Literacy and the "Perfect American"

Just like Lei, many students struggle within the school setting as they reconcile what it takes for them to be seen as “good students” versus their true selves. 

As educators, we would like to believe in a universal definition of literacy - having an uncompromising ability to express our feelings clearly and write out what we are thinking. With this seemingly universal standard, it may be unclear how racialization has impacted literacy and what being literate actually means. For those in our field, racialization in education is a major focus in the modern day classroom. And while there have been many changes made to combat such ideas, it’s important to understand not only how the racialization of literacy has affected the individual but the system as a whole. Experiences that those like Lei have had hold important value in our reflection on the system and our approach to changing it.

Historically, literacy has been a method of gatekeeping, especially in America. Before the Industrial Revolution, literacy was a defining factor of the elite. Those who could afford it learned to read and write. Into the 19th century, the idea of white elitism took hold as racial barriers were drawn to dispel organization within the working class, causing the split in literacy accessibility between whites and minorities. However, this also happened to be a time of religious resurgence and what is known in Critical Race Theory as “interest convergence” took place. Interesting convergence being the needs of both racial groups coinciding in one solution, with gains not based on altruism alone.  In this case, the two interests that converged were those of enslaved African Americans and Native Americans wanting literacy and the white religious population wanting to “save” them by teaching them to read the Bible. However, the result of such a convergence challenged the idea of minorities being “lesser” than whites, as “an ability to read was an emblem of human rights and citizenship” (Brandt, 655). 

Seeking other forms of control, the idea of literacy morphed into the belief that “proper” English (over-articulated speech, texts written with high lexical density, etc.)  is what determines civility. This, along with control over the public education system, gave whites the literacy advantage once more. Many white schools and communities focused on the idea that literacy and language correctness was vital to “upward mobility” (Brandt, 655), a concept leading many to believe that those who found success in schooling would also lead to financial gain and power within the confines of capitalism. Meanwhile, the public education system for many minority groups was based on, what a 1920 survey of the Hawaiian public education system deemed, “a foundation for occupational success” (i.e. manual labor) (35), representing the other side of capital success - exploitation. 

The argument, to this day, in favor of such education has always revolved around “getting the student ready for the workplace”, with a focus on those things that were believed to make this “upward mobility” possible. In the case of those living in Hawaii, for natives and immigrants alike, much of the focus relied on agriculture and plantation work. Based on this idea that literacy and intelligence was based on language correctness, the 1920 survey would also spark the development of what became the English Standard School, recommending that “the pupils who speak English fluently be separated from the others and that the latter be given a different type of English study” (246-47). Along with the results of said survey, a “petition signed by parents of four hundred children English-speaking homes in Honolulu” was sent to superintendent Vaughan MacCaughey “requesting the establishment of a public school exclusively for those who spoke Standard English” (Steuber 242). Thus, the English Standard school system was established alongside Non-standard English schools in 1924 and what is known, as author Morris Young puts it, as “de facto segregation” (Young 411). There wasn’t an explicit racial separation, but, purely through the determining factor of the ability to use “proper” English, many migrant workers and natives did not qualify to go to such schools. 

Such a separation affected those who did not speak and write using “proper” English both systemically and individually. Systemically, many students did not end up receiving the kind of education their white counterparts would be receiving, instead receiving lackluster English instruction based on degradation and important lessons being taught using English they could not understand. There is a novel by Lois-Ann Yamanaka entitled Wild Meat and the Bully Burgers that gives good insight into how this system affected classes well beyond the demise of the English Standard Schools in the late 1940s. Depicting a Hawaiian classroom in the 1970s, the novel’s teacher focused heavily on the use of “proper” English by berating students who spoke using a dialect known as Pidgin, a form of English developed by native Hawaiians and immigrants in order to understand each other in the early days of Hawaiian plantation growth. This focus the teacher, Mr. Harvey, has is not only rooted in the idea that “proper” English proved intelligence, but also the idea that one was un-American for speaking any other way.  When the main character, Lovey, introduces herself using pidgin, he immediately fires back saying “Not the way you talk, You see, that was terrible. All of you were terrible and we will have to practice and practice our Standard English until we are perfect little Americans” (Yamanaka 12). This exclamation is a reflection of this idea that perfect Americans must speak properly thus directly affects the students’ self worth. Lovey, since then, feels ashamed not only of her speech, but also her family, lifestyle, and culture. Mr. Harvey’s comments only make others who do not fit the “model American family” feel they are worthless. 

 If a student like Lovey were to speak up in our classroom, would we only be able to hear their way of speech? Or are we able to focus on the content and recognize their effort?  How do we describe these students, not only to our peers, but to ourselves? 

In education, we hope to make our students feel proud of themselves and their differences. Unfortunately, for many students, the historic, racial undertones that literacy presents and the idea of “the perfect American” (a title to those who have been forcibly assimilated into white values and ways of life) can feel like a constant attack on their ways of life. For many of us it may be hard to see that these kinds of biases still exist in education today, as we work hard to make more inclusive classrooms. To combat this, we in the classroom must start by being able to recognize if our own predispositions are established in historical bias. We must be able to notice that literacy, like any educational focus, is not independent from all other aspects of society, yet influenced by it.