few of them; I know
that they will be helpful in future classes. I suppose that difference then, as described in these
readings, adds specific concepts that should be considered particularly as classrooms get
increasingly diverse. Difference also invites augmented interpretations of pedagogies that
hopefully will cater to students that have negative personal and cultural associations with
academic discourse. Difference ultimately needs to be consistently addressed (without being
exploited) and accommodated, but we first have to figure out how to do so.