HELLO
DRAPER’S PAPER ROUTE
HELLO
by Adam Carroll Draper
The Washington Free Beacon ran an article by Chrissy Clark this week entitled “Rutgers Declares Grammar Racist.” Snopes quickly ran a rebuttal by Dan McGuill, declaring that statement “false.” This snit arose from something the Chair of the Rutgers English Department, Rebecca L. Walkowitz, published on line under the News and Events section of the department’s page on the school’s website, which she entitled “Department actions in solidarity with Black Lives Matter.” Snopes correctly noted that Walkowitz never said grammar was racist. As far as I can tell, that is where any connection the three offerings had with each other (or substantial reality) ended.
The gravamen of the Snopes rebuttal was that Clark’s criticism of Walkowitz was entirely unfounded, so I read all three pieces myself. I know that’s strange, but the lawyer in me likes to examine evidence before presenting it. I can’t seem to bring myself to adopt the methodology employed by Nancy Pelosi, when she infamously said of Obamacare, “We have to pass the bill before we find out what is in it.”
This is what Walkowitz wrote:
This is Clark’s critique:
https://freebeacon.com/campus/rutgers-declares-grammar-racist/
This is Snope’s dope:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rutgers-grammar-racist/
The following is taken from Clark’s piece:
Walkowitz said the department would respond to recent events with "workshops on social justice and writing," "increasing focus on graduate student life," and "incorporating ‘critical grammar' into our pedagogy." The "critical grammar" approach challenges the standard academic form of the English language in favor of a more inclusive writing experience. The curriculum puts an emphasis on the variability of the English language instead of accuracy.
Clark said Walkowitz also announced that the department “will provide more reading to upper-level writing classes on the subjects of racism, sexism, homophobia, and related forms of ‘systemic discrimination.’”
Is that description fair or unfair?
OK, this is my take: WTF?
I don’t care what Snopes wants me to believe, this is the cultural revolution manifesting right in front of our eyes. Walkowitz did not literally call grammar racist (and Clark clearly intended to be inflammatory), but was that an entirely false inference?
Do they still read Orwell in English Lit or has the specter of newspeak gone down the memory hole. What is the “critical grammar” approach and what does it mean to favor a more inclusive writing experience as an expression of solidarity with Black Lives Matter? What does that have to do sexism and homophobia? I wonder if the foreign language departments are going to apply this approach, too. Can you imagine learning German without der, die or das? What about learning any language after the world has been saved from gender specific references? What are we supposed to do with archaic grammatical notions, such as “noun, feminine.”
“Anyone, anyone?” “Bueller?” (Oh, crap. Can I say that? I mean, was that sexist?).
Don’t ask J.K. Rowling because she has been shunned from socialist public discourse (which is all public discourse that is not banned, shouted down or tolerantly beaten into silence) for suggesting that gender is important.
We laugh because this is absurd, but J.K. Rowling is a big shot. What about the “mute and inglorious Milton” whose voice might as well be as silent as those in the graveyard of Wordsworth’s lament. This is happening on a global scale. It is part of the new world order’s appropriation of Mao’s cultural revolution, and it is being inflicted upon us by our technocratic intelligentsia on a scale hitherto impossible to implement. Yes, it is being implemented. Social media shunning on a global scale, enforced by tech giants, requires coordination. Who is doing this? Who empowered the thought police?
HELLO!
The CDC (which now decides how we must interact due to public health concerns) has declared that some words should be forbidden. Seriously, words such as: “vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, science-based, and evidence-based” should go down the memory hole. Oh, you have not heard about that?
We must learn newspeak! Just for #%*&! and giggles, I am going to take a stab (probably thoughtcrime to use that word) at what English grammar will look like in our Maoist future, bearing in mind that using current grammar might make you an “ist” or “phobe” in the future. Perhaps this written description of a futuristic, Maoist-appropriate, school play-period instruction might provide such an example:
Students open roam safe zone no run mean talk laugh and no look mean at other selves they play. No student win lose only draw smile no fall skin knee sigh. No fast slow big small strong weak ever. Remain Androgynous Unity Suit (AUS) wearing. No dude man high five celebration elevation. No woman no cry.
Or something like that (with apologies to Bob Marley). Yah mon!
Oops, that’s gender specific cultural appropriation.
If you got anything out of this missive, please give it a thumbs up, comment and/or share it. It helps. I sincerely appreciate that you took the time to read it.