I have been following with interest the reactions on the Viewpoints page to the recent Marquette University Student Government legislation, which recommended that the university set up a task force to test the English speaking abilities of teaching assistants and professors for whom English is a second language. I am adding my pennyworth to why this legislation is a bad idea.

I agree with those who have described this action of the student government as discriminatory. Individuals differ in their abilities to communicate effectively irrespective of whether they are using their first or second language. Thus some TAs' inability to communicate effectively in English may not be because English is their second language, it may just be that they are not effective communicators even in their own native languages. This legislation is discriminatory in making what may well be a natural and individual problem the problem of a particular group of people.

I concede that a foreign accent can be an impediment to effective communication but this is not the insurmountable problem that this MUSG action makes it out to be. I am no ears, nose and throat expert but I do know from experience that the ear is incredibly adaptive. Those who have had to learn a foreign language can attest to this. A foreign accent can jar at your eardrums and make very little meaning the first time you hear it but it gets better very quickly. That is my experience in the classes I have taken and taught at Marquette. But that is if you are ready to persist in listening and listening well. Whispering "What are they saying?" to the guy next to you while class is going on is not exactly my idea of listening well. That is besides the fact that conversing during class is disrespectful to your instructor and fellow students.

A hidden presupposition behind this proposed TA English proficiency requirement is that native speakers of English are proficient and better users of the language than non-native speakers. Such presupposition is mistaken. This superiority complex more than accent is what impedes communication between native and non-native speakers of English. People automatically think you must be struggling with English just because you speak it with a foreign and 'not cool' accent. I wonder how many of those who pushed this legislation through the student government would expect an American TA or professor in a Nigerian university to undergo a test in English proficiency to show he can communicate effectively with his Nigerian students. The presumption would be that he doesn't need such a test because English is his first language. That does not follow. But let's suppose it does, what about his accent? And let's face it; this whole English proficiency thing is about accent reduction. So why would an American professor not be expected to undergo accent reduction lessons in Nigeria? Because the American accent is supposed to be better than the Nigerian accent, the one is supposed to be 'cool,' the other not. And that, I think, is the problem. Students who complain that they have difficulty understanding some foreign TAs forget that these TAs and other foreign students may also have difficulty understanding some of their American TAs and professors. But most of them overcome this challenge and go on to do very well in their courses. American students can do the same if only they will get off their high horse.

This piece of MUSG legislation is problematic because it makes a huge problem out of a not-so-huge problem and because it belies some very questionable presuppositions. That is besides the fact that it runs counter to the university efforts at diversity. We cannot be working to improve diversity on campus and yet expect everybody on campus to speak English like an American. I ask the faculty congress to disregard this recommendation from the student government.

Ebelebe is a doctoral candidate and teaching fellow in theology.

This viewpoint appeared in The Marquette Tribune on April 7 2005.,”The Rev. Charles Ebelebe”

“