FT>  MS>     The Department of Education publicly stated that 
FT>  MS> the reason it will not fund any bilingual program in 
FT>  MS> Ebonics is that Ebonics is not a separate language like 
FT>  MS> Oakland designated it, but just a dialect of English.
FT> 
FT> The other night Nightline had a PhD on who made the point that the 
FT> linguistics academicians differ amongst themselves as to what is a 
FT> "language" and what is a "dialect".  ...the "last word" on that, 
FT> according to my understanding of the gentleman, was that it was 
FT> often a political decision.  ...
    A _black_ reporter in the Chicago Tribune said that to be "separate 
languages", the two must be "mutually unintelligible" (i.e. being fluent in 
English does not mean you can understand Chinese, so they are separate 
languages).  As the reporter then said, most white people can understand 
Ebonics, if with difficulty.
    As the reporter also said, Ebonics having a somewhat-distinct 
pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar (all based on English words) no more 
makes it a separate-from-English language than is a Southern accent.  We talk 
with a distinct pronunciation, too, and we also have distinct-to-Dixie 
phrases.
FT>  MS> The federal courts will ultimately have to decide 
FT>  MS> whether Ebonics is a "language" for purposes of 
FT>  MS> qualifying for bilingual-education funds, and with the 
FT>  MS> "right" judge I think it could happen.
FT> 
FT> ...by "right", could we surmise that you mean "left"? 
    Yes.  Judge-shopping in "political" cases is routine.
FT> I've done things with Oakland Unified School District and have found 
FT> them 
FT> to be extremely advanced, progressive and professional.  
    As in football, the score says it all.
    The Oakland school board justified the decision to adopt Ebonics by 
quoting statistics showing how poorly the Oakland schools are performing now. 
 Extremely advanced?
--- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS])
---------------