|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
English-Only - Full Statement Americans use hundreds of words and phrases in our everyday speech that stem from other languages and other cultures. From our national motto of E Pluribus Unum to chili con carne, America's diversity is expressed millions of times each day through the colorful nature of the language of her people. Language is a common thread that can bind together the people of a country or can cause the national fabric of unity to unravel. While 97% of America's population speak some English, the richness of our language is constantly being enhanced by the influx of diverse people from varying racial and ethnic backgrounds. Of the 1,000 most frequently used words, one-third of them are French. Accordingly, questions could be raised today with regard to the "purity" of the English language. Would English-only initiatives refer to the "Queen's English" or would they allow many of the modern words and phrases that have their etymological roots in seemingly foreign vernaculars? The question therefore emerges, why is there a push for making English our "official language?" Why are our national leaders considering legislation that has the potential to further the racial and cultural divide between the diverse communities of America? These are the issues that we hope to examine by reviewing the historic context of the English-only issue, the current initiatives and their underlying causes, and pending legislation around the issue of state-wide and federal English-only initiatives. The mission of The National Conference for Community and Justice is to promote understanding and respect among all races, religions and cultures and to fight bias, bigotry and racism in America. It is therefore necessary that we educate ourselves about the underlying issues of the English-only and English-first movement in an effort to ensure that these initiatives do not provide a license to discriminate nor create a climate of intolerance toward linguistic minorities in our society. U.S. History: Language Inclusion The following section is taken from The Debate Over English Only which was published by the National Education Association and can be found at their website at http://www.nea.org. In early American history, two languages often co-existed. The Continental Congress printed a number of documents, including the Articles of Confederation in German and English. An 1837 Pennsylvania law required school instruction in both German and English. In 1839, German-speaking, French-speaking, and Spanish-speaking parents in Ohio, Louisiana, and New Mexico used bilingual education. And California, which was officially bilingual for 30 years, printed its first state constitutional proceedings in both Spanish and English. During the 1870s, however, new restrictive language legislation began to appear. Even native-born, English-speaking African Americans were affected by the Jim Crow laws which imposed literacy requirements for voting. On the West Coast, the Anti-Chinese Workingman's Party led California's second constitutional convention to ratify the state's first English-only provisions. German-English bilingual schools were run in Ohio, Minnesota, and Maryland at the turn of the century. Norwegian, Italian, Czech, Dutch, and Polish were also used in bilingual instruction at the beginning of this century. Success stories of turn-of-the-century immigrant relatives who learned English quickly through English immersion classes are the exception, not the rule. According to the National Association of Bilingual Education (NABE), in 1890, children of foreign-born parents were three times more likely to drop out of high school than white children of native born Americans. Also, only 13 percent of 12-year old children of foreign parents went to high school in New York City compared to 32 percent of white children with parents born in the U.S. During the 1920s, 20 Midwestern states passed legislation that barred schools from teaching German. As a result of anti-German sentiment from WWI, the Nebraska Act of 1921 made English the official language of that state. The courts were responsible for reversing this pattern of language restriction. In 1923 the U.S. Supreme Court nullified these restrictive laws in the case of Meyer v. Nebraska. The Court wrote, "The protection of the Constitution extends to all; to those who speak other languages as well as those born with English on the tongue." The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, ruled that instruction solely in English deprives students of an understanding of the curriculum and of an equal opportunity in education. Language minority citizens, particularly Hispanics, have long been excluded from participating in the electoral process because of English-only. In many parts of the country, this exclusion was aggravated by acts of physical, economic, and political intimidation. Their children were often punished for speaking Spanish in school. In 1968, Congress sought new ways to educate language minority youth and enacted the Bilingual Education Act. Most bilingual programs are developed and funded at the local or state levels. Bilingual services are necessary for adults as well, especially senior citizens. More and more immigrants are coming to this country with no knowledge of English. Unfortunately, as the demand for English instruction has increased, the resources available have decreased. "Official Language" Supporters Supporters of English-only or English-first legislation argue that it would result in greater national cohesion due to commonality of language; they often cite recent political upheavals over language that have torn apart Canada, Belgium and Sri Lanka as justification for supporting the initiative. In addition, they feel that bilingual education slows the process of assimilation among children and creates communities of racial and ethnic enclaves that increase tensions among diverse groups. Calling bilingual and multilingual initiatives "linguistic welfare", English-only supporters continue to push for the passage of "official language" statutes on both a state-wide and federal levels. Many supporters note the additional expense of printing government documents in multiple languages to inform diverse constituencies, and argue that having one language in which government documents were printed would cut costs. This additional expense also occurs in states which conduct their driver's licensing examinations in multiple languages, with some states offering as many as 35 different exams to meet the needs of their citizenry. English-only supporters argue that individuals who take their driver's license exam in a foreign language, cannot understand English street signs, and that voters who use bilingual ballots to vote in state- wide and national elections are uninformed about the issues because the campaigns are conducted in English. Others rely on the argument that prior waves of immigrants had to learn English to adapt to society, so present-day immigrants must be expected to do the same. "Official Language" Critics Opponents of "official language" legislation respond that English-only measures represent an unwarranted federal regulation of self-expression, abrogate Constitutional rights to freedom of expression and equal protection laws, violate international human rights treaties, and contradict the spirit of the 1923 Supreme Court case of Meyer v. Nebraska. Organizations such as the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union cite historical examples of discrimination based on language-minorities ranging from New York State's disenfranchisement of more than one million Yiddish-speaking citizens to California's efforts to disenfranchise Chinese immigrants who were seen as a threat to the "purity of the ballot box." These historic references are cited as proof of the climate of intolerance generally surrounding language minorities. Opponents also believe that the consequences of the passage of English-only initiatives could have a profound impact on society. Services such as disease prevention, social welfare, victim assistance and job training would be significantly hampered by the imposition of "official language" policies. The elimination of bilingual and multilingual services could also be measured in the loss of human life. The Washington Times reported in 1987 that a 911 emergency dispatcher was able to save the life of a Salvadoran woman's infant son, who had stopped breathing, by coaching the mother in Spanish over the telephone to administer mouth-to-mouth and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation until paramedics arrived.11 Additionally, the use of American Sign Language (ASL) and Braille for physically challenged individuals would be limited, unless exceptions were granted under the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). While "official language" provisions primarily affect governmental entities, a number of provisions also effect private businesses through the imposition of local sign ordinances mandating signs in English-only. Recognizing that English-only advocates have also opposed the phone company's use of multilingual operators and multilingual directories, Federal Communications Commission licensing of foreign language radio and television stations, and bilingual menus at fast food restaurants, those against the English-only initiative note that these restrictions could result in a French or Italian restaurant where the wait staff could only speak in English, or a city's Chinatown with signs in English-only. English-Only and America's Territories Included within the unique makeup of our national identity are English-speaking Americans, Native Americans, Spanish-speaking Virgin Islanders and Puerto Ricans, Samoan-speaking American Samoans, Chamorro and Japanese-speaking citizens of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Carolinian-speaking Northern Mariana Islanders, Palauan-speaking Palauans, Hawaiian- speaking Hawaiian Islanders, Thai-speaking Wake Islanders, and non-English-speaking immigrants. The United States territories represent a diverse cultural community of non-English- speaking American citizens. English-only legislation is a threat to their unique cultural identities by attempting to eradicate their languages and, in part, the cultural identities of these sovereign territories. Historically, programs to "Americanize" non-English-speaking native populations through the imposition of a common language or set of customs has been part of a system of pervasive discrimination and intolerance on the part of English-speaking Americans. This forced assimilation is evident in the histories of the Native American tribes and the Hawaiian Islanders. English-Only and the Supreme Court This discussion of English-only legislation and Court rulings is taken in part from an article entitled "English-Only Initiatives Before Congress."Civil Rights Monitor, Vol. 8, No. 4, p. 16. As indicated above, Arizona's English-only state statute was invalidated by the Ninth Circuit, en banc, in Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English. In this case, a government employee sued the state over Article XXVIII of the state constitution, which provides that English is "the language of the ballot, the public schools and all government functions and actions." It goes on to say that the state "shall act in English and no other language." As a state employee who dealt with members of the public who filed medical malpractice claims against the state, Ms.Yniguez used English when speaking to English- speaking people and Spanish with Spanish-speaking individuals. She also wrote some of her draft settlement forms in Spanish which her supervisor could not read. In filing suit, Ms.Yniguez alleged that the ban violated her free speech rights and a divided Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals agreed. Equal protection concerns were also raised by the Ninth Circuit's decision because the adverse impact of the ban falls almost entirely upon Hispanics and other national origin minorities. Noting that language is a "close meaningful proxy for national origin," the court reasoned that, "restrictions on the use of languages may mask discrimination against specific national origin groups or, more generally, conceal nativist sentiment." Seeking review by the Supreme Court, the petitioners in this case, Arizonians for Official English, contend that the Ninth Circuit opinion conflicts with decisions permitting regulation of the choice of language in government and employment and that courts have found no constitutional rights to government services in languages other than English nor have they permitted employees to force personal choice of language on an employer. In deciding the Arizona case the Court has a number of issues before it such as the constitutionality of "official language" provisions in light of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, whether or not a government employee has a free speech right in disregarding the official language of an employer, and a technical issue on whether or not a private organization can bring a suit in support of a law the state has chosen not to defend. In Conclusion Whether you are RSVP-ing to a dinner invitation or sending your child off to kindergarten, you are demonstrating the rich diversity of our culture through the enhancement of our common language. America is a country of enormous racial, ethnic and religious diversity, which is clearly evident in the beauty of our language and the impact that each wave of immigrants has on how we express ourselves. Would we prefer that our nation was like France where the Conseil de la Langue Français declared French the official language? Now, the French government and its employees are forbidden from using words such as, "T.V." and "weekend", because they have no direct French translation. In France, censors monitor and fine newspapers who violate the official language law. Do we, as a people, want to remove everyday phrases from our language such as, E Pluribus Unum? The financial cost of multilingualism is small compared to the cost of reprinting the national currency, changing mottos on seals and documents, redefining the language of the American court system, and eradicating foreign words and phrases from our national vernacular. Many of the bills currently under consideration by Congress provide legal penalties for violation of the "official language" provisions. Americans need to examine the impetus behind the English-only movement. Is it a movement based on fear and intolerance or is it a desire to see unity through language? What is the true cost of such an endeavor? Is it creating a climate of intolerance and discrimination against persons who are in language minorities, or is there a real threat of division based upon failure to communicate? As the nation debates the issue, it is necessary for organizations, including The National Conference for Community and Justice, to educate communities about the history and likely impact of English-only movements so that we avoid the dangers inherent in ignorance of the issues. For Additional Information: The following organizations have information on English-Only and English-Plus initiatives on a local, state and federal level: The American Jewish Committee (AJC)
| all issues | summary |
blog |
|
Contact Us: 112 North Upper Street Shannon Stuart-Smith Jill Hanna Read About: Work, U.S.A. & You |
