Wave of Consciousness, "A Voice of Sanity in a World of Conflict"
Languages in America: Legislation and Costs
by Natalia J. Garland, M.S.W.
Today's essay will serve as background for further discussion on what I call the Spanish Language Movement. First, I will provide a history of language legislation in America. These legislative measures and attempts reflect America's concern for unity and upward mobility as well as, unfortunately in some instances, racism disguised as concern. Second, I will offer facts on the realities of a multilingual nation: the costs of translation and interpretation services in America's courts and other agencies. Third, it will be noticed in today's material that the organization, U.S. English, has played a prominent role in recent years in the official-English movement, and that Linda Chavez was once associated with this effort. I will conclude with reference to Chavez' views on bilingual education.
The following report was originally published by TESOL in 1996. It traces language legislation from 1980 to 1995. Even though it apparently has not been updated since 1995, the report provides pertinent information over a significant span of time. At present, it is not my purpose to agree or disagree with the authors' introduction, but only to present their precise chronology.
A Chronology of the Official English Movement Not since the beginning of this century has language received as much attention in the United States. Like the language battles of the early 1900s, those of the 1980s were rife with appeals to patriotism and unity casting language minorities in the role of outsiders who deliberately "chose" not to learn the English language. But unlike the earlier period, when these issues were confined primarily to local and state arenas, the 1980s featured a campaign orchestrated at the national level by a powerful and highly funded lobby, U.S. English. Ostensibly, the whole purpose of this organization is to establish English as the official language of the United States, but its connections to immigration restriction groups suggest a more far-reaching agenda. The irony of the appearance of the English Only movement in the 1980s is that it advocates a return to a mythic era of English monolingualism in the face of growing demands for multilingual abilities in the world marketplace. At the beginning of the decade, states already had measures on the books declaring English to be their sole official language. Nebraska's constitutional amendment dated back to 1920, when the country was experiencing a wave of anti-German sentiment because of World War I. An Illinois statute, passed in 1969, amended a 1923 law which had declared "American" the state's official language. A third state, Hawaii, adopted a constitutional amendment in 1978 designating both English and Native Hawaiian as its official languages. In 1979 the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies released its report on Americans' "scandalous" lack of foreign language ability Not one state had foreign language requirements for high school graduation, and many did not even require schools to offer foreign language instruction. Meanwhile, bilingual education was coming under close scrutiny. Under the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, federal funding had been available for programs that maintained and developed languages other than English. But in 1978 Congress amended the law to emphasize the goal of competence in the English language and restricting support programs only; no funds would be available for language maintenance. At the same time, federal civil rights authorities were aggressively enforcing the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, which established the right of limited-English-proficient students to special help in overcoming language barriers. Still, many school districts resented the federal insistence on bilingual instruction. The stage was set for a decade of debate on language in American society.
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
|
Costs of Translation and Interpretation
In order to balance the concept of language rights with the actual practice of multilingualism, I will offer information which I condensed from the U.S. English website. For other examples and more complete details, please refer to the U.S. English Resource Room: "Fact Sheets: Costs of Multilingualism."
|
Conclusion
Finally, it has been noted that Linda Chavez (she spells her name without the accent mark), president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, resigned from U.S. English after she became aware of John Tanton's remarks (see 1988 above). For more information on Chavez' involvement, and for her views on immigration and language, please refer to her book, An Unlikely Conservative. The following paragraphs are taken from Chapter 9: "How I Became the Most Hated Hispanic in America." She reveals her personal experience with bilingual education.
The idea of passing a constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the United States was not something I'd ever given much thought to. In general, I was skeptical of constitutional amendments and had even opposed a popular balanced budget amendment during my Senate campaign because I thought it would unnecessarily clutter the Constitution. I wasn't sure that amending the Constitution to declare English the official language would ever be more than a symbolic act, but I was very concerned about the semi-official status Spanish was acquiring in many parts of the country. As Miami's former mayor Maurice Ferre was fond of saying of his city, "Where else in America can you go from birth to death in Spanish?" In fact, in many places across the country it was possible to attend public school, vote in federal elections, obtain a driver's license, even take a pilot's exam, all in Spanish. I was especially concerned about the effects of bilingual education on young Hispanics--an issue I'd been involved in since my days at the AFT. In California and elsewhere, Hispanic youngsters were learning to read and write in Spanish instead of English when they entered first grade. Once enrolled in bilingual programs, they could be stuck there for years, sometimes for their entire school lives. Although many of these kids were recent immigrants or the children of immigrants, others were Americans by birth, often third generation or more. A Spanish surname was often enough to trigger placement in a bilingual classroom, something I knew firsthand. My middle son, Pablo Chavez Gersten, was almost placed in a bilingual program in first grade, simply on the basis of his Spanish-sounding name. The letter notifying me that he needed bilingual education--even though he didn't speak a word of Spanish--was written in Spanish as well, and I needed my babysitter, Margarita, to translate it for me. These kinds of
abuses were commonplace, something I'd learned a good deal about
when I worked in the Carter administration. A 1977 study of all
federally funded Spanish bilingual programs, released when I was
working at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, showed
that about two-thirds of the Hispanic students in bilingual
programs could already speak English but were kept in the programs
anyway, and the programs themselves were failing to improve the
students' performance in math and other basic subjects. Despite
such research, the bilingual lobby had become a powerful force in
Washington. No one dared take them on for fear of being labeled
anti-Hispanic, xenophobic, or even racist. I knew that if I agreed
to take the U.S. English job, I would become the most hated
Hispanic in America--at least among the organizations that
purported to represent the Hispanic community. But I also knew
that learning English was the most important thing
non-English-speaking Hispanics could do if they wanted to succeed
in the United States--and those who were discouraging and, in some
cases, preventing them from doing so were the real enemies of
Hispanics. I hoped that by becoming president of U.S. English I
might elevate the level of debate and give reassurance that there
was nothing racist or anti-Hispanic about promoting a common
language in this nation of immigrants, where most people had at
least one grandparent or great-grandparent for whom English was not
the mother tongue. |
Questions for Further Exploration
There are several questions which arise from today's material. If speaking a language other than English is a civil right, should there be a limit on how much tax monies are spent for translation and interpretation services? Since most translation services involve Spanish, should equal amounts of money be spent on all the other languages and dialects (up to 500) spoken in America? Should the money spent on translation services be spent on English classes instead? If speaking a language other than English is a civil right, is it also a civil right to be monolingual? And, are monolingual people within their rights to legislate English as the official language of America? Is there, then, an impossible co-existence between multilingual and monolingual civil rights? Who are the true friends of Hispanics in America? In the weeks ahead, I will be exploring these questions further. (Written 03/10/08)
[NOTE: This is the first preparatory essay for future writing on what I call the Spanish Language Movement. To read the other preparatory essays, see Mexico's Cultural Imperialism (written 05/19/08), Every Child Should Speak English (written 07/17/08).]
www.waveofconsciousness.com |
copyright © 2008 Natalia J. Garland |
BIBLIOGRAPHY NOTES:
1.) "A Chronology of the Official English Movement," by
Jaime B. Draper and Martha Jiménez, 1996, [WWW document] URL
www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/PolicyPDF/OfficialEnglishDraperJimenez.pdf
(As per the website: "Jamie B. Draper is former assistant Director
of the Joint National Committee for Languages, and Martha Jiménez
is a former legislative attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund. Both have served on the steering committee of the
English Plus Information Clearinghouse. This article is adapted from
"Language Debates in the United States: A Decade in Review,"
EPIC Events 2,(5),( 1990): 1, 4, 7. Copyright © 1990 by
the National Forum. Permission to reprint is granted with proper
credit."
2.) "Fact Sheets: Costs of Multilingualism," U.S. English
website, [WWW document] URL
www.usenglish.org/inc/official/fact%5Fsheets/db_multiling.asp
3.) An Unlikely Conservative, by Linda Chavez. Published by
Basic Books, 2002, ISBN: 0-465-08903-8. Quoted paragraphs are
from pp. 197, 198.