The article dives deep into the linguistics of the issue but doesn't really look at the sociology of it. Arguing whether or not AAVN is "valid" misses the larger social argument against "ebonics" - does integrating an approach that codifies the incorrect grammar and diction of a disadvantaged social class institutionalize their disadvantage?

I grew up speaking "redneck." So did my father. My grandparents spoke "redneck" until they died; my father, on the other hand, speaks "business English." Most people who grew up with heavy vernacular were forced to learn, at some point, that if they wished to get ahead they needed to learn to talk and write like the more successful castes.

The author mentions that media isn't "integrative" or something like that, but anyone speaking any dialect can tell that they are deviating from the norm. They also have a constant reminder of the success of those who don't (on TV) vs. those who do (on the corner at the bodega). Those who speak AAVN are aware that they are speaking a dialect that is not its own mother tongue, that is not spoken by the majority of their countrymen. So what's the advantage of saying "there there it's okay" again?

The author draws parallels between AAVN and French in that double-negatives are AOK in French. Russian has triple and quadruple negatives. Nonetheless, when a Russian student attends American schools, he will be corrected on his grammar, otherwise he'll never speak English properly... and isn't that the point?

It is my (decidedly non-scholarly) opinion that the whole dust-up over "Ebonics" was because most outside observers saw a flagrant pandering to cultural "sensitivities" as an excuse to resist integration of a disadvantaged group of people. It would be another ten years before Michael Gerson coined "the soft tyrrany of lowered expectations" but that's what we're talking about here.