tldr; calling AAVE unprofessional is harmfully discriminatory and restricts the access of African Americans (Black Americans) to the workplace. Access to language (dialects) and knowlege control who in our society has access to the economy. More professional positions are reserved for those who are more 'professional' and articulate. "Spanglish" and "slang" aren't allowed in the world place because they are believed to display a lack of expertise. But this judgement is arbitrary and the way someone talks actually has no bearing on their ability to get work done and the quality of their work. AAVE is not unprofessional just as a southern accent isn't unprofessional.

**TL;DR - Just because AAVE sounds different does not necessarily make it “wrong" or unprofessional. I actually think that this dialect is hugely misunderstood, especially when being compared alongside the standard English language.** According to Brandon Zang (2020), former Editorial Intern at Encyclopædia Britannica, African Vernacular English (previously known as Ebonics), specifically refers to the form of Black speech that distinguishes itself from standard English, which includes its unique grammatical structure, pronunciation, and vocabulary. So from here, we can already see that AAVE differs on a linguistic level from standard English. And while academics do consider it to be a specific way of speaking within the larger categorization of AAVE, or Black English, it is clear that there are still stereotypes and a certain stigma associated with it. For example, AAVE has been and still is associated with lower socioeconomic status and lack of formal education by many parts of American society. Another very important example can be seen in the Oakland resolution. In December 1996, national attention in the United States turned to a new resolution which was passed by the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD). This controversial resolution defined what it called “Ebonics” (now AAVE) as a language separate from English. The aim here was to familiarize educators with AAVE and to develop the district’s bilingual program for AAVE speakers. This way, the needs of the district’s African American student population would be better met. Unfortunately, this decision was met with immediate backlash from politicians—such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson. He called the resolution “an unacceptable surrender” and “borderlining on disgrace.” However, within less than a month the Linguistic Society of America unanimously passed a statement that supported the decision of the OUSD, citing the systematic nature of Ebonics as a valid reason for it to be recognized as a distinct linguistic system. Interestingly, while there are various theories surrounding the origins of AAVE, there is no concrete evidence to substantiate exactly where it comes from. Well, irrespective of AAVE’s origins, Zang makes a very clear point in that AAVE is usually negatively perceived, particularly in white-dominated professional spaces, such as politics and academia in the United States. This was and still is true, especially as today one can still find many black people in America facing discrimination for the way they speak. And as a result of this many AAVE speakers rely on code-switching to actively change the way they speak when, for example, they are in a certain social setting such as their workplace. John. E McIntyre (2016) who writes for the Baltimore Sun, elaborates on this negativity that is associated with AAVE. He says that while it is clear English is the standard language that is most recognized in business and other professional settings, it doesn’t give the next person the right to criticize people who speak other dialects of English - seeing them as "uneducated," "lazy," "sloppy," or "ignorant", or seeing a particular dialect as, "merely a form of low-level bigotry that for some reason is still tolerated." This is true, as sometimes people tend to forget that speaking a certain way does not necessarily equate with being or sounding more educated or civilized. He also adds that another mistake people make is to consider the written dialect of English as more important than that which is spoken. In other words, don’t make the mistake of thinking that the standard written form of English is the "correct" form of language and speech. Especially since speech is the place where language evolves. What's more, the development of language and language systems (as a whole) have to come from somewhere. That is to say, it has to be based on something – another language that already exists. So here, with AAVE we see that happening. Literally a new “language”, if you will, has emerged. I think the most important thing to observe and to sort of consciously be aware of (on a certain level) here is, as McIntyre puts it, “Don't ignore the learning." We are always learning new things everyday and this is especially true where communication, particularly, language is concerned. So while it’s clear that there are academic influences and contributions from linguists in establishing AAVE as a historically and culturally significant linguistic system, according to Zang we still still have a long way to go. Especially as various institutions and individuals still regard AAVE as, "a broken and grammatically incorrect variation of standard English, negatively impacting the quality of education, livelihoods, and careers of Black people in America.” Sources: 1) It's not bad grammar https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/columnists/mcintyre/bal-it-s-not-bad-grammar-20160627-story.html [accessed January 29, 2021]. 2) Is African American Vernacular English a Language? https://www.britannica.com/story/is-african-american-vernacular-english-a-language [accessed January 29, 2021].

It's unprofessional (AAVE) in settings where communication is key between people. Historically AAVE (Ebonics) has been considered a language group that is a fusion between West African Languages, Early Modern English, French, and dutch. It has it's own quirks, but it is in some ways unprofessional sounding. For example in the case of some ways it sounds unintelligible to non-native speakers in some cases, and the slang if a person is unfamiliar can throw a person through the loop. It's fine at home and even in public, but when communication is key, it's not. I am studying healthcare and miscommunication can get people killed, and actually impact how a person might think of you because of biases. You might be the best doctor in the world and your black, but a white person might not want you to treat them because you should to them, unprofessional and in turn they may think you as a doctor is not trained enough. Also when a white person speaks using Ebonics they often are told by people they are stupid. It's a weird double negative, but no one is really stupid, but rather it comes off as broken English. I don't view it as a dialect but rather a cultural language. Scots (which I can understand somewhat) is it's own highly developed dialect of English.

TL;DR: Is there a difference between embracing AAVE in the workplace internally vs. when your business has employees who regularly engage with the public? As a trainer of Customer Service Representatives (meaning employees who interact with the public on a daily basis) I have worked for companies that embraced AAVE and those who didn't. There are several reasons I'm listing "mixed" as my take on this. On one hand, because we are not talking about an office setting (where interactions are between people who have the opportunity to "get to know each other") I do feel that companies should be allowed to expect a level of "standard" English proficiency for this sort of job. That being said, I've also worked positions where the clientele being served are predominantly minority. In these instances, the general rule is that AAVE is perfectly fine to use on calls.. I also speak passable Spanish. As a "stereotypical" white person, I have often found myself in a position (both while training and while conducting quality assessments) where I wasn't sure if a word or phrase should be considered "unprofessional" when spoken in a dialect or (what I thought my be slang) in another language. Rather than just marking people down for it, I've reached out to peers of other races and backgrounds, and have learned a lot (and am better for it.) So here's the "against" argument I'd like to make: I 100% understand the argument as to why employees shouldn't be made to code-switch; however, since AAVE can be seen as "incorrect" by others (such as myself) how are we (I guess by "we" I mean white people?) to know if the person speaking AAVE is speaking AAVE correctly? I'm not being glib. AAVE has its own grammar and rules (unfortunately, most of which are used to stereotype/disparage others) but (I hope this makes sense?) I would assume that there are speakers of AAVE who speak the dialect "incorrectly" in a way that others who are native to it would notice??? (or am I just flat wrong here?) Also, am I being ignorant in suggesting that it's "ok" for a company to expect an employee with a "public facing" job to act/speak in a "commonly accepted" way? An example I'm thinking of is the ex NFL player, Aquib Talib, who had a brief stint as a broadcaster and spoke heavily accented (to my ear) AAVE. He no longer has this job (this could be a poor example because I think he might have some legal troubles as well?) but I'm curious if others think it was "ok" for him to be let go because of his dialect?