In his essay, Nah, We Straight: An Argument Against Code Switching, Vershawn Young defines the titular term as "the use of more of a language or linguistic variety at the same time in conversation. effective way to spread equality. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? On the other hand, Stanley Fish opposes this sentiment, arguing that i proper essay writing and composing mechanisms, especially in a professional university context – are critical to learning His argument implies that structure is one of the most important aspects of teaching composition and that the way to achieve this is through standardized language teaching. While as an effort to prevent racism, the concept of code meshing is an honorable and worthwhile effort, I personally believe it has its flaws. It should undoubtedly be used as a tool to accelerate social justice, but it should only be implemented up to a certain point. Rather than eliminate code switching entirely, I am of the opinion that it, like any other social tool, has its place. If Young had his way, classroom communication, for example, would lose its professionalism and formality. If a student in his early twenties uses an abundance of expletives while talking to his friends at an informal meeting, does that mean he should "codify" those colloquialisms with his professional way of speaking in class? If the answer is yes, it means he would conflate the two and start swearing lightly during class, which, while certainly breaking down artificial barriers between student and professor, takes away the important relationship of expert/beginner respect. I for one would find myself respecting a college professor less if they started cutting profanity from their personal life into their lectures. And I think the same goes for students too.