Communication Center Journal 127 - Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021 - The Importance of Antiracism in Speaking Center Pedagogic Materials: “Neutral” is No Longer Neutral

Oct 15, 2026

Examines how “neutral” language in an academic speaking center can perpetuate racism despite intentions to avoid overt racial content. Using a textual analysis of 20 online tip sheets from the UNCG Speaking Center Delivery section, the study applies a checklist to evaluate raceless wording, race references, formality constraints, and recommendations on codeswitching. Findings argue for antiracist language pedagogy, balancing neutrality with historical context, and revising speaker examples that center white figures.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages3

Reading Time8 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Antiracist vs. “Neutral” Language

Black Language and White Mainstream English

Method: Textual Analysis of Tip Sheets

Findings and Implications for Pedagogy

Communication Center Journal 127 Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021 The Importance of Antiracism in Speaking Center Pedagogic Materials: “Neutral” is No Longer Neutral Yến H. Nguyễn University of North Carolina-Greensboro Leaders in academia have placed issues of racism at the forefront of revising institutionalized policies and practices, which has naturally bled into communication centers as well. Specifically at the University of North Carolina Greensboro’s Speaking Center, recent formation of an Antiracist Values Committee, as well as former research completed by its members, have governed antiracist efforts. As one resource to students, the University of North Carolina Greensboro’s Speaking Center offers tip sheets. These tip sheets are pamphlets that cover numerous communication-related topics from introductions to group cohesion. Because these resources are meant to be continually accessible to students and faculty, including elements of antiracism would be highly generative in these materials. However, at present, some reconfiguration of the ideologies behind their creation and language structure are required. Intense efforts have been made over the years to maintain“neutral”language when creating learning materials at this center. However, the simple absence of overt racism does not mean that an institution is antiracist. An antiracist center is one that embraces policy and practice that challenges generations of institutionalized racism and white supremacy. It is one that welcomes the challenges surrounding conversations about race and actively works to end disparities and microaggressions. In order to understand the need for application of antiracist language pedagogy, one must be familiar with the terms “Black Language” and “White Mainstream English.” Geneva Smitherman describes Black Language as “a style of speaking English words with Black Flava—with Africanized semantic, grammatical, pronunciation, and rhetorical patterns.[Black Language] comes out of the experience of U.S. slave descendants. This shared experience has resulted in common language practices in the Black community. The roots of African American speech lie in the counter language, the resistance discourse, that was created as a communication system unintelligible to speakers of the dominant master class”(2006) . This way of speech, while not often accepted within the realm of academic formality, is no less correct or important than other ways of speaking English. Alternately, White Mainstream English, or WME, is what is considered“proper”within academic spaces. As Baker-Bell stated,“academic English [is also] the language of school, the language of power, [of] communicating in academic settings” (Baker-Bell, 2019, p. 9) . The English that is coded to be white is the blueprint by which English academic language was standardized. The measure of Black Language to White Mainstream English can be compared to the measure between antiracism to racism. In an effort to assess the antiracism or lack of antiracism in the materials offered by the UNCG Speaking Center, a textual analysis of 20 online tip sheet resources was conducted. These sheets Communication Center Journal 128 Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021 were pulled from the “Delivery” section. After all, delivery is the way in which you deliver a speech or presentation, and determination of the “right”way of speaking is difficult to make unbiased. Tip sheets were measured by a checklist in an effort to standardize analysis of these texts. Language on the tip sheets were examined individually by marking a “yes” or a “no” under each checklist item: ● Tip sheet uses "raceless"language ● Tip sheet states race or otherwise indicates the race of a character/person ● Tip sheet uses abbreviated words (don’t, can’t, etc.) ● Tip sheet uses ONLY “formal”words (do not, cannot, etc.) ● Tip sheet suggests codeswitching 1 ● Tip sheet does not suggest codeswitching Upon analysis and discussion, there a

FAQs

Why does the article argue that “neutral” language may not be antiracist?

The article contends that the absence of overt racism does not ensure an institution challenges racism and white supremacy in policy and practice. It emphasizes that language choices can still embed harmful assumptions and power dynamics.

What linguistic frameworks does the article use to explain the need for antiracist language pedagogy?

It contrasts “Black Language” and “White Mainstream English” as terms tied to different histories, power structures, and standards of academic formality. The paper uses these frameworks to show how “proper” English coding can reinforce inequality.

How was the UNCG Speaking Center’s material evaluated in the study?

The study conducted a textual analysis of 20 online tip sheet resources pulled from the “Delivery” section. Each tip sheet was assessed with a checklist marked “yes” or “no” across items such as raceless language, race references, formality-only wording, and whether codeswitching was suggested.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by WPS_1790064749