Language in America - Is It Discrimination to Use English?
Current Issues
- The End of Bilingual Education?
..........Voters Reject Bilingual Education
..........What Is Bilingual Education?
..........How Bilingual Education Has Failed
..........Federal Action"
..........Alternatives to Failed Bilingual Education
- Statehood for Puerto Rico?
- Bilingual Ballots
- English and Citizenship
- The Fragmentation of Canada
- Voter Support
- English As The Official Language
- History of English As America's Common Language
Declaring English the official language is the fairest way to handle the 300 languages spoken in America. Rather than singling out a few languages for special treatment, using English means that all persons are given an equal right to participate in and understand the government.
Neither courts nor immigrants themselves believe that English as the official language is discriminatory. Government’s attempts to "remedy" language discrimination, on the other hand, sometimes cause problems.
Courts Say Using English Is Not Discriminatory:
Courts do not say that government’s choice to use English is discrimination. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found no constitutional objection to government notices in English:
"We need only glance at the role of English in our national affairs to conclude that the Secretary’s actions are not irrational. Congress conducts its affairs in English, the executive and judicial branches of government do likewise. In addition those who wish to become naturalized United States citizens must learn to read English. 8 U.S.C. § 1423 (Supp. 1978) . . . Given these factors, it is not irrational for the Secretary to choose English as the one language in which to conduct her official affairs."
Source: Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 42-43 (2nd Cir. 1983), affirmed in Toure v. United States, 24 F.3d 444, 446 (2d Cir. 1994)(per curiam).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that language choice in education was a "quintessentially ‘legitimate’ state interest." Guadalupe Organization v. Tempe Elementary School Dist. No. 3, 587 F.2d 1022, 1027 (9th Cir. 1978). Earlier the Ninth Circuit said that "the choice of California to deal only in English [in the provision of forms and services] has a reasonable basis." Carmona v. Sheffield, 475 F.2d 738, 739 (9th Cir. 1973). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the State had a "compelling state interest" in giving a civil service exam for carpenters in English. Frontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1218 (6th Cir. 1975).
State courts agree. "This is not an officially multilingual country, and notification of official matters in the sole official language of both this nation and this Commonwealth is patently reasonable." Commonwealth v. Olivio, 369 Mass. 62, 337 N.E.2d 904, 911 (1975); Castro v. California, 2 Cal.3rd 223, 242; 466 P.2d 244 (1970).
There are a few exceptions to this judicial unanimity. Recently the Arizona Supreme Court struck down that state’s "unique" declaration of English as the official language because the rule could have limited free speech by elected officials. The U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier had rejected a federal law challenge to the Arizona Official English law, did not review the Arizona court’s decision. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997); Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 119 S.Ct. 850 (1999).
Also, a federal court recently rejected Alabama’s law requiring English-language drivers license tests, because it conflicted with federal transportation rules. Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F.3d 484 (11th Cir. 1999). That decision is now on appeal.
Immigrants Support Official English:
Most immigrants support English as the official language. Source: Frank Viviano, "Poll Contradicts Stereotypes," San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 1990, A1. Many immigrants want their children to assimilate as quickly as possible, and either forbid the use of their native language or do not reinforce its use. Source: Francois Grosjean, Life With Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism, 1982, Pp. 110-112. The overwhelming majority of Hispanic-American parents, for example, oppose teaching children’s native languages if it means less time for learning English. Source: Educational Testing Service survey for U.S. Dept. of Education, reported in Nicolas Sanchez, "Bilingualism Creates More Problems Than Solutions," Vista, Nov. 7, 1987, P. 38 (78% of Mexican-Americans and 82% of Cuban-Americans).
As noted Mexican-American writer Richard Rodriguez put it:
I entered this country through the language and I am not mistaken about my journey’s meaning. I understand why Americans hold tightly to the language. It is because we are afraid of losing our gain. With a convert’s certainty, I believe that America can have but one public language. Like other Americans I claim the language as a prize. Though privately we are different from one another in the color and sound of our memory, a shared public language gives breath to our union. . . . I will never regret that American English is what I speak.
Source: Richard Rodriguez, "Unilingual, Not Unilateral," The Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1985.
Government "Assistance" Is Discriminatory:
Immigrants are not the ones who want multilingual government. It is "federal, state and local governments, at the behest of native-born political activists and bureaucrats" who promote the use of many languages in government. Source: Linda Chavez & John Miller, "The Immigration Myth," Reader’s Digest, May, 1996, 73. In some cases, government multilingual programs are viewed as a "jobs" program.
Yet it is immigrants – and usually the poorest of the poor – who bear the brunt of governments’ "assistance" on language issues, as Chavez found when her son was put into a bilingual education classroom even though he spoke only English. Source: Linda Chavez, Out of the Barrio, 1991, P. 30. In similar cases, parents’ requests to have their children taught in English were disregarded – "‘Why?’ the teacher asked. ‘Don’t you feel proud to be Hispanic?’" Source: Susan Headden, "Tongue-Tied in the Schools," U.S. News & World Report, September 25, 1995, P. 44.
Similarly, government requirements that employers accommodate bilingual employees harm workers from American minority groups. In New York City, an African- American nurse was excluded by Tagalog-speaking nurses, which led to the endangerment of an infant. Source: McNeil v. Aquitos, 831 F. Supp. 1079 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). In Los Angeles and San Francisco, workers unsuccessfully sued for the right to hurl racial epithets in Spanish at their African-American and Chinese-American co-workers; the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission supported the workers’ right to insult their co-workers. Source: Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District, 838 F.2d 1031, 1043 (9th Cir. 1988), reh’g denied, 861 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir. 1988), vacated, 490 U.S. 1016 (1989); Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., 998 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir. 1993, cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2726 (1994).
