Black kids don’t need to be taught a separate language in California 90%

By Stacy Washington100%

7/13/2026, 5:54:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 73.9% saturation with 514 hits. Analysis detected 2,655 faulty-reasoning hits from 696 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.8% and a BS Rank of 90% (3,121 of 28,684 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.10% of the article peer group.

A nonprofit called the Black English Language Workgroup is trying to normalize bad English for Black children specifically. 
As if educational outcomes weren’t abysmal enough. 
The group has partnered with other organizations to ensure that when children mispronounce words, or use language incorrectly, they are not told how to speak properly. 
According to its website, the Black English Language Workgroup is “a collaborative partnership of organizations committed to advancing language justice for Black children in early childhood education.” 
But instead of working on improving language literacy for black children in California, they are focusing on permanently handicapping these kids by normalizing bad English  only for black children. 
Aren’t black children Americans? 
Isn’t proper English culturally normative for all kids regardless of race? 
Why are black kids the only ones who do not need to have a proper grip on their mother tongue? 
Will this standard also apply to English as a Second Language learners? 
Public school children in California have abysmal achievement levels on the 2025 Smarter Balance Assessments, with just 49% scoring proficient or advanced in English, and 37% meeting or exceeding the standard in math. 
Dig into the data, and you see where black children need correction and remedial efforts far more than any other group, with scores that should drive firings and reform in every public-school building in the state. 
Just 33% of black children are proficient or advanced in English, and 20% in math. 
Meanwhile, in nonprofit la-la land, the Black English Language Workgroup collaborates with other organizations they claim are “committed to advancing” something they call “language justice” for black children. 
Their partners in this attack on education are Californians Together, Catalyst California and Early Edge. 
BlackECE, their preferred moniker, boasts of its effort to “Challenge harmful language hierarchies and affirm Black English as a legitimate, rule-governed language rooted in Black history, culture, and community.” 
This is a ludicrous attempt to “do something” for blacks with no thought given to the future ramifications if they were to succeed. 
Older black Americans would riot if they ever thought speaking poorly would become an intentional activity that wealthy white liberals would attempt to enshrine in the national body politic on behalf of black kids. 
The stated goal here is pure, unadulterated nonsense  to put it kindly  and will result in a permanent underclass of people who are angry at everyone else for their inability to speak their mother tongue with efficiency. 
I remember my parents rigidly enforcing the use of proper English at home and in public, pointing out that you only have one chance to make a first impression, and that speaking well could open many doors! 
When my younger sister and I spent the summer in Tennessee with our extended family and returned home with adorably unintelligible southern accents, our mom ordered us to snap out of it. 
When we did not, she simply refused to understand us until we used proper English. 
This resembles quite strongly the educational double standards that once prompted future president and then-Texas Gov. 
George W. 
Bush to say, “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. 
I say it is discrimination to require anything less  the soft bigotry of low expectations. 
Some say that schools can’t be expected to teach, because there are too many broken families, too many immigrants, too much diversity. 
I say that pigment and poverty need not determine performance. 
That myth is disproved by good schools every day. 
Excuse-making must end before learning can begin.” 
Was he looking into the future? 
These activist nonprofits are working to enshrine bigotry instead of banishing it. 
We should give children  all of them, regardless of race  the high standard of speaking English well. 
We should urge them to achieve their very best, because they can  and ultimately because without a clear, well-enforced standard, many of them never will. 
Stacy Washington is a decorated Air Force veteran, an Emmy-nominated TV personality and the host of “Stacy on the Right,” which airs nightly 9 p.m. to midnight ET on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.1%Stacy Washington: 3.6%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 1.2%California Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Stacy Washington: 4.3%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic15.1%This article: 1.6%Stacy Washington: 0.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic1.6%This article: 0.9%Stacy Washington: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 3.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Stacy Washington: 3.1%California Post: 9.9%Framing Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 2.6%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Stacy Washington: 2.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias5.2%This article: 18.5%Stacy Washington: 4.6%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias18.5%This article: 50.1%Stacy Washington: 22.5%California Post: 15.4%Negativity Bias50.1%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 1.3%California Post: 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 1.3%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Stacy Washington: 2.4%California Post: 1.5%In-Group Bias7.3%This article: 7.8%Stacy Washington: 6.2%California Post: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.8%This article: 4.7%Stacy Washington: 2.4%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 3.8%California Post: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Stacy Washington: 1.3%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Stacy Washington: 9.7%California Post: 2.4%Ad Hominem15.4%This article: 5.0%Stacy Washington: 16.8%California Post: 0.4%Straw Man5.0%This article: 7.5%Stacy Washington: 3.1%California Post: 4.1%Appeal to Authority7.5%This article: 6.3%Stacy Washington: 5.3%California Post: 1.4%False Dilemma6.3%This article: 18.5%Stacy Washington: 15.6%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope18.5%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.6%Stacy Washington: 16.8%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization23.6%This article: 1.7%Stacy Washington: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring1.7%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.5%Stacy Washington: 13.8%California Post: 8.6%Appeal to Emotion18.5%This article: 3.2%Stacy Washington: 2.0%California Post: 1.0%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 5.2%Stacy Washington: 1.3%California Post: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.2%Stacy Washington: 10.6%California Post: 3.5%Anecdotal18.2%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.7%Stacy Washington: 0.7%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground2.7%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.3%Stacy Washington: 1.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading4.3%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.4%Stacy Washington: 4.6%California Post: 3.1%Unattributed Quote18.4%This article: 8.0%Stacy Washington: 2.0%California Post: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection8.0%This article: 73.9%Stacy Washington: 41.3%California Post: 12.5%Biased Writer Voice73.9%This article: 16.7%Stacy Washington: 9.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination16.7%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Washington: 4.5%California Post: 2.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Stacy Washington: 2.4%California Post: 5.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.7%

696 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers19%attributed speech561writer words
Selected voice

BlackECE

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words21% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%BlackECE: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+95.4 ptsWriter: 4.6%BlackECE: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-91.6 ptsWriter: 91.6%BlackECE: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-16.6 ptsWriter: 16.6%BlackECE: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%BlackECE: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.