1.) Quote Delpit’s first objection to Gee. Explain it. Find a passage in Delpit’s text that offers some evidence for her critique. Quote and explain that. Now, consider how Jordan’s text might fit into that objection. (What might Jordan say?) Quote a relevant passage in Jordan and explain how you see it fitting into the “conversation” between Gee and Delpit.

• Delpits first objection to what Gee wrote states, “First Gee’s notation that people who have not been born into dominant discourses find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse. He argues strongly the discourses cannot be “overtly” taught, particularly in the classroom, but can only be acquired by enculturation in the home by “apprenticeship” into social practices. Those who wish to gain access goods and status connected to a dominant discourse must have access to social practices related to that discourse. That is, to learn the “rules” redirected for admission into a particular dominant discourse, individuals must already have access to the social institutions connected to that discourse – if you’re not already in, don’t expect to get in”. Delpit has an issue with this rule of Gee’s because, Gee is saying that there is basically no room for change in discourses for people of lower-class, that the only factor determining how someone obtains this discourse is through what they are taught at home and that if you are not born into a home with a high level of intelligence and or a house of higher-class your dominant discourse is going to develop into one that is weak. She finds this troubling because, Gee doesn’t take in to consideration one’s genetic makeup, that their genetic intelligence can in fact influence change in their discourses. Delpit explains, “Gee’s argument suggests a dangerous kind of determinism as flagrant that espoused by the geneticists: instead of being locked into “your place” or your genes, you are now locked hopelessly into a lower-class status by your discourse”. Delpit thinks that one can change their primary teaching/discourse through what they are taught in school otherwise, a teacher’s job would be pointless because there would be no room for growth in a child and the child would feel hopeless because they would know that they wouldn’t be able to grow into their full potential.
  I think Jordan would very much agree with what Delpit is saying, especially being able to draw from her own experiences as a teacher. This is because, what Gee is suggesting is that children of lower-class are helpless in the sense that they cannot change their dominant discourse. However, even in Jordans text we see this to be a false claim when Jordan points out the case of Willie Jordan. Willie who, “wholeheartedly opted for standard English at a rather late age”, had trouble with his English, however, Jordan had faith in him and knew he was a bright kid. Willie eventually showed that he could change his discourses into one that was a greater level of intelligence.

2.) Quote Delpit’s second objection to Gee. Explain it. Find a passage in Delpit’s text that offers some evidence for her critique. Quote and explain that. Now, consider how Jordan’s text might fit into that objection. (What might Jordan say?) Quote a relevant passage in Jordan and explain how you see it fitting into the “conversation” between Gee and Delpit.

• Delpit’s second objection to what Gee says states, “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. Gee defines this as especially pertinent to “women and minorities”, who, when they seek to acquire status discourses, may be faced with adopting values that deny their primary indentities”. Delpit goes on to further explain why she is so troubled by what Gee says, “If teachers were to adopt both of these premises suggested by Gee’s work, not only would they view the acquisition of a new discourse in a classroom impossible to achieve, but they might also view the goal of acquiring such a discourse questionable at best”. Delpit also states, “The sensitive teacher might well conclude that even to try to teach a dominant discourse to students who are members of a nondominant oppressed group would to be oppress them further”. Moreover, this rule Gee comes up with is bothersome because by believing that one cannot acquire multiple discourses (no matter what class or ethnicity), throughout a person’s life, or that a teacher cannot help further enrich a child’s knowledge; helping them build discourses, then we ultimately would all be stuck in one place for our whole life. Gee is suggesting that women or minorities have the most trouble with acquiring other values, that it is most difficult for them because they begin to “deny their primary identities”. I think Jordan would disagree with what Gee is saying also, Jordan’s whole article was about trying to get people to realize that diversity in our society matters and that minorities are more than what society stereotypes them as. I also think that Jordan would argue that people can acquire multiple discourse with no difficulty at all because we are taught to build on our primary discourses and to develop others throughout our lifetime.