“Local” is totally subjective. The core point is that requiring that a job application speaks in a certain manner is not necessarily unjust and likely in the vast majority of cases is a pragmatic matter. Language / dialect is not an intrinsic property of someone’s identity. People are able to learn new accents, dialects, and languages. Accents being the easiest to learn. It’s not a protected class. The existence of a standard makes it easier for newcomers to learn the language.
> If you grant that discrimination leads to some language prescriptions, is it that hard to see how those prescriptions, when used normatively by people with no intention of racism, can end up perpetuating the exact racist attitudes that lead to the creation of those language prescriptions?
No, that’s nonsense. If someone’s feelings are unintentionally hurt because they are made aware that their English is not correct, that is not racism.
Except the dialects are often local to the places where the opportunities are being sought and can exist due to a long history of racism driven segregation...so you analogy is completely erroneous.
> In other words, the pre-existing discriminatory attitude causes the exclusionary behavior in language not vice versa.
I'm glad to hear you admit alteast part of this. If you grant that discrimination leads to some language prescriptions, is it that hard to see how those prescriptions, when used normatively by people with no intention of racism, can end up perpetuating the exact racist attitudes that lead to the creation of those language prescriptions?
This is precisely my point: this history and the current reality means that we should be care about how and when it is worth spreading prescriptive approaches to language, ideally limiting it to times when ambiguity is created or meaning is lost.