In his article “The Ebonic Plague,” Frank Rich criticizes the public’s response to the Oakland School Board’s proposal to incorporate Ebonics in the classroom. He attests that the public outcry over Oakland’s statement that Ebonics is a legitimate and “genetically based” language, in fact, was racially motivated, and obscured the reality of the problem Oakland sought to resolve in the first place – that of rampant illiteracy rates amongst African American students in the school district. Ellen Goodman, on the other hand, is heavily engaged in the Ebonics debate, arguing that legitimizing Ebonics, in general, and especially in the school system, is destructive and actively supports a trajectory for students that ends in a “second-class future.” Her article “Ebonics: a Second Language for a Second-Class Future” decries the normalization of Ebonics, emphasizing the idea of “Americanization” as a way to insist that only Standard American English would produce literate and successful students with the ability to surpass the success of their parents. Goodman herself only indirectly parallels issues of race with the Ebonics debate, while Rich concedes that the parallel is direct and clear. In this paper, please explain whether or not Ellen Goodman’s argument about Ebonics supports Rich’s claim that the Ebonics debate was indeed racially motivated. Additionally, explain your own views on Rich’s claim.