I’m conflicted while reading Kyle Wiens’s, I Won’t Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar. Here’s Why. On the surface, the article comes off as a pretentious tirade about how people who use poor grammar (keep in mind, he makes no distinction between ignorance and honest mistakes) are not fit to be employed by him for “blah blah blah” reason. But on the other hand, I realize my negative reaction is fostered by the fact that I see myself in people that Wiens is talking about. I often have poor grammar myself, as much as I enjoy the concept of writing and giving form to my ideas. Sometimes I can’t figure out whether I should use a semicolon, a comma, or neither and I can agree with Wiens that it’s a problem. But fundamentally I feel that there are more important things to look for than proper grammar (even considering his assertion that poor grammar is a symptom of poor learning and other issues). In a world where typing fast is seen favorably and deadlines are looming on the horizon, people are bound to make mistakes now and again; especially if they’re placed in a room and ordered to take a test, like they’re a replicant from Blade Runner. Wiens’s philosophy just feels a little too “witch hunt-esque” for me to really agree with, despite being able to understand where he’s coming from.
Furthermore, Wiens’s grammar concerns conflict greatly with the idea of cultural language and different forms of communication. Whether or not cultural language is legitimate is already a hot debate; hot enough to make people like Zachary Martin create articles titled, AFRICAN AMERICAN LANGUAGE IS GOOD ENGLISH, where he advocates for the use of the African American vernacular. Granted, this article was written more from the perspective of creative writing (sonnets, novels, etc.) but it still draws attention to the issue of what can be considered right and wrong.Personally, I think that a universal form of communication in writing, for professional settings, can be a good thing. Not so much based on grammar standards and semi-colons, but more so based on understanding what the other person is writing about. Irish and British vernacular come to mind when reading Martin’s article. As an American, the slang used in these regions can be a little confusing, especially when encountering it in movies and TV (they say things like “puff” or “poof” which I believe is equivalent to calling someone “gay”. I won’t confirm this; if I’m wrong it just proves my point). Including this kind of language in an article about cuttlefish would probably just distract from the purpose of the study. I believe that different vernaculars have a definite place in writing, however in business and scientific writing I think that making sure everyone understands what is being written about is paramount. Of course, this begs the question, “Is there a form of writing that everyone can understand. What would it even look like?” But that’s a discussion for another time I suppose.
Leave a Reply