Descriptivism is prescriptivism’s idealistic younger brother; it says that language “rules,” rather than true rules, should describing how people actually speak in order to help others communicate effectively. Generally, descriptivists tend to believe that the value of language is that it facilitates communication; therefore, if language is used for accurate communication, then it is correct, even if it does break some or many learned grammar rules. Sometimes, this is why descriptivism finds opposition: From a background with inalienable prescriptive rules on top of an internal sense of a language’s grammatical correctness, believing that almost anything can be considered correct may seem almost defeatist (falling to the forces of chaos, of lawlessness, of the uneducated masses). Especially considering that many people have worked hard to internalize these rules, descriptivism, as a challenge to the long-standing order, can also seem like a challenge to you as an individual.

The important thing to note when considering descriptivism is that it does not demand that English speakers be able to flawlessly reproduce Standard Academic English if they want to seem intelligent, educated or cultured. With many widespread English varieties, each with its own internal/unspoken rules (for example: yes, African-American Vernacular English, generally abbreviated AAVE, has grammar), imposing standardized and prescriptive rules on top serves only to discredit the message they are conveying. To point to a well-reasoned, convincing argument and complain about the use of “be,” “gonna” or “ain’t” is both fallacious and condescending. This also serves to make nonstandard language varieties seem even more “incorrect,” regardless of the fact that millions of people use them to communicate clearly and precisely, and that plenty of native Standard English speakers still fail to communicate clearly but are not always given the same treatment. As a result, institutional prescriptivism perpetuates social inequality and prejudice, while institutional descriptivism perpetuates more widespread understanding of social issues and others’ perspectives.

It would be foolish to point at this injustice and blame it on prescriptivists themselves, the majority of whom are mostly concerned with rampant unclear and convoluted writing within the boundaries of Standard English. However, to demand that today’s academics all rid themselves of their entrenched biases toward different English varieties would also be an absolute waste of time.

Academic writing rules are so intertwined with overall academic tradition that they are nearly inseparable. To “fight the system” by turning in an essay that is clearly comprehensible yet written in nonstandard English and employing colloquialisms would be to throw out your chance of a good grade, even if your logic is as sound as the one paper in the class that got an A+. It certainly wouldn’t change your professor’s mind on the necessity of strict rules. To succeed in a high-level university, a student is required to jump through hoops; conforming to prescriptive rules is just one of many. Sometimes these hoops are legitimate. Not everybody comes into college knowing how to support an argument properly. If that student has already mastered the rules, then it is a very small hoop. Many native speaker students have not, and they learn to jump well enough to get by.

However, the people who are most penalized by academic writing standards are newcomers: at UCSD, mainly non-native speakers who are held to prescriptive standards regardless of the clarity of their logic or meaning. Many of these students already know how to support an argument or how to ensure their statements logically connect to each other. What they struggle with are the small intricacies of internal English grammar, which do not necessarily impede the clarity of their writing.

Writing tutors on campus are familiar with students almost in tears and afraid they will fail their writing classes. They bring essays displaying clear logical progression, understandable prose and red-pen admonishments for “poor grammar.” And yes, some of these students do need help improving their English skills — but for many, the problem is slightly different.

Students who write with evident knowledge of prescriptive writing standards get better grades. Sometimes this is justified through the clarity of their writing. Sometimes, instead, their writing is less clear than a non-native speaker’s. But in academic writing, sometimes the standard is “difficult to follow” masquerading as the much-more-preferable “artfully conveyed.” After all, to understand a difficult-to-follow argument means that you are smart. To understand it well enough to grade it highly means that you have an undeniably intimate grasp of English nuances — even better if nobody else can figure out exactly what’s being said.

This means that writing which does not clearly convey meaning despite grammatical correctness can be graded more highly than writing which does, yet does not follow the prescribed standards. Yes, the use of an unconventional preposition over another is worth a raised eyebrow. Of course there is something to be said for precise control over the language… if it is executed clearly, and the point is not lost in a jumble of “furthermore”s, “fundamentally”s, and layer upon layer of adjective clauses. But ultimately, writing is about conveying meaning. Correct language gives the writer more academic “status” and more benefit of the doubt, yet if it is tangential to conveying the actual argument it is window-dressing. Writing succeeds if it is understood. If bias prevents this from occurring, if we tell students that they need to suck it up and accept that they will always be seen as less educated and less important, we also must work toward removing this bias for future generations.

As college students, we want to succeed. And since success means following the rules and walking out with a diploma, then we write academically like we are expected to — or we do our best. But that doesn’t mean we have to agree with the standards; we don’t have to think they are fair or relevant to the modern day and increasingly globalized world. We are allowed to have a soft spot for the ideals of descriptivism. Above all, as college students, we are also here to gain a greater understanding of others’ perspectives and to become well-rounded adults. So here’s a step toward that goal: Allow yourself to recognize that some of these well-accepted standards and biases are well past their expiration date, even if you can’t do anything about it yet.