The State of Writing in American Education

Something is wrong in American education. America was at one time the most educated country in the world; however, over the last several decades we have seen a dramatic decrease in literacy levels (Carter & Harper, 2013) among higher education students across the nation. The focus of higher learning in America seems to have taken a shift from the academic to focusing on emotions and political activism with the main objective of solving social issues and pushing political agendas. The result has been the creation of a mob type mentality in American culture with many college graduates understanding very little in the way of researching facts, but ready to shout down anyone who expresses views which they may consider less than desirable. How did this happen, and how will this affect America’s future as a leading economic power and free society?

Literacy rates in America have declined over the past several decades. According to a study released by The National Center for Education Statistics, between thirteen and twenty percent of American adults lack the most basic of reading skills. (Kunter, Greenberg, Jin, Boyle, Hsu & Dunleavy, 2007) These people, who according to the Journal of Learning Disabilities are deemed low literate, (Sabanti, Sawaki, Shore & Scarborough, 2010) understand only the most basic meaning of what they are reading and are therefore unable to reach reading levels necessary for achieving higher goals in employment or education. (Sabanti, et al., 2010) Adults that achieve higher levels of reading comprehension tend to struggle less with full time employment and generally earn more money than those who have difficulty in understanding what they read. (Kunter, et al., 2007) How did we reach the point where such a large portion of the population is illiterate?

Mina Shaughnessy, author of the book Errors and Expectations: A guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing, makes the simple suggestion that after the cultural revolution of the 1960’s colleges began accepting students that she considered to be, less than college ready. Freshman classes, she writes, were leaning in favor of those students unprepared to be there. (Shaughnessy, 1977) This reflected a dropping standard in American education. In 1970, The City University of New York began guaranteeing everyone with a high school diploma an opportunity to attend their school. (Shaughnessy, 1977) Today, there is a massive push to increase college enrollment under the false pretense that it will automatically improve the economy and lift everyone out of poverty. There are arguments to be made however, that not everyone is college material.

The nations young have been led to believe that a college degree is necessary for financial stability and this isn’t true from any standpoint. In fact, many high skilled labor jobs are lacking qualified employees because too many people are attending college instead. (Not Everyone is College Material, 2019) The unfortunate side effect of allowing everyone the opportunity to go to college is that the standards may inevitably drop or else the failure rate could be too high. (Not Everyone is College Material, 2019) If standards are dropped to ensure success for unqualified students no one benefits, especially society. (Not Everyone is College Material, 2019) The result is a college graduate unprepared to face the real-life challenges their profession presents, and a society that ultimately has lowered expectations. Earning a college degree after all, is more than simply passing a class. It is a demonstration of skills required of higher-level professional careers. (Sobel, 2012) This isn’t to suggest that certain people are not capable of achieving success; rather, there are path’s to success that don’t require a college degree. Also, there is the problem of students obtaining bachelor’s degrees in fields that have proven to be of no use to society and end up in jobs which are less than fulfilling. (Sobel, 2012) For example, Ann Sobel alludes to the idea that many people with bachelor’s degrees have too high of expectations and end up in positions that have little or nothing to do with their chosen field while earning far less than they were led to believe they would. (Sobel, 2012) This problem can be attributed to something referred to as “higher illiteracy.” (Ball, 2016) The term higher illiteracy, according to Terrance Ball, is the inability or unwillingness to understand what is being read and is passed from teacher to student. (Ball, 2016) It is derived from the fact that our higher learning institutions have steered from traditional curriculums of classical education and taken on courses to satisfy a politically correct agenda. (Ball, 2016) Classes focusing on politically balkanizing classes such as women’s or feminist studies, or classes focusing on racial identity do absolutely nothing to improve academic abilities or prepare one for successful employment, no matter how well intentioned. (Bell, 2016) A good example of this idea can be seen at the Oregon Department of Education website. They claim that literacy in the United States has historically been a tool of oppression and that only “privileged white men” were given the opportunity to learn to read. (Crisis Point: The State of Literacy in America) Furthermore, they teach reading as a social justice issue. While it is true that being literate will increase one’s chances for success in life, no one in America is deprived of opportunity. In fact, there has never been a time in our nation’s history when public education, or the opportunity to attend college has been as available as it is now. Yet, we are still left with a declining literacy rate and a portion of the adult population who cannot read.

The University of Washington Tacoma Writing Program has recently stated that teaching proper English is racist because there is an assumption that all people would be able to keep with the constant, flowing changes in the English language.

The University of Washington states the following-

The writing center works from several important beliefs that are crucial to helping writers write and succeed in a racist society. The racist conditions of our society are not simply a matter of bias or prejudice that some people hold. In fact, most racism, for instance, is not accomplished through intent. Racism is the normal condition of things. Racism is pervasive. It is in the systems, structures, rules, languages, expectations, and guidelines that make up our classes, school, and society. For example, linguistic and writing research has shown clearly for many decades that there is no inherent “standard” of English. Language is constantly changing. These two facts make it very difficult to justify placing people in hierarchies or restricting opportunities and privileges because of the way people communicate in particular versions of English.

Because we all live, work, learn, and communicate within such racist systems, the consultants in the writing center assume that a big part of our job is to help students become more critical of these unjust language structures as they affect students’ writing and the judgment of that writing. In particular, being aware of racism as structural offers students the best chances to develop as writers and succeed on their own terms in an inherently racist society.

Furthermore, by acknowledging and critiquing the systemic racism that forms parts of UWT and the languages and literacies expected in it, students and writing center consultants can cultivate a more socially just future for everyone. Just avoiding racism is not enough because it means we are doing nothing to stop racism at large, and it amounts to allowing racism to continue.

This is an elaboration of the example given at Oregon Department of Education website and explains to a great extent the illiteracy problems our nation is facing. They are suggesting that the teaching of proper English is racist because they believe certain people in the population are unable to learn it. A person’s ethnicity has no bearing on whether they are inclined to understand the English language. Further analysis of the above statement indicates that the writing center is not concerned with proper writing as much as they are convincing their students that society is racist. “In particular, being aware of racism as structural offers students the best chances to develop as writers and succeed on their own terms in an inherently racist society.” (The University of Washington Writing Center) This quote implies that there is no other standard expected aside from understanding the racism inherent in American society. This is right in line with the idea expressed earlier that not all people, regardless of their ethnicity or social status, are suited for college. This is also a perfect example of higher illiteracy illustrated by Terrance Bell. The professors pushing this on their students are setting them up for failure as there is no inherent truth in the idea that speaking and writing proper English is inherently racist. Furthermore, graduating college under this misguided belief while lacking the necessary skills to write properly could go a long way in explaining why many college graduates are having difficulty finding suitable employment.

Another example of how the English language is being viewed as racist and a systematic form of oppression can be found in an article entitled “The invisible weight of whiteness: The racial grammar of everyday life in contemporary America.” From the very beginning of the paper it is argued that the usage of proper grammar constitutes the normalization of white supremacy (Bonilla-Silva, 2012) and that it is just as important as the other “more visible” aspects of racial domination. (Bonilla-Silva, 2012) Furthermore, the author of this paper is seeking to conclude that racial domination using “proper grammar” is something that must be fought on all levels if racism in America is to be defeated. An example given by this author illustrates not only the ridiculousness of such assertions but the consequence of allowing education to become politicized and agenda driven. As an example of racist grammar, the author refers to a time when at a weight watcher’s meeting the scale told him he was fifty pounds overweight. He then concludes the whole system is racist because weight watchers are not considering the possibility that African Americans in America tend to be big boned. (Bonilla-Silva, 2012) This is an example of achieving success on his own terms, as described by the University of Washington Tacoma. There is no inherent racism in the English language, rather the author, already inundated with the belief that American society is racist has interpreted something as simple as a scale telling him he was overweight into racism because he didn’t like what he was told. This is an academic journal that current college students use for research. There may be a need, as the author later suggests, to fully understand biological differences between different ethnicities, this however does not equate to racial discrimination. A serious etymological study of the word racism is in order. Racism used to imply the hatred of a man simply due to the color of his skin. The word itself has been redefined to fit whatever purposes are politically and socially expedient.

In another article entitled “The English-only movement in the US and the world in the twenty first century” it is implied that the English language is used to oppress minorities and keep them from “accessing America.” (Pac, 2012) Furthermore, the author of this article is asserting that the English language is and was enforced as a national language by elitists who feared the language of other minority populations and the possibility that they may assert dominance. (Pac, 2012) This is also ridiculous as The United States opens her doors to more immigrants from the third world, legally no less, than any other nation on Earth. Furthermore, with the advent of multicultural education the United States has never been more polarized. The idea that asserting English as the national language is inherently racist is preventing the people of America from communicating effectively with one another which likely, is exacerbating any racial discord which may exist, not solving it. The fact that the United states does not have English listed as an official language also makes this a ludicrous claim.

If this is the way the English language is being viewed, is it any wonder then that we have such problems with illiteracy in America? As the University of Washington highlights in their writing program, racism is the normal condition of things. “It is in the systems, structures, rules, languages, expectations, and guidelines that make up our classes, school, and society.” (The University of Washington Writing Center) How can anyone succeed when being taught this non-sense? There is nothing here that is based on truth but inherent biases. If minority students are being taught that the English language is inherently racist, and the society in which they live in systematically oppresses them, how are they going to have the necessary motivation required for higher learning?

In the article “Diving in: An introduction to basic writing” Mina Shaughnessy suggests that teachers, not just students need to evaluate themselves in the process of writing. Again, the implication is made in this article that sometimes there are people who may not belong in the college classroom. She has come up with a development scale that identifies various ways in which the teacher of writing can help their students. The first, guarding the tower (Shaughnessy, 1976) as she calls it elaborates on the fact that students are entering college level writing programs ill equipped with the necessary skills to be there. Teacher’s have every intention of helping the students become better writers but quickly realizes that many of them are drastically behind. (Shaughnessy, 1976) Shaughnessy goes on to say that during this stage of development the teacher realizes that these students will never make it through college unless “someone radically lowers the standards.” (Shaughnessy, 1976) This is essentially what is happening through the racialization and politicization of the English language. Shaughnessy then proposes a dilemma. What do you do with these students? Do you fail them and what are the consequences of doing so? (Shaughnessy, 1976) By asking this question Shaughnessy is herself, contemplating the justification for lowering academic standards based on what she describes as a “demoralizing contest.” (Shaughnessy, 1976) One where students in the class already struggle with the idea that there is something lacking in their ability to write effectively. (Shaughnessy, 1976) So what are they doing there in the first place? Is the lowering of standards and the politicization of the English language contributing to the illiteracy rates in America? Is it contributing to the mob type mentality we see developing on many college campuses across the country? It is certainly possible.

In an article entitled, “Social Cognitive Theory and self-efficacy: Implications for motivation theory and practice” it is suggested that people, when they believe they can achieve a difficult task are able to do so.

Stajkovic & Luthans observed the following

Unless employees believe that they can gather up the necessary behavioral, cognitive and motivational resources to successfully execute the task in question they will most likely dwell on the formidable aspects of the required performance, exert insufficient effort, and as a result, not do well or even fail on the task. (p. 127)

When it comes to writing how are people supposed to have the necessary confidence suggested in this quote to achieve something if they are being taught the language itself is inherently racist and a form of systematic oppression? That in and of itself is demoralizing and destroys motivation to learn instead of building it. Furthermore, it could be argued that holding people to a higher standard will produce better results. In a study entitled “Higher placement standards increase course success but reduce program completions” it is suggested that imposing stricter evaluations for college level math assessments improved the overall performance of math students but reduced the number of people meeting these requirements. (Jacobsen, 2006) This is the dilemma that Shaughnessy mentions in her own essay mentioned earlier and brings up another important question. Does higher education continue to keep lowering standards for higher enrollments or hold people to appropriate standards?  

Nancy Sommers suggests in her article, “Responding to student writing,” that teachers take care in the way they comment on student essays for fear of the student interpreting the comments in the wrong way. This correlates with Shaughnessy’s concerns of what to do with student’s who do not live up to the current standards and the way the student will view their abilities in writing. Sommers also suggests that students will focus too intently on what the teachers wants in terms of technical writing skills as opposed to the thoughts, feelings and intentions behind what is being written. The larger question that remains here is what matters more? If the student is not demonstrating proper writing skills that coincide with their education level shouldn’t they be concerned about making these technical corrections? This is implying that feelings or intentions are more important than technical skill. While it can be important to take into consideration the intention behind a student’s writing, the student, in the opinion of this author, has an obligation to remember he is the student and chose to be in the program. As demonstrated throughout the entirety of this paper our higher-level writing courses are teaching from the perspective that English standards are inherently racist. If teachers insist on teaching by ensuring no one’s feelings are being hurt or making sure that the thoughts behind a piece of writing are more important than writing properly, will we not end up with more non-sense like Bonilla-Silva’s claim that a scale telling him he is overweight equates to racism? How is it possible to have a functional society adhering to the same ideological and cultural standards if people can’t communicate in a single language because they have all been taught that English represents white supremacy and cultural hegemony? The answer to that question is simple. You cannot, period.

We have taken the study of the English language in the wrong direction. We must go back and simply teach it for what is, a language. It isn’t a systematic man-made system of oppression to keep minorities down. It isn’t a politically motivated social construct designed exclusively for white privileged men, as Teresa Pac suggests in her paper. It is nothing more than a language, and languages are used for effective communication. Grammar then, is a study of properly using words in sentences for the purpose of effectively communicating. (Debata, 2013) Understanding proper grammar on the part of the student helps them make corrections in writing, (Debata, 2013) and is also a fundamental requirement for the learning of a foreign language. (Debata, 2013) In other words, foreigners coming to the United States, being inundated with the idea that there is no need to assimilate because everything about our society is racist are in truth, being set up for failure.

Why is grammar important? Today, as mentioned earlier in the paper, there is a massive political movement taking place on many college campuses across the country. Almost daily, videos emerge of college students enraged that someone in their presence may be able to articulate a point that they disagree with. This is where the politically correct non-sense is failing these students. Not only are the points they seek to make not accurate, but they are being made from an emotionally driven base predicated on the fact that everything they have been taught about their culture is in some way, bad. America is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, imperialist, greedy nation that doesn’t care about people’s health care. Even if there was a point to be made it is difficult to have a discussion with these students because they have not been taught proper grammar or effective communication skills. Instead, it seems, and this based on personal experience of this author, that they are being trained to be political activists. If the English language was not being presented as a form of oppression to these students perhaps, they could make better arguments. Proper grammar, according to Debata, is essential in articulating arguments if one wants to do so effectively.

In the past there have been debates on the effectiveness or necessity of including proper grammar in the teaching of the English language. Communicative language teaching was a method of teaching which focused on the importance of teacher’s beliefs in teaching English. (Yousaf, Umar & Habib, 2017) There was a focus on functionality or fluency over proper use of grammar (Yousef et al., 2017) which inevitably resulted in students who had not been instructed in proper grammar not communicating as effectively. (Yousaf et al., 2017) Many teachers using this method believed that teaching students to communicate fluently in real time situations meant that grammatical errors needed to be tolerated because being critical over their use of the English language would inhibit their ability to make their arguments or speak effectively. (Yousef et al., 2017) Here, we see the connection to Shaughnessy’s essay again as she essentially stated the same thing. This is the wrong approach, in this authors opinion.

In another article entitled “The Necessity of Grammar Teaching” (Wang, 2010) notes, and this is a consistent issue, that teachers often choose to neglect proper grammar instruction because it is either old and antiquated or does little in the way of contributing to a student’s communicative abilities. Again, we are alluding to the idea expressed by (Yousef et al., 2017) that grammar mistakes could be tolerated in favor of fluency in communicating ideas. (Wang, 2010) goes on however to state the obvious, that the teaching of proper grammar is in a state of crisis. He cites Rob Bastone’s book “Grammar” by stating that language without proper grammar would be chaotic and pointless, directionless words which would ultimately convey an unclear message.

It has been the popular belief among teachers that there is no documented evidence which suggests that there is a legitimate connection between the teaching of proper grammar and good writing skills. (Jones, Myhill & Bailey, 2013) This is a ridiculous assumption in the sense that if proper grammar is essential for good communication skills how could it not be essential in written communication? Writing after all, is a form of communicating. The research between writing and grammar, according to (Jones et al., 2013) has been limited in the sense that it only focused on “isolated grammar instruction and offers no theorization of an instructional relationship between grammar and writing.” (Abstract)

The determination of whether grammar studies have improved the writing skills of students were done in a completely different context which contrasted studies of the previous ninety years. (Jones, et al., 2013) Other problems with these studies that occurred worldwide with varying degrees was grammar instruction did not  pre-exist within a given curriculum. (Jones, et al., 2013) Ultimately, there have been no official, worldwide efforts to connect the relationship between proper grammar and writing skills. (Jones, et al., 2013) Again, this is difficult to digest because in this authors opinion, aside from given definitions of grammar which have already been examined, proper grammar is essential to writing because if you don’t understand the language how can you possibly write it? It is the opinion of this author that we have reached this state as a result of the over politicization of education agendas and portraying the United States as an oppressive, racist imperialist nation by whatever means necessary. As demonstrated throughout this paper the very language we speak has been used for this purpose. How could you possibly have a literate nation when proper grammar and writing skills are discarded in favor of what some have referred to as, fluency in communicating? Fluency in communication is fine; however, without the proper understanding of language you are left with incoherent sounding arguments.

A study was conducted in Finland that drew a correlation between what students were taught in grammar about punctuation and writing, because punctuation is used in writing, so there was a relationship between the two subjects. (Hudson, 2001)

Hudson argues that the benefits accrued are because the particular area of grammar taught correlates with the learning focus for writing, punctuation. Effective punctuation is underpinned by grammatical understanding and the teaching helped the students to make connections between the two. (p.1243 paragraph 3)

The same would hold true for proper sentence structure or word usage when writing, in this authors opinion. It is hardly necessary to conduct this type of research to realize that a student who understands proper grammar is likely to be a better writer.

Another study cited by (Jones et al., 2013) highlighted the writing improvements of black students who spoke “Black English Vernacular” when introduced to proper grammar instruction.

(Jones et al., 2013) states the following

This synergistic relationship between writing and grammatical understanding is also evident in Fogel and Ehri’s (2000) study. This is unusual in taking as its starting point an identified writing problem, the tendency of some ethnic minority children to use non-standard Black English vernacular (BEV) in their writing. The study set out to ‘‘examine how to structure dialect instruction so that it is effective in teaching SE forms to students who use BEV in their writing’’ (Fogel & Ehri, 2000,) and found a significant improvement in avoidance of BEV in the group who were given both strategies and guided support. (p. 1243 paragraph 4)

This is a direct contradiction to the beliefs and attitudes held by the University of Washington Tacoma who has stated that the teaching of the English language is racist because certain people cannot be expected to keep up with all its changes. Perhaps, and this is just a simple observation, if this non-sense wasn’t being taught to students there would be no need to conduct these studies. Perhaps if standards were being adhered to, and proper grammar as opposed to “fluency in communicating,” was taught from the beginning there wouldn’t be students writing “Black Vernacular English.” This is the inevitable result of an education system that teaches from a cultural relativism stand point as opposed to teaching a classic liberal arts education, in this author’s opinion. This author would also like to make a connection to the observation made by Shaughnessy at the beginning of this paper. She noted a drop of standards after the so-called cultural revolution of the 1960’s. Has it been a downward spiral since this time?

The way grammar, or language is understood by a writer is going to reflect in the way they express ideas on paper. “The grammatical choices we make, including pronoun use, active or passive verb constructions, and sentence patterns – represent relations between writers and the world they live in.” (Micciche, 2004)

Another study highlighting the use of grammar to prove its relationship to writing was conducted on a group of middle school students. Again, the focus was on making a direct correlation between grammar and what was being taught in writing. For example, the researchers used nouns to determine how it affected descriptive narratives in student writing. (Myhill, Jones, Watson & Lines, 2012) It would stand to reason that the student who understands what a noun is and how it is used in a sentence would have an easier time writing a descriptive narrative. If a student doesn’t understand what a noun is how could they possibly write a description of something effectively? This study showed a significant improvement of writing abilities in writers who were considered able in the group where grammar was embedded in the writing curriculum. (Myhill et al., 2012) The writers considered less than able showed some improvements as well. (Myhill et al., 2012) Another important factor, in this author’s opinion, highlighted in this study is the level of grammatical knowledge held by the teacher. (Myhill et al., 2012) Perhaps there is a correlation between this idea and the subject of higher illiteracy where an unwillingness or inability to understand what is being read or taught is passed from teacher to student. (Ball, 2016)

Conclusion

There definitely appears, in this author’s opinion, to be a relationship between the idea that proper grammar is antiquated or racist and the inability of writers to write and express things clearly. The previous studies show success in embedding grammatical skills in writing curriculums. If educational establishments are taking the position that the English language is a form of oppression, or a tool of “white supremacy” what motivation will there be in students’ willingness to learn it? We saw in “Social Cognitive Theory and self-efficacy: Implications for motivation theory and practice” (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003) that when people are motivated properly and believe in their abilities that they can accomplish what ever task lay before them. If students are being overwhelmed with the idea that their culture, and the very language they speak is a tool of oppression how will they possibly be equipped with the proper motivation and confidence to learn it? We reviewed a study entitled “Higher placement standards increase course success but reduce program completions” where it was determined that holding people to academic standards increases academic performance. This reinforces the idea that perhaps not all people are meant for a college education as the introduction of higher standards increased the performance of students already performing well, but reduced student enrollments. A similar result was found in the study conducted by (Myhill et al., 2012) where the introduction of grammar standards was introduced into a writing curriculum. The higher achieving students improved their writing the most while the lower achieving students only showed minimal improvement. Perhaps this shows relevance in the idea that not all people have equal abilities in learning and lowering the standards isn’t going to increase success rates for everyone. Finally, we saw another study where the introduction of proper grammar was introduced into a writing program where black students were speaking “Black Vernacular English” and there was noticeable improvement in their writing skills. (Fogel & Ehri, 2000) Again, this completely contradicts the position taken by the University of Washington Tacoma. The question then remains. What is the purpose of teaching the English language as a tool of social oppression and racism?

References

Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T, & Low G., Zhu, D. (2006) The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Journal. 32(1), pp. 39-55. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu

Ball, T. (2016) The higher illiteracy. Academic questions. 29(1), pp. 68

Bastone, R. (1994) Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bonilla-Silva (2012) The invisible weight of whiteness: The racial grammar of everyday life in contemporary America. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 35(2), pp. 173-194

Carter, M.J., & Harper, H. (2013) Student Writing: Strategies to reverse ongoing decline. Academic Questions. 26(3), pp. 285 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Carter24/publication/272016282_Student_Writing_Strategies_to_Reverse_Ongoing_Decline/links/573645b508aea45ee83cb0cd/Student-Writing-Strategies-to-Reverse-Ongoing-Decline.pdf

Crisis Point: The State of Illiteracy in America. (2018) Education News. Retrieved from www.education.cu-portland.edu/blog/education

Debata, P. K. (2013) The importance of grammar is English language teaching-a reassessment. Language in India. 13(5), pp. 482+ Retrieved from http://linkgalegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu

Fogel, H., & Ehri, L.C. (2000) Teaching elementary students who speak in Black English Vernacular to write in standard English: Effects of dialect transformation practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25. pp. 212-235.

Hudson, R. (2001) Grammar teaching and writing skills: The research evidence. Syntax in the Schools. 17. Pp 1-6.

Jacobson, E. (2006) Higher placement standards increase course success but reduce course completions. The journal of General Education. 55(2), pp. 138-159 https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/stable/27798044?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Jones, S., Myhill, D., & Bailey, T. (2013) Grammar for writing? An investigation of the effects of contextualized grammar on students’ writing. Reading and Writing. 26(8), pp. 1241-1263. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu

Kunter, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., & Dunleavy, E. (2007) Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy. NCES U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.

Micciche, L. (2004) Making a case for rhetorical grammar. College composition and communication. 55(4), pp. 716-737

Myhill, D., Jones, S., Watson, A., & Lines, H. (2012) Playful explicitness with grammar: A pedagogy for writing. Literacy. 47(2), pp. 103-111

Not everyone is college material: Point students in the best direction. (2012) Indianapolis Business Journal. Retrieved from http://bi.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/global

Pac, T. (2012) The English only movement in the U.S. and the world in the twenty first century. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology. 11(1), pp. 192-210 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1163/156914912x620833

Sabanti, J., Sawaki, Y., Shore, J.R., & Scarborough, H.S. (2010) Relationships among reading skills of adults with low literacy. Journal of Writing Disabilities. 43(2), pp. 122-138

Shaughnessy, M. P. (1976) Diving in: An introduction to basic writing. College Composition and Communication. 27(3), pp. 234-239 https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/stable/357036?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977) Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford.

Sommers, N. (1982) Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication. 33(2) pp. 148-156. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/stable/357622?pq-origsite=summon&seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

Sobel, A. E. (2012) Should everyone go to college? Retrieved from https://eeexplore.ieee-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003) Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Implications for motivation theory and practice. Motivation and Work Behavior. McGraw-Hill Irwin Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258995495_Social_cognitive_theory_and_self-efficacy_Implications_for_motivation_theory_and_practice

Wang, F. (2010) The necessity of grammar teaching. English Language Teaching. 3(2), pp. 78-81. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu

Yousaf, M., Umar, H., & Habib, A. (2017) Communicative language teaching, role of grammar and teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Research in Social Sciences. 5(1), pp. 116-123 Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu

Infiltration tactics and the staged dialectical trap

It seems we have arrived at the long-anticipated day so many Americans hoped would never come. Despite the abundance of information, the warning signs and the self-evident truth that something was amiss, the majority went about their daily lives believing everything was fine and that “it would never happen here.” Some even proclaimed that it wouldn’t happen in their lifetime while acknowledging the obvious dangers ̶ therefore, they believed they didn’t have to worry. Things are not fine. We are on the verge of yet another carefully orchestrated event that has the potential to change the country forever. The hard left has made their move and the patriots are responding in kind.

The tensions are building in Virginia as the Governor has declared a state of emergency. A fenced in area has been built for the lobby day protesters to be herded into.  A so-called free speech zone if you will. People on the ground are reporting that Antifa plans to attend the rally dressed up as Trump supporters intending to commit acts of violence against others posing as peaceful anti-gun activists. There was also an ad for crisis actors on a webpage called Virginia is for Film Lovers that went out on the fourteenth of January. All the pieces are in place for another false flag event designed to discredit gun owners and potentially, label us all as domestic terrorists.

This isn’t a crazy conspiracy theory. Even Virginia state senator Amanda Chase is exposing this agenda. Gun owners, veterans, Christians and anti-abortion activists have been considered potential “right-wing extremists” by the federal government for a long time. The developing situation in Virginia, which surely will be televised for the world to see, is a stage show designed to demonstrate the need for gun confiscation by portraying American gun owners as dangerous and unhinged.

Many Americans, even when presented with hard evidence, will refuse to believe that the government, whether it be state or federal, would deliberately do this to their own people. In May of 2012, the Obama administration passed the national defense authorization act which, to put it simply, legalized the use of misinformation campaigns directed at the American people. This was a mere six months before the alleged tragedy at Sandy Hook, which many claimed was also a hoax to push gun control. Sandy Hook was the first of many mass shootings to come, all accompanied by hysteric calls for gun control before any information was even released.

Another example of a staged event was the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville. The man responsible for organizing the rally, Jason Kessler, was an Obama supporting Occupy Wallstreet organizer who allegedly switched sides after a so-called political awakening. The event was designed to lure in right wing Trump supporters and make it look like they were violent, uncontrollable extremists. The man never switched sides; he was an agent provocateur.  

Unfortunately, our government has a long history of doing this. In the 1980’s, when the militia movement was strong, the FBI formed a group called the Veterans Arayan Movement for the explicit purpose of trying to recruit so-called right-wing extremists into committing acts of violence. Despite believing that the right posed an imminent threat to national security no intent to commit violent crimes was ever uncovered. They did however, under the program name COINTELPRO, try to invent some. In 1996 FBI agents planted bomb making material onto the property of Georgia militia members, attempting to portray them as terrorists. During the recent Oregon mining standoff, FBI agents were allegedly exposed posing as militia members and breaking into the local national guard armory,  trying to give the impression that right wingers were intent on starting a violent revolution. In 2017, the parents of man diagnosed as schizophrenic exposed the FBI recruiting and grooming their son to commit a bombing at an Oklahoma City bank. The man allegedly clung to the three percenter ideology that so many patriots identify with. The parents claim the FBI knew their son was schizophrenic but drove on with their operation to frame him anyway. These are just a few examples of what can be called infiltration tactics.

The protests in Virginia will undoubtedly be egged on by extremists posing as right-wing conservatives to justify a need for gun confiscation. The goal is to create fear and uncertainty. A sense of unease among our neighbors and friends that the man wearing an American flag shirt or flying his Gadsden flag is a potential extremist. Worry over the man across the street who is commonly seen loading his rifle into the back of his truck for a day at the range. More importantly, it is simply being staged to create the necessary chaos to get the ignorant masses to demand something be done to keep us all safe. The trap of the Hegelian Dialectic.

Morality and Gun Ownership

In an article entitled Virtue and Guns published by Psychology Today, the author argues that the current gun culture in America is detrimental to development of good moral character. He cites the differences of the gun culture of fifty years ago, which he claims focused mainly around hunting and target practice to one that almost exclusively revolves around training for self-defense and conceal carry tactics. The author claims that people engaged in gun training today are doing so for the exclusive purpose of learning how to kill. A thoughtful, albeit not completely correct response was written where David Yamane claims, and rightfully so, that some acts of violence are indeed virtuous and necessary in a violent world. He cites a recent shooting where an unarmed, would-be victim tackled an active shooter and asked why the act would be any less virtuous had the man been able to stop the shooter dead in his tracks with a gun. Certainly, less people would have been killed. There is a stark contrast between the way the left and right view such scenarios. This stark contrast indeed rests in the way they each value human life.

I have been in martial arts for twenty-five years. I have also trained firearms on a regular basis and work to bring the two together for the purpose of understanding the realities of gun use in a self-defense situation. One of the concepts that was taught to me was the development of killer instinct. Before you misconstrue what I am trying to say, let me explain. The development of killer instinct can be described as the cultivation of our inner rage for the purpose of learning self-control. As most people know, the focus in any martial art is developing the ability to control one’s emotions. By cultivating the inner rage that resides in all of us we learn to recognize when it comes. Training in martial arts and adding a philosophical element to the use of violence makes us question whether its use is even necessary, or in some cases, makes us avoid it all together. In other words, it is because the martial artist possesses extraordinary skill he is, in the name of humanity, able to possess the necessary self-control it takes to either avoid violence or make the calculated decision to act.

The same is true with gun training. Shooting, after all, can be considered a martial art. Most people that are seriously engaged in the gun culture agree that training is necessary and wish more people would take it upon themselves to do so. Not everyone does; however, this does not make them, or the fact that they are carrying a gun for self-defense necessarily dangerous, or immoral. In fact, there is an inherent responsibility implied on men to protect their families, and in a world where violent criminals have an unfettered access to guns of all kinds it would be immoral to not take such a precaution. It could also be argued that expecting someone else to put their life on the line for you is also immoral. Self protection is an individual responsibility; and the Supreme court has ruled that the police have no moral obligation to put their lives in harms way for your protection. Those that do take it upon themselves to train take it with the utmost seriousness and understanding that any mistake on their part could cost the lives of innocent people. In fact, it has been duly noted that armed citizens that make training a part of their daily lifestyle are far less responsible for the death of innocent bystanders than police are.

People who take the training seriously are also far more aware of their surroundings as well as the power they possess to take life. Most people that carry, including myself, also carry with them an individual medical kit and would likely work to save the life of anyone they may have had to engage in a defensive shooting. We are not training to take a life but to stop a threat.

By developing our killer instinct, we are putting to rest the insecurities in ourselves that tend towards the escalation of violence. A person who has adequately developed their skills as a fighter is more likely to look at walking away from a fight as the correct response. A person carrying a firearm who has been well trained is keenly aware of developing situation around him and understands that their first responsibility at the sign of trouble may be to call or assist police in responding to situations. We do not all think we are “Rambo.”

Finally, there is a stark difference in the way the anti-gun left, and the right see human life. This is self-evident by their infatuation with abortion. The left tends to promote the victim culture because they do not believe average people are capable of anything. An armed society scares them because they are afraid of themselves and their inability to control the anger they walk around with every day. They are ok with people being slaughtered until police arrive because deep down, they believe not in self-government and individualism, but that as a society we need to be controlled. The very idea of freedom itself scares them as evident by the way they are always trying to limit it.

 Gun ownership and self-preservation are unalienable rights. Taking the responsibility to protect those we love, and being prepared to act in defense of others can be viewed as the highest form of morality. As John Adams said, our constitution is made only for a moral people, freedom can not exist without a population rooted in absolute morality. Nowhere on earth is there so many people carrying guns in public with such a low incidence of gun violence, comparatively speaking. Afterall, those legally carrying guns are among the most law-abiding people in the country.

Lessons Ignored: Marching to the Drums of Another Unwinnable War

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 brought The United States into a permanent state of war. President Trump and President Obama both promised to end the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and bring our troops home. Regrettably, both presidents not only failed to do so, they increased America’s war footing in the middle east through endless bombing campaigns in  Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. These operations took place under the administrations of Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump. We are once again facing the prospect of another unnecessary war, this time with Iran.

The endless war on terror is apparently a policy initiative that Democrats and Republicans will stop fighting each other for and show unilateral support.

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies (Carol Quigley, The Tragedy of Hope 1966).

War with Iran has been planned for decades, as have all the others we have recently engaged in. In 1997, a strategic blueprint for projecting American power and removing perceived threats to said power was established. This was called the Project New American Century. This plan called for the United States to be able to accomplish four essential missions at one time ̶ defend the American homeland, fight and win simultaneous major wars, shape the security environment in critical regions, and transform the military to exploit the revolution in military affairs. We have been fighting simultaneous wars to be sure, but we are not winning them.

The report identified the Middle East as being critical for American interests. This is of course, because of the vast oil reserves. The power of the U.S. dollar rests on the fact that it is the world’s reserve currency when it comes to purchasing oil. In other words, oil is traded only in U.S. dollars. This resulted from a secret deal that was made with Saudi Arabia during the Nixon administration. Oil prices were surging, and the U.S. economy was essentially in free fall. Richard Nixon ended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, rendering it virtually worthless. The deal made with Saudi Arabi ensured a strong U.S. dollar as Saudi Arabia guaranteed it would enforce sales of its oil in dollars only, in exchange for United States military muscle.

The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending (Wong, 2016).

According to the above quote, the U.S. economy has been propped up because of this deal with Saudi Arabia. Having nothing else to give it value, the dollar would collapse if it lost its status as the worlds reserve currency. That is exactly what has been happening. Maintaining the dollar as the primary oil trading currency could be called a critical interest in critical regions.  Iraq, Syria, and Libya have all stopped selling oil for dollars. Which was the primary reason for our military involvement.

When the Project New American Century speaks of projecting U.S. power, it means maintaining its status as the worlds reserve currency in order to protect our economy. The U.S. Government believed it could initiate regime change in middle eastern countries that threatened the hegemony of the U.S. dollar. In some cases, our country recruited and trained foreign militants to do the fighting. All they really accomplished was the promise of endless war and the need to maintain a constant presence in the region. Iran is the last of seven countries that have been identified as targets of PNAC objectives. They dropped the dollar as its reserve currency in 2018.

Many conservatives are beating the war drums and supporting President Trump’s posturing against Iran. They are forgetting one thing. We have been at war since 2001 and are getting nowhere in terms of declaring victory either in Afghanistan or Iraq. The entire premise of the Iraq war was a lie as it is with Iran. For eighteen years our government lied to us about the progress being made in Afghanistan. This includes the duration of the Trump presidency.

The Lessons Learned interviews contradict years of public statements by presidents, generals and diplomats. The interviews make clear that officials issued rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hid unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable. Several of those interviewed described explicit efforts by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public and a culture of willful ignorance, where bad news and critiques were unwelcome (Whitlock, Shapiro & Emamdjomech, The Washington Post).

Despite all this, the American public is once again, through constant propaganda and chest pounding rhetoric, being lulled into supporting another unwinnable war. This could very well turn into an international crisis. Along with the developing situation in Virginia concerning gun confiscation, it looks like Trump is right about one thing. The year 2020 is going to bring big things for America.