RELATED: Watch/read our interview with Khalab

In early 2024, a USA TODAY story reported on a classroom poster banning common slang expressions. Students who said “just vibe,” “standing on business,” “you ate that up,” or “cap” were required to write a short essay as punishment. The teacher’s explanation was blunt: “The gibberish some of you choose to use is improper English and sometimes inappropriate for an academic setting.” Commenters quickly noted that many of the banned phrases came from African American Vernacular English (AAVE), the same linguistic system that white teenagers eagerly adopt on TikTok with little consequence. The incident dramatizes a broader pattern: the enforcement of Standard American English often functions as racial gatekeeping, systematically devaluing Black students’ linguistic competence while pathologizing their cultural identity. From a sociolinguistic perspective, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of language variation, bidialectalism, and the relationship between linguistic identity and educational outcomes.

AAVE is not “broken English” but a rule-governed, systematic dialect with consistent phonological, morphological, and syntactic patterns that differ predictably from Mainstream American English. Linguists have long shown that features such as habitual “be” (“She be working” to indicate recurring action, distinct from “She working” for present progressive), the perfective “done” (“He done finished” to mark a completed action with current relevance), and systematic copula deletion (“She tall”) are not simplifications or mistakes. Lisa Green explains in African American English: A Linguistic Introduction that these forms mark grammatical distinctions and convey semantic nuances that Standard American English cannot express as compactly. William Labov’s classic research on Black English in New York and other urban communities demonstrated that AAVE speakers use these features in regular, rule-governed patterns that can even be described mathematically, much like sound changes or verb conjugations in any other language. His work made clear that AAVE is not a random variation but a systematic linguistic system with a predictable structure. For example, what many teachers call “consonant cluster reduction”, pronouncing test as tes, follows consistent phonological rules. As Labov showed in his early studies of Black English, these reductions occur more often at the ends of phrases and before consonants than before vowels, revealing patterned phonological conditioning rather than random “dropping” of sounds. In short, AAVE has a grammar.

The issue is not AAVE itself but the way institutions attach value to certain grammars while dismissing others. Sociolinguists consistently show that every language variety is fully rule-governed and expressive; what differs is not linguistic sophistication but the social prestige assigned to particular groups of speakers. As Walt Wolfram and Natalie Schilling note in American English: Dialects and Variation, judgments about correctness often reflect social hierarchies more than linguistic facts. What counts as “good language” is determined by who speaks it and how much power they hold, not by any inherent linguistic superiority. Standard American English occupies its privileged position because it is associated with white, middle-class speakers who hold social, economic, and political power. The saying that “a language is a dialect with an army and a navy” captures this point: linguistic hierarchies reflect power relations rather than linguistic facts. When a teacher labels AAVE-based slang as inappropriate for the academic setting and bans it, they are not enforcing an objective standard of clarity. They are enforcing a social order that centers one group’s dialect as the only legitimate way to sound educated.

This tension becomes especially clear when we look at how AAVE circulates outside the classroom. White influencers build brands using phrases like “it’s giving,” “periodt,” and “no cap,” expressions that developed within Black communities and are saturated with cultural meaning. These speakers gain followers, sponsorships, and social capital by performing a stylized version of Blackness without experiencing its material consequences. Yet when Black students use the same expressions in their native dialect, they risk punishment. The contrast shows that the issue is not the words themselves, but who is allowed to say them. As sociolinguists often argue, language attitudes are really attitudes toward speakers.

The richness of African American linguistic traditions further undermines deficit narratives about AAVE. Practices such as signifying, also called playing the dozens or capping, represent sophisticated verbal art that relies on layered meaning. In signifying, speakers exploit the gap between literal and figurative meaning, relying on shared cultural knowledge to convey insults, jokes, or social commentary indirectly. This demands high levels of pragmatic inference, figurative language, and cultural competence. Hip hop similarly showcases complex use of AAVE through intricate rhyme schemes, internal rhyme, assonance and consonance, and wordplay in which a single phrase carries several meanings at once. Rappers manipulate rhythm, stress, and intonation for rhetorical effect. These are exactly the kinds of metalinguistic skills teachers claim to value when they teach metaphor, irony, and close reading, but when they appear through AAVE, they are often dismissed rather than credited.

As school is built around Standard American English, many Black students who speak AAVE navigate educational spaces through constant code switching, alternating between linguistic varieties depending on context. Sociolinguistically, this is a form of bidialectalism; cognitively, it requires speakers to monitor their speech in real time and inhibit familiar forms in favor of more prestigious ones. Research in social and affective psychology shows that this kind of constant self-monitoring carries real costs. A recent article in Affective Science by Devin Johnson and colleagues argues that for Black and other racialized speakers, the need to anticipate and avoid linguistic racism can lead to “vigilant” code switching. This phenomenon is described as a heightened, effortful form of shifting speech styles that depletes cognitive resources and increases stress. In their framework, linguistic racism is not only about overt slurs, but also about negative reactions to accents, dialect features, or perceived “improper” grammar. Classroom observation studies echo this pattern. In their study of teacher–child interactions, Michelle-Bernard Hamilton and Laura DeThorne found that Black children often receive more corrections and behavior warnings than their peers for speech that reflects culturally rooted communicative styles — including greater volume, expressive intonation, and overlapping talk — rather than for genuine misbehavior. These patterns show how classroom norms can penalize culturally patterned ways of speaking. Classroom slang bans operate in the same way: they pressure students to treat their home variety as a liability rather than a legitimate linguistic resource.

Psychological research on belonging helps explain why linguistic rejection has such powerful academic effects. In a landmark study, Greg Walton and Geoffrey Cohen showed that when Black college students received a brief intervention normalizing everyday experiences of social adversity, their grades and health outcomes improved for years afterward. The intervention worked by reframing difficulties as common rather than as evidence that one did not belong — a mechanism that mirrors what happens when schools treat a student’s home language as legitimate or illegitimate. Language policies send similar signals. When students repeatedly hear that their everyday way of speaking is “wrong,” “unprofessional,” or “gibberish,” they can reasonably infer that people who sound like them do not fully belong in academic spaces. This logic aligns with broader psychological work showing that cues linked to negative stereotypes can depress academic performance for stigmatized groups. In their foundational research, Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson demonstrated that when Black students encountered subtle signals suggesting their abilities might be judged through a racial lens, their performance suffered. These inferences do not remain at the level of feelings; they shape motivation, willingness to participate, and trust in teachers which are the same processes activated when students receive signals that their language is unwelcome or inferior.

The classroom is also a key site where language-based microaggressions occur. Psychologist Derald Sue and his colleagues define racial microaggressions as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities” that communicate derogatory or negative slights toward people of color, even when delivered unconsciously. In educational settings, comments about “proper English” or rules that single out certain ways of speaking can function as precisely this kind of linguistic microaggression. Comments such as “Speak proper English,” surprise at how “articulate” a Black student is, or rules that ban “slang” function as linguistic microaggressions, implying that Black ways of speaking are inherently less intelligent or less civilized. Over time, these repeated slights can contribute to stress, anxiety, and disengagement. When a teacher’s poster lists AAVE slang under the heading of “gibberish,” it becomes an environmental microaggression that decorates the classroom with the message that Black language has no place there.

Historical debates about AAVE in education show how long these issues have persisted. In the 1960s, educators Carl Bereiter and Siegfried Engelmann described the speech of low-income Black children as “language deprivation,” arguing that their home dialect lacked the structure needed for school learning. Labov and other linguists forcefully rejected this claim, arguing that what Bereiter labeled “ungrammatical” was in fact the regular grammar of AAVE. Three decades later, the Oakland School Board attempted to take this linguistic evidence seriously by recognizing what they termed Ebonics as the primary language of many African American students and proposing teacher training in its structure. The goal was not to teach math in slang, but to use contrastive analysis so that students could learn Standard American English as an additional dialect. The backlash was swift and often mocking, revealing how deeply many Americans equate nonstandard dialects with ignorance.

The viral slang ban suggests that, almost thirty years after Oakland, many classrooms still operate under what linguists call standard language ideology, the belief that there is one correct, neutral, and superior way to speak. Under this ideology, students who do not naturally speak the prestige dialect are expected to abandon their home variety or keep it strictly separate from school. An alternative, grounded in both sociolinguistics and psychology, is an additive model of language education. In an additive model, schools explicitly affirm students’ home dialects and teach Standard American English as an additional “code” for particular contexts, much like teaching a second language. Teachers can help students compare grammatical structures across varieties, show when and why different choices are effective, and frame code switching as a strategic communicative skill rather than a prerequisite for respect.

Returning to the classroom poster, the problem is not that teachers want students to adjust their language for different audiences. That is a reasonable educational goal. The problem is when that goal is pursued through shaming and prohibition rather than through instruction and respect. When Black students see their everyday speech labeled as deficient while the same phrases are celebrated on social media when used by white influencers, they receive a clear lesson about whose language, and whose identities, are valued. Until schools confront the linguistic assumptions behind such policies, efforts to promote equity will remain incomplete. AAVE is not a defect to be fixed, but a systematic, expressive variety that reflects the creativity and resilience of African American communities. Educational justice requires treating it as such and refusing to punish students for the language they bring with them to school.