Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
\nFrom: toz@carson.u.washington.edu (Tom Zeiler)
\nSubject: Official English: A No Vote (VERY LONG POST)
\nMessage-ID:
\nDate: 18 May 1993 01:45:25 GMT
\nOrganization: University of Washington
\nLines: 251<\/p>\n
Excerpted from a report<\/p>\n
(note: Among those resources listed in the bibliography, Crawford’s book
\nLanguage Loyalties is the most comprehensive referrence for opinions on
\nboth sides of the issue). <\/p>\n
PERCEIVED NEED<\/p>\n
Arguments in favor of “officializing” English can be seen as stemming from
\ntwo basic assumptions: <\/p>\n
(1) English hegemony is an important, unifying factor contributing to
\nnational loyalty and stability in the U.S.<\/p>\n
(2) English hegemony is, or could someday be, in jeopardy. <\/p>\n
These assertions seem plausible enough and mild enough in and of
\nthemselves. But, in fact, the rhetoric put forth by proponents of
\nOfficial English often goes beyond the simple claim that English should be
\nseen as an important asset bolstering national u nity; avowals that it is
\nthe single most critical bulwark of domestic security have been quite
\ncommon. Thus, as one recurring theme has it, we had better act now to
\nentrench the status of English so that it will continue to be “the glue
\nthat holds our society together.” And this is where I must begin to
\ndissent; for I am inclined to believe that the real glue which can truly
\nhold a society together is,instead, this: hope for prosperity and justice
\nwithin the workings of its political system. My investigations into the
\nquestion at hand have led me to fear a climate of intolerance much more
\nthan a decline in the supremacy of English, and, at any rate, I have come
\nto sense that attempting to promote stability through the direct
\nlegislation and enforcement of linguistic conformity misses the point. <\/p>\n
A VISION OF AMERICA<\/p>\n
The U.S. government today finds itself presiding over what is arguably the
\nworld’s most interesting and hopeful experiment in pan-ethnic communality
\nto date. The situation is, to be sure, very far from perfect.
\nNonetheless, increasing recognition and protection of civil rights here
\nhas been steady enough over the past two hundred years as to sustain at
\nleast some amount of faith in the attainability of “justice for all”. <\/p>\n
THE CONSTITUTION<\/p>\n
In the United States, the basis for all national law is perceived to rest
\nwithin the Constitution and its amendments. Legal and ideological
\ninterpretation and adjustment of that body of writings has been a constant
\nstruggle, and promises to continue to b e so. But, then, it is just this
\nvery fact which holds so much promise for the above-mentioned experiment.
\nSome very compelling ideas have been set forth in those articles, ideas
\nwhich, directly or indirectly, have inspired widespread hope in the fairne
\nss and reasonableness of the societal structure which might proceed from
\nthem. The amendment system itself can be seen as the flexible framework
\nwherein the evolving soul of American politics is attested and tested. I
\nsay that the history of that system shows a very welcome trend towards
\never more explicit protections of the right of all persons to be free, to
\nbe safe, and, especially, to be trusted to make their own decisions. So,
\nfor example, we see that the right of certain persons to own slaves lost
\nout to the right of all persons to be free. Similarly, the right of
\ncertain persons to dictate nation-wide abstinence from alcohol lost out to
\nthe right of all persons to assume greater responsibility for their own
\nlifestyles. With this view in mind, we might ask; what’s wrong with the
\nfollowing list?: <\/p>\n
Freedom of speech, religion, and press; The right to bear arms; Protection
\nagainst unreasonable search and seizure; Slavery prohibited; Equal
\nprotection of the laws; The right to vote; Repeal of prohibition; English
\nis the official language. <\/p>\n
LANGUAGE RIGHTS?<\/p>\n
Tollefson (1991) has persuasively argued that “policies limiting the use
\nof languages other than English must be viewed as an effort to restrict
\nimmigrants’ access to political power and economic resources.” Baron
\n(1991) states that “priveleging one lang uage leads necessarily to implied
\nor expressed proscriptions against other languages.” What is being
\nsuggested here and elsewhere is that it is difficult or impossible to
\nseparate the question of Official English from the question of linguistic
\ndiscrimin ation. Claims that an ELA would obviously be a fair-minded,
\nplain old good-sense houskeeping move are easily called into question.
\nAnd, where the Constitution is concerned, the inherently restrictionist
\nnature of such legislation would stand out particu larly as being a
\n\u2022rights for certain persons\u00a2 type of deal. <\/p>\n
ARGUMENTS AGAINST — PERCEIVED DANGERS<\/p>\n
The two most visible targets of the so-called English-Only movement are<\/p>\n
(a) the bilingual education system currently provided for in certain
\nlocalities by federal policy, and<\/p>\n
(b) multi-lingual ballots, also federally mandated under certain
\ncircumstances. <\/p>\n
About these two issues I have only a very brief comment to make: to try
\nto flat out illegalize and\/or permanently disallow funding for either of
\nthese options seems misguidedly reactionary at best, and fascist at worst.
\nMeanwhile, there are other possib le effects of Official English
\nlegislation to consider. Enactment of OE laws can be seen as potentially
\nunjust insofar as their enforcement might endanger or unfairly
\ndisadvantage persons with limited English proficiency. Will courts and
\nmedical institu tions and other key agencies no longer be required or even
\nallowed to provide interpreters for non-anglophones? Will public safety
\nbe jeopardized because government agencies are prohibited from issuing
\nwarnings about health and safety hazards in language s other than English? <\/p>\n
SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE<\/p>\n
Whatever good intentions may lay behind the current sentiments toward
\n“protecting” English, there is reason to suspect that the need for such
\nmeasures does not exist and that their enactmentment might have unforseen
\nnegative consequences. Furthermore, a very predictable result of
\nvirtually any kind of OE legislation is that it will send the wrong
\nmessage to the wrong people — i.e. that it’s OK to “agressively prefer”
\nEnglish. <\/p>\n
EVIDENCE OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF OFFICIAL ENGLISH LEGISLATION<\/p>\n
Beatancourt (1992) cites a number of examples of hostility and intolerance
\napparently or obviously connected with the passage of OE laws in several
\nstates. <\/p>\n
– municipal court employees in Huntington Park, California were forbidden
\nto talk with each other in Spanish while working.
\n– workers at a hospital in Los Angeles were prohibited from speaking any
\nlanguage other than English, and employees were urged to report anyone who
\ndisobeyed.
\n– after an OE amendment passed in Colorado, a school bus driver forbade
\nchildren to speak Spanish on his bus, and a restaurant worker was fired
\nfor translating menu items into Spanish for customers from Latin America.
\n– a supermarket cashier in Miami was suspended for speaking Spanish on the
\njob to a co-worker.
\n– in 1987 , several candidates who had promised to put teeth into
\nProposition 63 were elected to the City Council of Monterey Park, CA.
\nAfter the library was offered a gift of ten thousand Chinese books, the
\nmayor and the city council decided to block the library from accepting the
\ndonation. The library chose to accept the gift anyway, in response to
\nwhich the city council dissolved the library’s board and took over
\nmanagement of the library. The mayor was quoted as having said that he
\ndidn’t think the city needed to cater too much to foreign languages,
\nbecause if people want a foreign language they can go buy their own books. <\/p>\n
Will English-only initiatives help unify the United States? Not likely,
\nif these anecdotes are any indication; because it is precisely when
\npeople feel themselves threatened and disenfranchised that their need to
\ntake solace in ethnic solidarity becomes
\n greatest. The point to consider here is that this country’s biggest
\nproblems probably do not and will not stem from language divisions, but
\nrather from things like the lack of wisdom of its leaders, and the lack of
\nintegrity of its institutions and poli cies. Fortunately, we still have a
\nfairly broad-minded national charter. And the legal precedent which
\ncurrently exists at the federal level is such that concerned citizens and
\ncivil liberties groups are generally able to obtain redress for grievances
\na rising out of circumstances like those mentioned above. But even so, it
\nis disturbing to think that state and local legislation should be of a
\nkind that will yield such negative consequences. <\/p>\n
SUMMARY OF POSITION<\/p>\n
There is a growing body of literature devoted to the questions dealt with
\nin this paper. The ideas presented here do not even begin to cover the
\nrange of issues involved, and the reader is encouraged to conduct a more
\nextensive investigation 1. For my p art, I must admit to having done a
\nlot of vacillating back and forth between wondering if OE might be a good
\nidea and thinking it might not. The perspective I ultimately found myself
\nwanting to convey in this discussion can be summarized as follows: <\/p>\n
(a) An ELA would diminish the U.S. Constitution.
\n(b) There is reason to seriously question the need for OE measures.
\n(c) There is reason to believe that OE measures will breed injustice.
\n(d) There must be a better way to facilitate stability than via the
\nproliferation of restrictive laws. <\/p>\n
EPILOGUE: SENDING A BETTER MESSAGE<\/p>\n
As support for Official English has grown, so also has a counter-movement
\ncritical of it sprung up. One of the most interesting organizations to
\nappear in this regard is EPIC (English Plus Information Clearing-house).
\nThe “English Plus” movement is cent ered around the theme that learning
\nEnglish is important, but that so are the needs and rights of speakers of
\nother languages. Supporters of English Plus and others take issue with
\nwhat they perceive as shortcomings in the approach of U.S. English and it
\ns allies. For example, after an OE law made it onto the books in Arizona,
\none opponent of the measure called it “a remedy for a problem that didn’t
\nexist. The irritant in the campaign was the vast amount of money spent by
\nU.S. English for legislation an d no money spent to encourage or promote
\nEnglish proficiency.” Supporters of OE, oft quoted as saying how important
\nit is for immigrants to learn English, are increasingly being challenged
\nto seek out constructive ways to encourage their doing so. As au thor
\nNorman Cousins (himself a former USE advisory board member) has said:
\n“Not until we provide educational facilities for all who are now standing
\nin line to take lessons in English should we presume to pass judgement on
\nthe non-English speaking people
\n in our midst.”<\/p>\n
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERRENCES<\/p>\n
____ Say it In English. In Newsweek, Feb. 20, 1989. p.22<\/p>\n
Baron, Dennis. The English-Only Question: An Official Language for
\nAmericans? Yale University Press. 1991. <\/p>\n
Betancourt, Ingrid. “The Babel Myth”: The English-Only Movement and Its
\nImplications for Libraries. In Wilson Library Bulletin, Feb. 1992 p.38<\/p>\n
Bikales, Gerda. Comment: the other side. In International Journal of
\nthe Sociology of Language 60, 1986. p.77<\/p>\n
Citrin, Jack. Language Politics and American Identity. In Public
\nInterest, Spr 1990. p96<\/p>\n
Crawford, James. Language Loyalties: A Sourcebook on the Official English
\nControversy. University of Chicago Press. 1991<\/p>\n
Guy, Gregory R. International Perspectives on Linguistic Diversity and
\nLanguage Rights. In Language Problems and Language Planning, Spr 1989.
\np.45<\/p>\n
Matusewitch, Eric. Language Rules Can Violate Title VII. In Personnel
\nJournal, October 1990. p.98<\/p>\n
Marshall, David F. The Question of an Official Language: language rights
\nand the English Language Amendment. In International Journal of the
\nSociology of Language 60, 1986 p.7<\/p>\n
McArthur, Tom. Comment: worried about something else. In International
\nJournal of the Sociology of Language 60,1986. p.87<\/p>\n
Padilla, Amado M., et al. The English-Only Movement: Myths, Reality, and
\nImplications for Psychology. In American Psychology, Feb. 1991. p.120<\/p>\n
Tollefson, James W. Planning Language, Planning Inequality : language
\npolicy in the community. Longman. 1991<\/p>\n
Young, Amy. In Common Cause, May\/June 1989 p.44<\/p>\n
