Long rejects absolute, harsh terms like "right" and "wrong" or "correct" and "incorrect" , suggesting "Better" is a more productive word for teachers. Instead of relying on rigid rules, he proposes a two-part test for evaluating disputed grammar: (1) an audience-based question ("how will the construction in question look to those who are going to see it?") and (2) a systems-based question ("how does it fit into the system of contemporary English?"). This approach shifts the goal from following abstract precepts to making effective rhetorical and systematic choices.

Long claims that the term "prescriptivism" is a "relatively new" and "derogatory word for standardization". It suggests that the academic rejection of "prescriptivism" may be a rejection of the idea of standardization itself, rather than just a rejection of specific "improper" rules.

Long draws a line between different kinds of language rules. He argues for standardizing spelling in written English, but simultaneously insists that grammatical "differences in construction must be allowed". This suggests a practical compromise for educators: they can uphold a clear academic standard while still honoring a student's home language by allowing for variations in sentence structure and grammar.

Instead of absolute terms like "correct" or "incorrect," Long suggests a more practical evaluation. He asks writers to consider two key factors: the audience's perception and whether the language "fit[s] into the system of contemporary English". This shifts the goal from following rules to making effective rhetorical choices.

Long directly warns instructors about the negative impact of focusing on error. He states that "teachers of composition should be cautious in correcting student grammar because it is quite possible to overcorrect and make students feel insecure or alienated. This highlights the potential harm of prioritizing grammatical "correctness" over a student's confidence and the development of their authentic voice.

Long directly warns instructors about the negative impact of focusing on error. He states that "teachers of composition should be cautious in correcting student grammar because it is quite possible to overcorrect and make students feel insecure or alienated. This highlights the potential harm of prioritizing grammatical "correctness" over a student's confidence and the development of their authentic voice.

Long draws a line between different kinds of language rules. He argues for standardizing spelling in written English, but simultaneously insists that grammatical "differences in construction must be allowed". This suggests a practical compromise for educators: they can uphold a clear academic standard while still honoring a student's home language by allowing for variations in sentence structure and grammar.

Long argues against a punitive model of grammar instruction. He claims grammar "should be taught positively, as an account of the structure of the language, not negatively, as an account of ways in which people often produce poorly constructed sentences". This supports a shift: instead of using grammar rules to punish student errors, educators should use grammar as a tool for linguistic understanding and analysis.

Long claims that the term "prescriptivism" is a "relatively new" and "derogatory word for standardization". It suggests that the academic rejection of "prescriptivism" may be a rejection of the idea of standardization itself, rather than just a rejection of specific "improper" rules.

Instead of simply enforcing "correctness," Lisabeth proposes that educators should "honor students' own language resources". Her practical solution involves a shift in teaching: rather than using a guide like The Elements of Style as a rulebook, teachers should assign it as an object for "rhetorical analysis". This, combined with reading "vernacular poetry and fiction" , helps students gain a "critical understanding of the language of power".

Lisabeth highlights the influence of this ideology by pointing out that The Elements of Style is the "number one most-assigned textbook" in the Open Syllabus Project. She argues that this widespread use, often by "well-meaning professors," shows how deeply these "racist dispositions" are "baked into American educational culture"

Citing Asao Inoue, Lisabeth claims that "all grading and assessment... that uphold singular, dominant standards that are racist and White Supremacist when used uniformly". She calls the popular belief that mastering Standard English will help students overcome social barriers the "American meritocratic myth", suggesting it's a false promise.

Lisabeth argues that modern style guides are not descended from pedagogical textbooks but from 19th-century "conversation" and etiquette guides. These guides were not about teaching language but about mapping "social, racial and gendered territory". She uses the metaphor of "racialized parlor and kitchen geography" to argue that style guides are designed to separate "correct" language (the parlor) from other "overreaching" vernaculars (the kitchen) .

Instead of simply enforcing "correctness," Lisabeth proposes that educators should "honor students' own language resources". Her practical solution involves a shift in teaching: rather than using a guide like The Elements of Style as a rulebook, teachers should assign it as an object for "rhetorical analysis". This, combined with reading "vernacular poetry and fiction" , helps students gain a "critical understanding of the language of power"

Lisabeth’s central argument is that popular, prescriptive style guides like The Elements of Style are "emblematic of the under-interrogated systemic racism of standardized English". She argues that classrooms using these guides are participating in "constructing English as White property" and implicitly underwriting "White Supremacist language" by valuing it as the only correct form.

The massive influence of this ideology by pointing out that The Elements of Style is the "number one most-assigned textbook" in the Open Syllabus Project. She argues that this widespread use, often by "well-meaning professors," shows how deeply these "racist dispositions" are "baked into American educational culture".

Citing Asao Inoue, Lisabeth claims that "all grading and assessment... that uphold singular, dominant standards that are racist and White Supremacist when used uniformly". She calls the popular belief that mastering Standard English will help students overcome social barriers the "American meritocratic myth", suggesting it's a false promise.

Lisabeth argues that modern style guides are not descended from pedagogical textbooks but from 19th-century "conversation" and etiquette guides. These guides were not about teaching language but about mapping "social, racial and gendered territory". Guides are designed to separate "correct" language (the parlor) from other "overreaching" vernaculars (the kitchen)