Delpit’s objections to Gee begins on Page 546, in the third paragraph, “There are two aspects of Gee’s arguments which I find problematic. First is Gee’s notion that people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse.” Delpit goes further with this on the coming pages when she argues the cases of many students coming beginnings contradictory to the “dominant discourse,” such as the case of Clarence Cunningham, an African-American man, who “grew up in a painfully poor community in rural Illinois. He attended an all-African-American elementary school in the 1930s in a community where the parents of most of the children never even considered attending high school.” (Page 548) This indicates harsh and humble beginnings, of which there is a connotation of never being able to exit. Delpit goes in great depth to explore how among him and his peers, there was no drive to aspire beyond this environment. Despite this, the school system provided the more “subtle aspects” of dominant discourse. Jordan’s text would blend very well with this piece in some aspects, as they both discuss the problem of a dominant discourse being taught in school systems as the primarily tool for learning. Jordan’s piece could, however be argued as a contradiction to Delpit’s piece, as Jordan began using “black English” as a primary learning tool, rather than the combination of the two together, for the student’s learning. Jordan might argue that Delpit’s ideal learning measures of even the “subtle aspects” of the dominant discourse could lead to one or more of the student’s struggling to understand their own.
Delpit’s second objection to Gee lies further down the page, when she writes, “The second aspect of Gee’s work that I find troubling suggests that an individual who is born into one discourse with one set of values may experience major conflicts when attempting to acquire another discourse with another set of values.” This is focusing more on the change to another discourse, rather than to the primary discourse, as mentioned above. This is explored when Delpit discusses the “radical or progressive” teachers who choose to further separate from the dominant discourse by solely teaching the “language and style of the student’s home discourse.” This is, of course, a huge issue as teaching only one discourse leads to seclusion from the diverse amount of discourses provided in society, and in some cases can be almost as bad as teaching the dominant discourse primarily, by creating a small worldview and less depth for learning. This is obviously a huge contradiction to some of Gee’s views on the subject, as she argues these points to his work. The more subtle reaction we can derive from Delpit’s work is towards Jordan’s piece, in which their works would primarily agree. Jordan was able to get many students to understand their discourse, and in a way make a transition from one to another. While they may disagree on the teaching techniques, it does prove they agree on the ability for fluid transition in the learning and acquisition of discourse.
