In the text Young uses African American Vernacular English, and while I don't know this for sure, he seems to exaggerate the dialect. This is done in order to prove how legible and understandable dialects can be, and to disprove the notion that dialects make you sound less intelligent

What would a composition course based on the method I urge look like? [...] First, you must clear your mind of [the following...]: “We affirm the students’ right to their own patterns and varieties of language—the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style.” --Stanley Fish, “What Should Colleges Teach? Part 3.” Cultural critic Stanley Fish come talkin bout—in his three-piece New York Times “What Should Colleges Teach?” suit—there only one way to speak and write to get ahead in the world, that writin teachers should “clear [they] mind of the ortho- doxies that have taken hold in the composition world” (“Part 3”). He say dont no student have a rite to they own language if that language make them “vulnerable to prejudice”; that “it may be true that the standard language is [...] a device for protecting the status quo, but that very truth is a reason for teaching it to students

Establishes Fish's view and that the author disagrees with Fish's view

Lord, lord, lord! Where do I begin, cuz this man sho tryin to take the nation back to a time when we were less tolerant of linguistic and racial differences. Yeah, I said racial difference, tho my man Stan be talkin explicitly bout language differences. The two be intertwined. Used to be a time when a black person could get hanged from the nearest tree just cuz they be black. And they fingers and heads (double entendre intended) get chopped off sometimes. Stanley Fish say he be appalled at blatant prejudice, and get even madder at prejudice exhibited by those who claim it dont happen no mo (Fish “Henry Louis Gates”). And it do happen—as he know—when folks dont get no jobs or get fired or whatever cuz they talk and write Asian or black or with an Applachian accent or sound like whatever aint the status quo. And Fish himself acquiesce to this linguistic prejudice when he come saying that people make theyselves targets for racism if and when they dont write and speak like he do.

Establishes the author's main argument against Fish's view. The author believes that teaching students a "proper way of speaking" is a form of discrimination

But dont nobody’s language, dialect, or style make them “vulnerable to preju- dice.” It’s ATTITUDES. It be the way folks with some power perceive other people’s language. Like the way some view, say, black English when used in school or at work. Black English dont make it own-self oppressed. It be negative views about other people usin they own language, like what Fish expressed in his NYT blog, that make it so.

Reinforces main argument by saying discrimination is a expression of "ATTITUDES"(all caps for emphasis and as a rejection of a "proper way to speak"

Dont get me wrong, Fish aint all wrong. One of his points almost on da money— the one when he say teachers of writin courses need to spend a lot of time dealin straight with writin, not only with topics of war, gender, race, and peace. But he dont like no black English and Native American rhetoric mixing with standard English. Yeah, he tell teachers to fake like students have language rites. He say, If students infected with the facile egalitarianism of soft multi- culturalism declare, “I have a right to my own language,” reply, “Yes, you do, and I am not here to take that language from you; I’m here to teach you another one.” (Who could object to learn- ing a second language?) And then get on with it. (Fish “Part 3”) Besides encouraging teachers to be snide and patronizing, Fish flat out confusin (I would say he lyin, but Momma say be nice). You cant start off sayin, “disabuse yo’self of the notion that students have a right to they dialect” and then say to tell students: “Y’all do have a right.” That be hypocritical. It further disingenuous of Fish to ask: “Who could object to learning a second language?” What he really mean by this rhetorical question is that the “multiculturals” should be thrilled to leave they own dialect and learn another one, the one he promote. If he meant everybody should be thrilled to learn another dialect, then wouldnt everybody be learnin everybody’s dialect? Wouldnt we all become multidialectal and pluralin- gual? And that’s my exact argument, that we all should know everybody’s dialect, at least as many as we can, and be open to the mix of them in oral and written communication (Young).

Reinforces the argument that discrimination is an attitude of non acceptance. By telling students to learn a dialect born out of western and Europe culture, and use there own dialect only at home, Fish's appeal to standard language ideology is saying that this is the proper culture, and this is the only culture that should be expressed in an formal setting.

This also establishes the main audience, that being teachers and students.

In the 1970’s linguist William Labov noted that black students were ostracized because they spoke and wrote black dialect. Yet he noted that black speakers were more attuned to argumentation. Labov say that “in many ways [black] working- class speakers are more effective narrators, reasoners, and debaters than many middle-class [white] speakers, who temporize, qualify, and lose their argument in a mass of irrelevant detail” (qtd in Graff 37)

I think this is a really important piece of evidence for the authors claim. That speaking in a so-called "proper way" causes the speaker to lose their message. I think that the best way for an individual to communicate their message is whatever is natural and intuitive for the speaker. Rather than trying to filter their words through some artificial way of speaking that was taught to them.

See, dont nobody all the time, nor do they in the same way subscribe to or follow standard modes of expression. Everybody mix the dialect they learn at home with whateva other dialect or language they learn afterwards. That’s how we understand accents; that’s how we can hear that some people are from a Pol- ish, Spanish, or French language background when they speak English. It’s how we can tell somebody is from the South, from Appalachia, from Chicago or any other regional background. We hear that background in they speech, and it’s often expressed in they writin too. It’s natural (Coleman). But some would say, “You cant mix no dialects at work; how would peeps who aint from yo hood understand you?” They say, “You just gotta use standard Eng- lish.” Yet, even folks with good jobs in the corporate world dont follow no standard English. Check this out: Reporter Sam Dillon write about a survey conducted by the National Commission on Writing in 2004. He say “that a third of employees in 112 IJCS the nation’s blue-chip companies wrote poorly and that businesses were spending as much as $3.1 billion annually on remedial training” (A23)

I agree with what Young says here. Language is something that forms naturally out of how people already communicate. Theres no person who thinks up every word in the dictionary and then thinks of a definition, people start using words, and then the people who make dictionaries add those words to them. Why should dialects be any different. English is a much different language now, than it was 200 years ago.

Now, some peeps gone say this illustrate how Fish be rite, why we need to be teachin mo standard grammar and stuff. If you look at it from Fish view, yeah it mean that. But if you look at it from my view, it most certainly dont mean that. Instead, it mean that the one set of rules that people be applyin to everybody’s dialects leads to perceptions that writers need “remedial training” or that speakers of dialects are dumb. Teachin speakin and writin prescriptively, as Fish want, force people into patterns of language that aint natural or easy to understand. A whole lot of folk could be writin and speakin real, real smart if Fish and others stop using one prescriptive, foot-long ruler to measure the language of peeps who use a yard stick when they communicate. Instead of prescribing how folks should write or speak, I say we teach language descriptively. This mean we should, for instance, teach how language functions within and from various cultural perspectives. And we should teach what it take to understand, listen, and write in multiple dialects simultaneously. We should teach how to let dialects comingle, sho nuff blend together, like blending the dia- lect Fish speak and the black vernacular that, say, a lot—certainly not all—black people speak

Arguing that we should teach students how to express their ideas understandably and coherently, and that we should embrace different dialects, and each student's own individual form of communication. Rather than one size fits all style of communication