AAVE, professionally known as African American Vernacular English, can be traced five centuries back in history to the beginning of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Enslaved West Africans, who spoke  a variety of languages, blended their native languages with English dialects spoken by their enslavers. Enslaved people used this evolving language to share important information with one another and keep their cultural traditions alive, even when faced with violence when it comes to not giving up their cultures. 

Their unique way of speaking wasn’t just about communication; it was also a form of resistance, and a way to survive. 

Through the Great Migration, Civil Rights Movement, and the Reconstruction Era, AAVE continued to develop. Each of these periods transformed the dialect, introducing new variants of words to make the language more expressive and systematic. 

AAVE isn’t just a version of Standard English or “broken English.” It has its own set of phonological, syntactic, and lexical rules. For those who are unfamiliar with these terms, phonological rules are the rules that dictate what sounds letters on their own and in groups make, syntactic rules are grammatical rules for sentence structures (the order of nouns, verbs and adjectives in languages), and lexical rules are the rules dictating to what extent a word can be altered and still have the same meaning. It’s an organized system that has embedded itself into mainstream American English through music, literature, and pop culture, but it often still faces negative stigma in formal situations.

Despite being a legitimate dialect, speakers of AAVE often experience discrimination in schools and in the workplace, where Standard English is seen as the “right” way to speak. Many AAVE speakers feel pressure to change how they talk, or to  “code-switch,” in order to fit in and secure job opportunities. 

Code-switching refers to the ability to switch between different language styles depending on the situation. 

Fortunately, ongoing research and cultural advocacy are helping challenge these biases, revealing that AAVE is an important part of America’s linguistic diversity. However, the pressure to conform can lead to a feeling of loss surrounding one’s cultural identity and may reinforce the idea that AAVE isn’t a valid language or form of expression in certain spaces. 

For many Black individuals, especially in workplaces and schools, there’s an unspoken pressure to “sound professional” by using Standard English instead of AAVE. This expectation comes from societal biases that link the way you speak with your intelligence and credibility. 

As a result, many AAVE speakers feel like they have to constantly switch between being true to their culture and fitting in with dominant language standards of Standard English.

John McWhorter, a linguist at Columbia University, points out that nonstandard dialects are often viewed as less legitimate, even though they have rich histories and complexities. His research sheds light on how these biases are and always have been prevalent in American society, affecting how people perceive AAVE, less professionally called Black English, and other dialects such as Patois in media, schools, and workplaces. 

McWhorter also points to the discomfort many professionals have in naming the dialect, often using softer terms like “Black English,” “Ebonics,” or even “urban slang” depending on their audience and the social setting.

This reflects the trend in our society where professionals want to acknowledge AAVE’s existence but often “sanitize” its name to avoid appearing “politically incorrect” or racially insensitive.

Linguists tend to use the term “AAVE” to emphasize the dialect’s legitimacy and systematic features. In less formal settings, terms like “Black English” or “home language” are used when addressing the dialect in multicultural training, DEI conversations, or classroom discussions. 

The media representations often simplify it further, calling it “slang” or “street talk,” reducing its depth and reinforcing stereotypes.

McWhorter’s classes such as “Language in America” and “Language Contact,” explore these issues, helping students understand the cultural significance of Black English while challenging the notion that Standard English is the only valid form of English language communication in professional and academic settings.

While code-switching can be a helpful way to navigate different social situations, it raises important questions about fairness and identity. The expectation for Black people to suppress AAVE in professional settings further marginalizes their linguistic heritage. 

However, as people become increasingly aware of these issues, more scholars, educators, and activists are advocating for AAVE to be recognized as a legitimate dialect instead of a barrier to success.

Moreover, constantly switching between different ways of speaking can be exhausting. It creates the sense that someone is really pretending to be two different people, one at work or school, and another at home or with friends. 

Even at Bronx Science, Gabriela Tejeda ’26, finds herself needing to code switch more often than not. “Code switching tends to be a part of my daily communication,” Tejeda states, “However, more than ever I switch my “code” when I go from speaking to an adult to someone closer to my age. I want them to feel comfortable and open with me.” 

“Growing up around several different environments in order to avoid being completely shunned, I adopted the language.” She continues. “But more than ever, it happens naturally and unintentionally/ I will just think “Why am I talking like that?””

“I think code-switching is necessary for success – at least in the society we live in,” Tejeda remarks. As McCluney et al. (2019) notes, Black professionals are often expected to work “twice as hard” to prove themselves when they speak using AAVE more than Standard English speakers, and code-switching is the primary reason for  that struggle. While it might help someone move up in their career, it also reinforces the notion that AAVE isn’t “good enough” for professional environments. If people have to change the way they talk just to be respected, can we call this true equality?

Beyond the workplace, AAVE plays a huge role in pop culture, especially on social media, in music, and in advertising. Words like “period” and “sis” have become popular, but their roots in AAVE are often ignored. This reflects a larger trend and longstanding issue where Black culture is celebrated when used by non-Black people but dismissed when used by the people who created it. 

It raises an important question: Why is AAVE seen as unprofessional when spoken by Black people but trendy when used by White colleagues, influencers, and celebrities?

Overall, the way society views code-switching and AAVE demonstrates that language is about more than just talking, it’s about power. 

“I want to create that formality and the image of an intellectual young woman when speaking to an adult,” said Tejeda.

This bias affects who gets taken seriously and who doesn’t. If some dialects are considered inferior while others are praised, then language isn’t just about communication; it’s about who gets to be heard. 

Instead of forcing people to change how they speak to fit certain standards, we should challenge what “professional” language even means. Aren’t all flourishing languages “professional?” What makes them not?

“Undeniably, people have trouble listening to people who don’t speak “correct” English but it appeals to those who similarly speak that way or even sets that comfortable tone,” Tejeda continues. 

The recent repeal of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) provisions, which were part of Executive Order 11246, signed under Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, represented a significant shift backwards in U.S. employment policy, which is devastating for the many different marginalized races, immigration statuses, languages, religions, gender orientations and sexualities of America. 

This executive order prohibited discrimination in hiring based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, and required affirmative action programs to promote equal opportunities. President Donald J. Trump’s repeal of this provision is a huge step back for various marginalized groups including African Americans, LGBTQ+ individuals, women, and other minorities. 

The broader effects of repealing EEO provisions are just as significant as for specific marginalized communities. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have been crucial in promoting different perspectives in the workplace, thus improving overall performance. Without these programs, work environments may become more uniform, stifling innovation and making it harder to compete on a global scale.

Affirmative action programs like those under the EEO provision have historically helped combat systemic discrimination, providing better access to jobs for these communities. In lieu of such programs, there’s a greater risk of returning to exclusionary hiring practices, reminiscent of those of the Jim Crow South, which could widen existing economic gaps. For example, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has played a key role in building the Black middle class by offering stable jobs. Around 29% of the USPS’s workforce is Black. The potential privatization of USPS under the current administration could threaten this legacy, possibly leading to job losses and a decrease in economic stability in not just Black communities, but the entirety of America.

Moreover, dismantling DEI initiatives has consequences beyond the workplace. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently canceled 400 DEI and environmental justice grants worth $1.7 billion. These grants were meant to address historical inequities and ensure fair treatment in environmental policies. Canceling them could worsen environmental issues that disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.

In education, the Office for Civil Rights within the Education Department has shifted away from enforcing disability services and addressing racial discrimination. This change may leave important issues unresolved, undermining protections for students and possibly increasing educational inequities.

Philosophically, the repealment of EEO provisions prompts us to think critically about the nation’s commitment to justice and equality. 

“I don’t really think that the perception of AAVE is changing but I do think that more people are becoming successful despite using it or having a ‘blaccent,’” said Tejeda.

Their removal raises important questions about the ethical responsibilities of a society to protect and support its marginalized members: How far is the government willing to go just to “purify” this nation?

Additionally, this policy shift challenges the idea of meritocracy. Without measures to create a level playing field, “merit-based” systems might unintentionally maintain existing inequalities since not everyone has the same access to resources and opportunities. Therefore, the concept of meritocracy, without equity initiatives, could reinforce privilege rather than promote genuine fair practice.

The long-term effects of this decision will shape the workforce and define the nation’s commitment to fairness and opportunity for everyone.

The Linguistic Society of America (LSA) recognizes AAVE as a legitimate dialect with its own grammatical rules, countering the idea that it is just “broken English.” By pushing for AAVE to be included in linguistic education, scholars aim to help both teachers and the public understand its legitimacy, moving away from the negative perspective that often surrounds discussions of nonstandard dialects.

In schools, there’s a growing effort to incorporate linguistic diversity into what students learn, especially in subjects like sociolinguistics and English studies. Some universities such as Stanford University, are starting to offer courses about AAVE, emphasizing its history and cultural importance, and showing that all dialects deserve respect. Educators are also changing how they approach language instruction, realizing that students who use AAVE aren’t making mistakes but are following the rules of their own dialect.

As cultural attitudes shift, younger generations are questioning and redefining expectations around language use. Gen Z professionals are especially advocating for workplaces that value authenticity over conformity. Unlike older generations, who often felt pressured to code-switch at work, many young professionals today see linguistic diversity as an asset.

True linguistic inclusion means creating a society where code-switching is an option, not an obligation. The ultimate goal is not to erase the practice but to ensure that no one feels compelled to suppress their linguistic identity in order to be respected. By valuing all dialects equally, we move closer to a world where language is a bridge rather than a barrier – one where authenticity is not just accepted, but celebrated. 

As cultural attitudes shift, younger generations are questioning and redefining expectations around language use. Gen Z professionals are especially advocating for workplaces that value authenticity over conformity. Unlike older generations, who often felt pressured to code-switch at work, many young professionals today see linguistic diversity as an asset.