“It’s broken English,” “It’s lazy.” These are common statements that people in the U.S have most likely interacted with when the conversation of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is brought up. At first glance, these comments seem rude but unwavering; however, the reality of code-switching from AAVE to standardized English, and the racially based blockades correlated in these systems, showcases a present issue in corporate culture.
The stigmatization of AAVE within the American workforce represents a larger conversation in how policy creates or indulges in the systematic inequalities of blackness, while reinforcing a form of whiteness within corporate practice. Additionally, denying the linguistic validity of AAVE perpetuates the belief of inferiority to forms of Black identity and limits opportunities for professional and economic growth.
Firstly, code-switching isn’t occurring within a vacuum but is an actor in creating and enforcing social ideas within a space. Moreover, the practice of code-switching creates this constant state of awareness of one's articulation, and one’s presence can require a significant amount of personal awareness and energy.
Black employees who routinely monitor their code-switch are more likely to burn out and experience fatigue or personal insecurity within the workplace. Correspondingly, Black employees feel they are more likely to be given more respect and offered better outcomes when code-switching.
This awareness of how a person represents their race is a concept deemed not needed within the identity of whiteness. As a result, the corporate space is both encouraging ideas that the multi-dialect is inherently unprofessional while also creating a higher risk of mental health complications for those who communicate with AAVE. The increasing promotion for inclusionary workspaces has the public questioning why and how these exclusionary habits and biases in larger corporate America are still so well cemented.
Carl Marx’s conflict perspective is one approach to answering these questions. Conflict perspective indicates that the socio-economic inequality directed towards blackness within America’s corporate system encourages and rewards a certain white persona, keeping the power within a type of Western practice. This is done by discouraging rituals and language practices built in black spaces, deeming it unprofessional, insinuating that those who deny it will have a higher chance of economic or professional success.
In addition, arguments can be made that this linguistic prejudice resulting in socio-economic inequalities is nothing new within modern workspaces, as the practice of national language standardization has been relatively socially accepted within multiple nations around the world. However, I’d argue the relevant disparities to AAVE are significant as they represent items of African American diaspora of West African acculturation, slavery and practice formed from a racialized system.
Moreover, within these same systems, the refusal of reimagining the standing traditional appearance of what corporate professionalism is, can then disregard the inclusion of an American identity within an American space.
Best said in Race, Class & Gender: Intersections and Inequalities by Margaret L. Anderson, “systematic racism is not an isolated action, nor is it an exceptional or discrete event, it is sustained, routinized and enacted in the form of practice.” As a result, denying AAVE within these spaces can encourage negative ideas of racial profiling, along with discouraging the practice of communicative diversity.
In conclusion, discriminating against AAVE in professional settings is a form of institutional racism that upholds white cultural standards, delegitimizes Black identity and limits economic opportunities for Black workers. Although in theory there is no direct evil to standardized speech, it’s important to understand the historical and socio-economic context in which this system was cultivated.
Systemic racial bias can revalidate itself institutionally through unchallenged workplace disapproval of what is seen, but also by what is heard by Black workers. This discriminatory practice is why understanding the intersectionality of members within an office space is crucial in breaking down racially divisive behavior while encouraging community.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
Ella is an Auburn student studying Anthropology.
