Addressing Linguistic Inequality in - Recherche en IA spécialisée au MIT

Addressing Linguistic Inequality in
Higher Education: A Proactive Model

Walt Wolfram

Although most institutions of higher education in the United States have now de-
veloped diversity, equity, and inclusion centers, programs, and initiatives, langue
equality tends to be excluded from the typical “canon of diversity.” Language re-
mains an overlooked or dismissed issue in higher education while it insidiously
serves as an active agent for promoting inequality in campus life. Based on two em-
pirical studies, one of students from Southern Appalachia attending a large urban
university in the South, and one of tenured faculty at the same university, I establish
the need for the awareness of language inequality in higher education. I then de-
scribe a proactive “campus-infusion” program that includes activities and resources
for student affairs, academic affairs, human resources, faculty affairs, and offices
of institutional equity and diversity. As an interdisciplinary team from different ad-
ministrative and disciplinary programs within the university, we used a variety of
venues, ressources, and techniques to educate the faculty, students, and staff about
the significance of language inequality on campus that has had an ongoing effect on
higher education.

I n a career spanning more than a half-century of teaching in higher education,

I have served in institutions that range from elite private universities with
large linguistics departments to small, open-enrollment HBCUs, and large
land-grant, research-extensive universities where linguistics was incorporated
into larger departments such as communication sciences and English. In these
higher education contexts, the linguistics programs have always considered it a
foundational premise that all language varieties were based on systematic, com-
plex patterns, and that there were no linguistically superior or deficient languages
or dialects.1 I regrettably admit that, at the same time, I was aware that this axi-
om was not shared throughout the university, even within linguistics programs. Dans
fact, in many aligned disciplines, it was commonly assumed that nonstandardized
versions of English were simply a “collection of errors” or “ungrammatical” pat-
terns to be stamped out in the process of higher education. While these universi-
ties might have been progressive in their stances on other social issues, langue
equality was exempted from inclusion. En fait, in the historical predecessor of the

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

HBCU where I served, students were required to pass an exam in standardized En-
glish to qualify for graduation, in addition to other requirements.

Over the past couple of decades, diversity has become a growing topic in uni-
versities, and practically every university in the United States now has a version of
an “office of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The themes covered in such offices
have developed into a canon of diversity, including topics related to race, ethnicity,
genre, religion, sexual preference, and so forth. What is typically missing from
such canons, cependant, is language. As noted in an article in The Economist, lan-
guage is typically excluded, and it has rarely been addressed explicitly in diversity,
equity, and inclusion offices.

The collision of academic prejudice and accent is particularly ironic. Academics tend
to the centre-left nearly everywhere, and talk endlessly about class and multicultural-
ism. . . . And yet accent and dialect are still barely on many people’s minds as deserving
respect.2

A casual survey of university diversity statements and programs indicates that
un) there is an implicitly recognized set of diversity themes within higher education
and b) it traditionally excludes language issues.3 Topics related to race, ethnicity,
genre, religion, sexual preference, and age are commonly included in these pro-
grams, but language is noticeably absent, either by explicit exclusion or by implicit
disregard. Ironically, issues of language intersect with all of the themes in the ca-
nonical catalog of diversity issues. How can we address discriminatory issues of
course, sex, genre, and class without including the conversational interactions and
language labels that index each identity marker (see Aris Moreno Clemons and Jes-
sica A. Grieser in this volume)?4 And how can we contend with inequalities of race
and ethnicity without tackling offensive, explicit, and implicit racist language use
at an institutional level (see Sharese King and John R. Rickford in this volume)?5
Institutional offices of diversity, like academic disciplinary fields and scholars, sont
indeed vulnerable to the construction of a canon of issues restricted to customary
and traditionally recognized topics while ignoring or dismissing topics that are
outside of the traditional foci.6 Unfortunately, language is one of those issues that
remains unrecognized in the higher education diversity canon while it insidiously
serves as an active agent for promoting inequality in campus life.

I recount my personal experience here because, like many other linguists, je
have often followed the practice of compartmentalizing linguistics in higher edu-
cation. For the majority of my career in higher education, the linguistics programs
in which I served operated as isolated enclaves of linguists in a university setting
where our foundational axioms about language were disregarded and dismissed
by aligned disciplines in the humanities, Sciences sociales, and education. A pair of
empirical studies, one on university students speaking a nonstandardized variety
of English and one on faculty backgrounds and perceptions of language, finally

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram

caused me to realize that I had been ignoring a sociolinguistic conundrum in my
own experiences of higher education.7

O ne of the pivotal studies of student behavior related to dialect differenc-

es comes from Stephany Brett Dunstan’s examination of students from
the mountains of Appalachia who attended a large state university in
an urban region of the South. In this university context, their speech was quite
different from the majority of the students who were Southern but not from the
Southern mountains. Dunstan conducted extensive interviews with the select-
ed students and analyzed their use of a couple of iconic vowel productions found
in that region of western North Carolina (Par exemple, the pronunciation of the
vowel in time and the vowel in bought), as well as the use of some socially stigma-
tized grammatical features (Par exemple, multiple negation in He ain’t do nothing or
subject-verb agreement in We was down there).8 In addition to the sample of their
speech, the students discussed questions about their sense of belonging, their
comfort level in class, and their interactional experiences related to language dif-
ferences at the university.

Dunstan found that dialect played a significant role in student experiences on
campus, including their academic and social life, as participants from the region
expressed hesitance to speak out in class for fear of drawing unwanted negative
attention.9 These students also indicated that their dialect could influence how
comfortable they felt in certain courses and in interactions with other students
and instructors. Par exemple, one student indicated that he felt more comfortable
in his economics courses where there was considerable linguistic diversity than in
his sociology course where his peers and instructor used his dialect (sometimes
negatively) to make him the representative of all rural white males. Quotes from a
few students typify these comments:

I don’t really speak up too much in class and stuff like that unless I feel really comfort-
capable. . . ’cause I can hear, you know, people snickering or stuff like that when I talk. . . .10

Sometimes I think that people might think that I’m not educated . . . just because I have
this accent and you hear a country accent and you think hillbilly, and then hillbilly, Non
éducation. So I think it’s just the social norm to think that way.11

One of the outcomes of Dunstan’s study indicated that student experiences re-
lated to language differed by departments and colleges within the university, mais
not in a way that aligned with traditional sociopolitical ideologies found in most
universities. In most universities, the humanities and social sciences tend to em-
brace more progressive, liberal political and social stances, as opposed to those in
the physical sciences or economics.12 But students in Dunstan’s study reported
that their treatment by instructors and students in the social sciences and human-

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Dédale, le Journal de l'Académie américaine des arts & SciencesAddressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model

ities courses was more negative than those in the physical sciences with respect
to dialect differences.13 In part, this may be because of the language-gatekeeping
and guardianship role assumed by faculty in the humanities and social sciences
disciplines. En même temps, it attests to the acceptance of an ideology by some
professors in these universities in which language differences do not cluster with
attitudes about other kinds of social and cultural differences. Donc, it is open
to implicit bias.14 As pointed out by sociolinguist Rosina Lippi-Green, langue
diversity is often “the last acceptable prejudice,” and may persist in situations
where other progressive sociopolitical stances are embraced and promoted.15

Students with nonstandardized dialect features said they had to work harder
than students with more normalized dialects to prove their intelligence to both
faculty and peers. Participants also indicated that language influenced their sense
of belonging; some students indicated feeling a need to code-switch to fit in or
be accepted academically or socially. Although significant outreach has been con-
ducted in terms of language diversity in the communities in North Carolina and
in the K–12 system, we began to realize that we had not specifically addressed this
issue in the community of higher education, where students from diverse back-
grounds might be facing issues academically, socially, and personally because of
language differences.16 The results of Dunstan’s study revealed discomforting ex-
ceptionalism and marginalization within and outside of the classrooms of higher
education related to their native “mountain dialect,” a Southern Highland variety
of English often referred to as Appalachian English.17

Following up on Dunstan’s study of a specific dialect community’s experienc-
es in higher education, we decided to interview a sample of faculty at the same
university about their dialect background and current experiences with language
variation in their interactions in the classroom. I sent out a randomized request
to one-third of the faculty to see if they would be willing to be interviewed. More
than seventy faculty members volunteered to be interviewed, and my colleagues
at North Carolina State University and I conducted the interviews. Questions in-
cluded a discussion of their home dialect from their community of origin to their
progressive and current use of language in the academic community of practice,
resulting in several different research studies based on these interviews.18

Some faculty exhibited explicitly positive perspectives, but others offered in-
sight into underlying prejudicial attitudes and perceptions relating to language.
Some of the statements reflected issues of standard language ideology in academia:
in particular, the idea that student and faculty scholars should aspire to certain he-
gemonic styles of speech, notably those associated with the white middle class. Dans
addition to faculty members’ perceptions of students’ language in the classroom,
participants also shared thoughts on how they believed others on campus perceive
their language. Several faculty members suggested a belief that the way they are
perceived by students and colleagues is shaped by their language and the factors

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram

that have influenced their speech, such as race/ethnicity, geographic origin, et
genre. Par exemple, one instructor believes that his social class dialect and geo-
graphic origin influenced his credibility as a scholar in the eyes of his peers:

I’ve always been insecure about [my speech] and I’m still insecure about it to this day.
En fait, earlier this week I got invited to do an interview on NPR radio. I’m like, Je voudrais
love to talk about the research I’m doing and to share that, but to be interviewed
on a national radio program where it’s just my voice and nothing else, I’m scared to
death. . . . I hate going to professional conferences for that very reason. I love reconnect-
ing with colleagues and meeting new people. I’m an editor of a journal in my field and
you know I get treated very, very well and everybody’s respectful to me, but I know
that the moment I get up to the podium and I open my mouth, you know for half the
audience at least it’s going to just–my credibility’s just going to sink and I have to
spend the rest of the time like building it back up, you know.19

Faculty who shared this perspective also observed that they make or have
made a conscious effort to change their speech. This finding is interesting since
linguistic representation matters for students who want to feel that they belong in
the academic community. If faculty feel the need to code-switch to accommodate
perceived norms of valued language in the academy, students from diverse back-
grounds may not hear faculty who sound like them.

In examining the disciplinary backgrounds of faculty in the study, cependant,
sociolinguist Aston Patrick did find a benefit to speaking a local dialect.20 Her
analysis based on the set of interviews indicates that faculty regard Southern, ru-
ral dialects as devalued in many parts of the university, but that “these dialects
confer benefits to faculty in the colleges of agricultural sciences, natural resources,
and veterinary sciences because of these colleges’ significant connections to rural
areas and communities.”21 Her analysis demonstrates that professors may benefit
when they speak Southern or rural dialects of English within university colleges
that have a high proportion of students from rural backgrounds and when con-
ducting fieldwork with rural, Southern communities. The benefit of speaking a
Southern or rural dialect, cependant, did not extend to other colleges whose facul-
ty have greater bias against nonstandardized varieties of English. Patrick’s study
demonstrates that acceptance or nonacceptance of varieties of English among
professors may vary depending on context and constituencies, highlighting the
need for greater nuance in understanding how conventional in-group and out-
group dynamics of social identity formation can shift in local contexts, even with-
in the university.

The analysis of these faculty data by sociolinguist Caroline Marie Myrick ex-
amines the role of language and gender ideologies.22 Myrick’s mixed-methods
analysis uncovers linguistic expectations and pressures that female faculty per-
ceive as normative in academia, including how and why they conform to or re-

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Dédale, le Journal de l'Académie américaine des arts & SciencesAddressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model

sist these expectations.23 Many female professors report being advised in graduate
school and beyond to alter their speech to sound “more competent” in a univer-
sity setting, including their resistance to so-called vocal fry (the lowest register
[tone] of a person’s voice characterized by its deep, creaky, breathy sound) or “up-
talk” (using a rising terminal intonation at the end of a declarative statement to
make it sound like a question), two indexes of women’s speech that are consid-
ered “nonprofessional.” Men have considerably more classroom flexibility in lan-
guage usage, since male language is unmarked and normative in the classroom.
Women, on the other hand, are sanctioned for indexing femininity such as uptalk
and vocal fry at the same time they may be sanctioned for violating gender-norm
expectations. This places them in a double bind, in which their multiple identities
as women and scholars intersect to produce a unique form of social oppression.

Sociolinguist Peter Andrews conducted a chronotropic analysis of the data in
terms of ethnicity, describing the “comfortably white classroom” where norma-
tive, standardized speech prevails.24 In this context, the use of regionalized South-
ern English may enhance solidarity between Southern instructors and Southern
white students–but African American Language is marginalized. Par exemple,
one white Southern male professor made the following observations about the
speech of an African American male graduate student in his seminar:

And his speech patterns are very Black. He’s not altered his speech patterns like I see
most of them trying to do when they come here. En fait, it’s so much so, that he comes
across very unprofessional. . . . I would say I have a hard time treating him professional
because he’s so jive-y in his talk. It’s just “street talk” almost, the way he talks . . . et
I’m like, “How can you look and talk like this?» . . . because you’re really making it hard
for me.25

The same professor offered the following contrast for a white female Midwest-

ern student in the class:

So I think, yes, that if I had that [Midwestern] voice that I would use it. I think I defi-
nitely would. Because I always notice it when someone has one. And I point it out to
eux . . . so I’m teaching people how to speak, droite? And we had this Midwestern-
voice girl, and her diction was just perfect. And after she gave her seminar, I said, “You
know, you sound like a radio announcer. You could go into radio,” I said. “You’ve got
that nice Midwestern,” I said. “Perfect. It’s just beautiful, you know. Use it.”26

We have also found that African American faculty face the burden of being
exceptionalized as a token representative of ethnicity and gender in their use of
langue.

I’ve been told by a couple of students over the years that I’m the very first African
American person that they’ve ever spoken to in their life . . . and I ask them, “What has

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram

that experience been like?» . . . And so, you know, how I speak is really important to
make sure that those students see, you know, that African American people can talk
just like you.27

Results from empirical studies such as these reveal how language use and atti-
tudes by professors in the academy operate to reproduce and instantiate language
inequality in our institutions of higher learning. It is not just the student body that
needs vital information about dialect diversity; faculty and administrators are
equally in need of such substantive information. This knowledge influences how
faculty interact with and assess students, how they interact as colleagues, and how
they view themselves as members of the academic community. En effet, studies such
as these challenge us to “educate the educated,” who are the gatekeepers of language
in our academic communities, along with the students who are discriminated upon
based on erroneous linguistic assumptions.28 The empirical results of student and
faculty interactions and attitudes reported above cannot be ignored or dismissed if
sociolinguistic equality is to become a practiced reality in higher education.

A lthough our program in linguistics has been engaged in proactive language

awareness activities outside of our campus for several decades now, le
landmark study by Dunstan and the follow-up study of faculty language
experiences have inspired our program to address issues of language inequality
that exist in our own backyard.29 After meeting with the diversity officer of the
university to explain our findings, we obtained a modest grant from the office of
diversity to implement a program on linguistic diversity throughout the campus.
The conceptual framework underlying the program is based on psychologist
Paul Pedersen’s Multicultural Development Model, which includes the stages of
awareness, connaissance, and skill.30 Because language is rarely addressed as a type
of diversity in college and because standard language ideology and linguistic he-
gemony are so pervasive in American society, members of the campus communi-
ty are largely unaware of the attitudes and assumptions they hold about language.
We devised a program that seeks to raise awareness through an inductive process
in which participants initially think critically about beliefs they hold. The second
stage of the model, knowledge–the cognitive domain–addresses factual linguis-
tic evidence to dispel common myths and fallacies associated with language vari-
ation. Enfin, the third stage, skill, addresses the behavioral domain by offering
strategies for inclusion and for considering language and dialect when interacting
with others from different linguistic backgrounds.

The initial goals of the program were: 1) to raise awareness about language
as a form of diversity on college campuses and on our campus in particular, 2) à
educate a full range of members of the campus community about language vari-
ation and diversity, et 3) to provide multifaceted resources and strategies for

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Dédale, le Journal de l'Académie américaine des arts & SciencesAddressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model

the campus community to facilitate the inclusion of language diversity in diver-
sity programming. The initial target was undergraduate students, for whom we
designed positively framed interactive workshops in a variety of undergraduate
courses that addressed language myths and facts regarding the dialects that stu-
dents might hear on campus. Upon completion of the workshops, participants
should recognize that: 1) the scientific study of language does not acknowledge a
single correct variety or “standard” of any spoken language and that “standards”
are social constructs, 2) speakers of any language necessarily speak a dialect of
that language, et 3) all dialects are systematic, patterned, and rule-governed.
Participants in the workshops included first years through seniors with a range
of majors, and several hundred students completed both pre- and postworkshop
surveys aimed at measuring language attitudes and beliefs and assessing learning
résultats. The postworkshop survey also asked questions related to how inter-
esting and beneficial students found the workshop. The response from students
was overwhelmingly positive, and the assessment data collected indicated that
they were interested in the material covered and met the learning outcomes of the
workshop.31 Given the initial success, and the shift in students’ previously held
attitudes and beliefs about dialects, we decided to scale up the program to reach a
broader audience across campus.

The program is an interdisciplinary, collaborative endeavor, rather than a group
of linguists who set themselves apart as the exclusive experts on issues related to
language variation. The program coordinators represented different colleges, comme
well as faculty and administrative roles at the university, thus offering different
perspectives, disciplinary affiliations, and administrative networks for the pro-
gram, leading to a “campus-infusion model” for implementation. The primary
team involved an educator, a linguist, and an administrator. Using university orga-
nizational charts, we identified key units and divisions to approach, which would
reach broad and diverse audiences across campus. We then identified key person-
nel from each of these units and divisions and began discussions with leaders and
gatekeepers regarding our program, its objectives, and potential collaboration
with their units. Given the commitment of our campus to creating diverse environ-
ments and because the ideas the program presented are “a fresh take on diversity”
to most academics outside of the field of linguistics, it was relatively easy to obtain
a pledge from members of the campus to participate in our program.

With the development of the campus-infusion model depicted in Figure 1, le
leadership team pursued connections across campus in various divisions and be-
gan sharing language diversity awareness materials in several forms. As Figure 1
notes, the campus-infusion model includes student affairs, academic affairs, fac-
ulty affairs, and campus diversity programs. We were strategic in selecting units
and programs in each of these areas in an effort to fully address the entire campus
community. Over the next couple of years, we conducted more than fifty work-

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram

Chiffre 1
The Campus-Infusion Model in Implementation

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Source: Stephany Brett Dunstan, Walt Wolfram, Audrey J. Jaeger, and Rebecca E. Crandall,
“Educating the Educated: Language Diversity in the University Backyard,” American Speech 90
(2) (2015): 274, https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-3130368.

shops with faculty, staff, and administrators, ranging from new faculty employees
to the service workers throughout the university.

For the diversity initiative, we produced specific video vignettes of three to
six minutes that we posted online for the campus population and used regularly
in our workshops and presentations, including new student orientation for first
années. One vignette was filmed on the university commons and included spon-
taneous responses from passing students, staff, faculty, and key administrators,
including the chancellor of the university, to questions about their speech and

Dédale, le Journal de l'Académie américaine des arts & SciencesAddressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model

about language diversity on campus.32 Another vignette, “I Sound like a Scholar,»
features students from different regions, ethnic backgrounds, and language back-
grounds saying the phrase “I sound like a scholar” to underscore the fact that lan-
guage variation is not connected with intelligence or scholarly achievement.33
These vignettes continue to be key components in presentations and serve as a re-
source for others on campus in diversity training/programming. We also created
a brand of language diversity related to the North Carolina State University’s mas-
cot, the Wolfpack. More than a half-dozen years after the initial launch, campus
residents and personnel can still see digital versions of the poster on video boards
throughout campus, and the brand button on diversity remains popular with stu-
dents who receive them at different events on campus (voir la figure 2).

The workshop format has been fairly standardized, although we adapt cer-
tain elements of the workshops (primarily the implications for practice, and ex-
amples given during the workshop) for specific audiences. The workshops are
centered on the learning outcomes previously described in this essay and follow
the following format: 1) defining a dialect; 2) addressing common myths/truths
about dialects; 3) addressing issues of linguistic discrimination; 4) addressing
how language variation might impact you, your discipline, work environment,
interactions with others, et ainsi de suite; et 5) implications for practice (how audi-
ence members can use dialect diversity to create inclusive and respectful environ-
ments). The workshops are interactive in nature, calling upon audience members
to reflect on experiences, explore their attitudes and beliefs about language, travail
through examples of dialect patterning, and collectively discuss strategies for us-
ing this knowledge.

The engagement of students plays a critical role in the implementation of the
campus linguistic diversity programs. From its inception, students were involved
in workshops, the production of videos, and the staffing of exhibit booths on and
off campus. The programs also targeted different student groups, like those in
university housing. Many undergraduate students live on campus, and residence
halls are a critical environment for the psychosocial development of college stu-
dents and informal learning.34 Students in residence halls engage in diversity pro-
gramming, thus offering an opportunity for inclusion of language diversity as part
of this education. Accordingly, we provided language diversity training for all new
residence hall directors and resident advisors for the university.

Linguistics students also established a student organization officially recog-
nized by the Student Involvement Office in the Division of Academic and Student
Affairs named the “Linguistic Diversity Ambassadors” (LDA). As we discuss in
our report on the study, the LDA program offers students an opportunity to be-
come involved and to develop leadership roles in multiple dimensions of advoca-
cy and activities on campus.35 Graduate students, in particular, often have limited
engagement experiences compared to undergraduates, in part due to their myo-

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram

Chiffre 2
“Howl with an Accent” Campus Poster and Button

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Source: Language Diversity Ambassadors, North Carolina State University, https://howl
.wordpress.ncsu.edu (accessed May 17, 2023).

pic focus on their academic subject.36 Since 2013, the Educating the Educated Pro-
gram has involved the LDA for meetings, events, promotional ventures, and oth-
er activities related to language variation supported structurally and financially
by the Division of Academic and Student Affairs. It has a profile on the NC State
“Get-Involved” website that informs students of events and assists in event logis-
tics. The team also hosts booths at various functions for students and the campus
community.

A substantive function of the LDA is a monthly meeting for students and oth-
ers that highlights a language issue of relevance to the campus community. Pour
example, in the last couple of years, meetings have included:

• A presentation and discussion of language issues in the University’s Book
of Common Reading for 2019–2020, Born a Crime by Trevor Noah. This ac-

Dédale, le Journal de l'Académie américaine des arts & SciencesAddressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model

tivity is a recognized campus seminar event in connection with the Book of
Common Reading.

• A screening and discussion of the documentary Talking Black in America as an
event celebrating Black History Month on campus.37 This event was cohost-
ed by the NC State Union Activities Black Student Board.

• A student presentation on “Queer Language” that presented the state of cur-
rent ideology and research about the notion of speech in queer communities.
• A presentation and discussion of American Sign Language, including diver-
sity in ASL that is featured in a Language and Life Project documentary, Sign-
ing Black in America. This event was cohosted with a university sorority that
requested that LDA give a presentation on the topic.38

• A demonstration and discussion of language misogyny in classic Disney

films over time.

LDA’s programs focus on current language events relevant to campus life, et
presentations and discussions have included themes such as language and politics,
language and the LBGTQIA+ community, and gendered language in Disney films,
among current topics. In many cases, these events are cosponsored with other stu-
dent organizations to facilitate a collaborative and interdisciplinary perspective in
considering language variation. LDA staff also engage in class presentations and
guest lectures, and write op-ed pieces for the school newspaper and other venues as
issues about language arise in higher education and on campus. En fait, during the
2021–2022 academic year, the LDA did more than twenty presentations for first-
year writing instructors who requested a lecture on language diversity as a part of
their course. Language Diversity Ambassadors have also worked to create an online
digital repository of resource materials (such as PowerPoint presentations, audio-
visual materials, and assessment materials) that all team members can access for
their use.39 They also participate actively in social media such as Twitter, Facebook,
Instagram, and TikTok. Through their regular promotion venues, they have raised
the awareness of language diversity on campus, leading to an increase in student
enrollment in linguistics courses and a general awareness of language variation un-
der the rubric of the Educating the Educated campaign.

A s I have demonstrated, linguistic subordination is a pervasive ideology

in higher education that is manifested in faculty, students, and staff. Ac-
cordingly, it calls for the campus-infusion model described here if we ex-
pect to make a significant difference in campus life. While it may seem obvious to
sociolinguists that linguistic prejudice and discrimination are pervasive on col-
lege campuses, it is not nearly as transparent to the campus community. En fait, un
proposal to implement a language component in a diversity initiative at a neigh-
boring university similar to the one described here was met with the response that

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram

“there is no evidence that language diversity is a problem on campus.” There are
many dimensions of linguistic intolerance in higher education in addition to those
researched here, which are limited to the relatively narrow issue of dialect differ-
ences on a Southern metropolitan campus. Par exemple, prejudices exist with re-
spect to second-language acquisition accents just as readily, though these issues
were not a part of the empirical study included in our examination. Linguists also
need to form alliances outside the narrow confines of their linguistic department
that include proactive collaboration with the campus office of diversity program
and aligned disciplines.

Linguists and sociolinguists can play a prominent role in confronting linguistic
inequality in higher education, but they cannot do it simply by espousing their po-
sition in the limited linguistic courses they teach or in conversations that they have
with other professionals. While we have had a highly successful initial campaign in
the Educating the Educated program, it needs to become integrated into the regular
programs offered by the office of diversity at the university. When I give presenta-
tions about linguistic inequality at various universities around the country, one of
my first requests is, “Would you please invite representatives of the office of diver-
sity to the talk?” And when they attend, they commonly remark that this program
is unique, and they want to incorporate a similar one at their university. En fait, un
number of universities around the United States are now beginning to include di-
mensions of language variation in their diversity programs. Educators, specialists
in aligned fields, and administrators familiar with effective methods for program
implementation need to be a part of the program. Happily, some have started to
include language in their diversity initiatives, but many more institutions of high-
er learning need to ensure that language bias, one of the most significant and over-
looked dimensions of inequality, is substantively confronted, and interdisciplinary
solutions must be programmatically incorporated into programs of diversity in our
institutions of higher learning.

about the author

Walt Wolfram, a Fellow of the American Academy since 2019, is one of the pioneers
of sociolinguistics. He is the William C. Friday Distinguished University Professor at
North Carolina State University, where he also directs the Language and Life Project.
He has published more than twenty books and three hundred articles on language
variation, and has served as executive producer of fifteen television documentaries,
winning several Emmys. His recent publications include Fine in the World: Lumbee Lan-
guage in Time and Place (with Clare Dannenberg, Stanley Knick, and Linda Oxendine,
2021) and African American Language: Language Development from Infancy to Adulthood (avec
Mary Kohn, Charlie Farrington, Jennifer Renn, and Janneke Van Hofwegen, 2021).

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Dédale, le Journal de l'Académie américaine des arts & SciencesAddressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model

endnotes

1 In sociolinguistics, language variety or simply variety refers to differences in speech pat-
terns, Par exemple: dialect, register, and general style. Standardized English is one of
many varieties of English. For more on varieties in sociolinguistics, see Braj B. Kachru,
Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson, éd., The Handbook of World Englishes (Malden,
Mass: Blackwell Publishing, 2006).

2 R.. L. G., “The Last Acceptable Prejudice,” The Economist, Janvier 29, 2015, https://www
.economist.com/prospero/2015/01/29/the-last-acceptable-prejudice. See also Steph-
any Brett Dunstan, Walt Wolfram, Audrey J. Jaeger, and Rebecca E. Crandall, “Edu-
cating the Educated: Language Diversity in the University Backyard,” American Speech
90 (2) (2015): 266–280, https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-3130368; and Walt Wolfram,
“Sociolinguistic Variation and the Public Interest,” Cadernos de Linguistica 2 (1) (2021):
1–25, https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2021.v2.n1.id357.

3 Kendra Nicole Calhoun, “Competing Discourses of Diversity and Inclusion: Institutional
Rhetoric and Graduate Student Narratives at Two Minority Serving Institutions” (PhD
diss., Université de Californie, Santa Barbara, 2021), https://www.proquest.com/open
view/552b09ea236453a210e8b541d03188fe/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
4 Aris Moreno Clemons and Jessica A. Grieser, “Black Womanhood: Raciolinguistic In-
tersections of Gender, Sexuality & Social Status in the Aftermaths of Colonization,»
Dédale 152 (3) (Été 2023): 115–129, https://www.amacad.org/publication/black
-womanhood-raciolinguistic-intersections-gender-sexuality-social-status-aftermaths.
5 Sharese King and John R. Rickford, “Language on Trial,” Dædalus 152 (3) (Été 2023):

178–193, https://www.amacad.org/publication/language-on-trial.

6 Walt Wolfram and Karen Eisenhauer, “Implicit Sociolinguistic Bias and Social Justice,»
in The Routledge Companion to the Work of John R. Rickford, éd. Renée Blake and Isabelle
Buchstaller (Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge, 2020), 269–280.

7 Caroline Marie Myrick, “Language and Gender Ideologies in Higher Education: An Ex-
amination of Faculty Discourses” (PhD diss., North Carolina State University, 2019),
https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/handle/1840.20/36471; and Stephany Brett Dunstan,
“The Influence of Speaking a Dialect of Appalachian English on the College Experi-
ence” (PhD diss., North Carolina State University, 2013), https://repository.lib.ncsu
.edu/handle/1840.16/8561.

8 Dunstan, “The Influence of Speaking a Dialect of Appalachian English on the College

Experience.”

9 Ibid..
10 Ibid., 239.
11 Ibid., 340.
12 Daniel B. Klein and Charlotta Stern, “Professors and Their Politics: The Policy Views of
Social Scientists,” Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 17 (3–4) (2005): 257–303,
https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810508443640.

13 Dunstan, “The Influence of Speaking a Dialect of Appalachian English on the College

Experience.”

14 Erin Beeghly and Alex Madva, éd., An Introduction to Implicit Bias: Knowledge, Justice, et le

Social Mind (Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge, 2020).

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram

15 Rosina Lippi-Green, English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United

États, 2nd ed. (Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge, 2012), 73.

16 Jeffrey Leo Reaser, “The Effect of Dialect Awareness on Adolescent Knowledge and At-
titudes” (PhD diss., Duke University, 2006), https://find.library.duke.edu/catalog/
DUKE003867906; and Walt Wolfram and Jeffrey Reaser, Talkin’ Tar Heel: How Our Voices
Tell the Story of North Carolina (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014).
17 Walt Wolfram and Donna Christian, Appalachian English (Arlington, Va.: Center for Ap-
plied Linguistics, 1976); Kirk Hazen, éd., Appalachian Englishes in the Twenty-First Century
(Morgantown, W.Va.: West Virginia University Press, 2020); and Dunstan, “The In-
fluence of Speaking a Dialect of Appalachian English on the College Experience.”
18 Myrick, “Language and Gender Ideologies in Higher Education”; Aston Patrick, “Sound-
ing Like You Belong: How Shared Dialect Creates Community in Academia” (master’s
thesis, North Carolina State University, 2021), https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/handle
/1840.20/39136; and Peter Andrews, “Comfortably White or Uncomfortably Black:
The Racialization of Black Students in Undergraduate Classrooms,” paper presented
at The Department of Linguistics Spring Colloquium, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Avril 6, 2019, https://linguistics.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/
984/2019/10/SpringColloquiumProgram2019.pdf.

19 Interviews conducted by the author and colleagues at North Carolina State University.
20 Patrick, “Sounding Like You Belong.”
21 Ibid., 3.
22 Myrick, “Language and Gender Ideologies in Higher Education.”
23 Ibid..
24 Mikhail Bakhtin, “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel,” in The Dialogic
Imagination: Four Essays, trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson (Austin: University
of Texas Press, 1981); Dunstan, “The Influence of Speaking a Dialect of Appalachian
English on the College Experience”; and Andrews, “Comfortably White or Uncomfort-
ably Black.”

25 Interviews conducted by the author and colleagues at North Carolina State University.
26 Ibid..
27 Ibid..
28 Dunstan, Wolfram, Jaeger, and Crandall, “Educating the Educated.”
29 Dunstan, “The Influence of Speaking a Dialect of Appalachian English on the College Ex-

perience”; and Wolfram, “Sociolinguistic Variation and the Public Interest.”

30 Paul Pedersen, A Handbook for Developing Multicultural Awareness (Alexandria, Va.: Américain

Association for Counseling, 1988).

31 Dunstan, Wolfram, Jaeger, and Crandall, “Educating the Educated.”
32 “Language Diversity at NC State,” The Language and Life Project at North Carolina State
University, Février 5, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQYNEHwDFhE.
33 “I Sound Like a Scholar,” The Language and Life Project at North Carolina State Univer-
ville, Novembre 1, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfC-1lgOrY&t=11s.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Dédale, le Journal de l'Académie américaine des arts & SciencesAddressing Linguistic Inequality in Higher Education: A Proactive Model

34 Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students, Volume 2: A Third

Decade of Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005).

35 Stephany Brett Dunstan, Amanda Eads, Audrey J. Jaeger, and Walt Wolfram, “The Impor-
tance of Graduate Student Engagement in a Campus Language Diversity Initiative,” Jour-
nal of English Linguistics 46 (3) (2018): 215–228, https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424218783446.
36 Ibid.; and KerryAnn O’Meara, “Graduate Education and Community Engagement,»
New Directions for Teaching & Apprentissage 113 (2008): 27–42, https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.306.
37 Neal Hutcheson and Danica Cullinan, dir. Talking Black in America: The Story of African

American Language, aired on PBS January 19–March 19, 2019.

38 Neal Hutcheson and Danica Cullinan, dir. Signing Black in America (Raleigh: The Language

and Life Project at North Carolina State University, 2020).

39 “Why Language Diversity?” Language Diversity Ambassadors at NCSU, https://howl

.wordpress.ncsu.edu (accessed May 16, 2023).

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
d
un
e
d
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
3
6
2
1
5
5
8
5
1
d
un
e
d
_
un
_
0
2
0
1
6
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Walt Wolfram Addressing Linguistic Inequality in image

Télécharger le PDF