The objective of this response article is to think through some of what I see as the far-reaching implications of a recent paper by Eric Hauser (2005) entitled "Coding 'corrective recasts': the maintenance of meaning and more fundamental problems". Hauser makes a compelling, empirically-backed case for his contention that, contrary to widespread belief, so-called "corrective recasts" in SLA ought not to be seen as preserving meaning. Upon closer inspection, Hauser's point can be read as a powerful indictment of the notoriously unequal power distribution in the use of the English language world-wide. Corrective recasts are used not only in the context of EFL teaching but also in the sphere of academic publishing where NS editorial assistants pay special attention to correctively recasting submissions by NNS contributors. Although the justification offered is typically that of "polishing up" the text language-wise, such corrective recasts sometimes tamper with the intended meanings of the text's author(s), irretrievably distorting the outcome. Needless to say, this is by no means unique to the English language, but given the fact that English is by far the world's number one language of academic publishing, and that an important part of what is expected of editorial assistants and copy editors is a very good command of the language of publication, the NS/NNS divide is most prone to coincide with institutionally sanctioned unequal power relations.