Despite the countless laws in the United States that protect a multitude of rights, from freedom of religion to the right to bear arms, there is a unexpected lack thereof when it comes to language. While it is true that the Constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights, guarantees that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech, what is not addressed is what language they are free to speak in. Increasing attention has been given to the controversy surrounding the English Only movement and the Official English campaign, the main problem being that little to no previous legislation has been set in the matter. There is no law stating that instituting an official language of the United States is illegal, but in fact there is no law allowing such a move either. Herein lies the problem with language legislation of the past 20 or so years (much of which is on the English 'side'), there are no guidelines- no prior Supreme Court rulings to look to, and no laws that were passed or overturned. The way is clear for action, but the question remains of just what action to take. Thus far, most moves have been to clear the way for English, which is rather ironic considering the precedence and emphasis placed on being a country that is accepting of all languages and ethnicities. With at least 176 languages spoken in America, according to NVTC.gov, it seems unclear as to how mandating an official language would actually work, particularly with one of the changes being that all federal documents would be printed solely in English, as this could present many problems. Language legislation in the United States was prompted with the English Only movement beginning in the early 1980s, the initiative being to make English the official language of the States, the only language spoken by government employees in conducting federal matters, and the only language that would be used in printing communication on behalf of the U.S. government. The initial proposal was in the form of a constitutional English Language Amendment, which would have 'banned virtually all uses of languages other than English by federal, state, and local governments' (Crawford 'Language Legislation'). Thus far the measure has never come to a Congressional vote, despite its seeming popularity. 'Since 1981, 22 states have adopted various forms of Official English legislation, in addition to four that had already done so. Subtracting Hawai'I (which is officially bilingual), along with Alaska and Arizona (whose English-only initiatives have been declared unconstitutional) leaves a total of 23 states with active Official English Laws' (Crawford 'Language Legislation'). While many states have in point of fact already established their standing in this issue, the federal government has yet to take the same side. Most action on part of the federal government tends to be to avoid controversy, and it would appear that the same is being done in this matter. Proposed and passed legislation has proven to be rather biased, and therefore particularly controversial. Such attempts to make English the national language can easily be construed as racist and wrong, not for the fact that America should not have an official language, but rather that doing so would leave many of its citizens in the dark. 'Regarding the English only movement, it appears that 'English Only advocates seem intent on confusing two groups: U.S. residents who don't speak English and those who speak languages other than English. These populations are not the same. The 1990 Census found that most minority language speakers are bilingual ' 94.2 percent of them speak English with varying levels of proficiency' (Crawford 'Demographic Change'). Having all written communication from the government printed only in English for example, would prove to be disastrous, not to mention doing so would intentionally leave many of those who do not speak English without a means to communicate or receive information. How can we expect families to fill out a Census form if they cannot even read it? The opposite belief is held by California Representative Christopher Cox-R, who states that 'chief among these misguided policies is the mandate of a multilingual government,' and that 'by discouraging immigrants and their children from using the English language, this policy has erected a linguistic barrier that keeps many immigrants from becoming full participants in the society they have chosen to join.' The logic and criticisms of such a seemingly bold and somewhat racist idea will be expounded upon forthwith. For one, a thing as simple as printing out federal documents in several languages can result in an astronomical amount of money being spent, money that is often spent with little to show for it. ''Already we are seeing increased attempts by the Federal government to accommodate non-English speakers by printing Federal documents in languages other than English'' (Senator Richard Shelby- R- AL.). While it is promising to note that the federal government is taking steps to insure that no person gets left behind, the astonishing amount of money that is essentially being wasted is not so endearing. A perfect example of this is pointed out by Lindsey Graham, a Republican Represenative from South Carolina, who states 'In one case, the IRS produced 500,000 1040 forms in Spanish and got 700 replies back at $157 per form, and this program is growing. I think it is time to stop that.' Another aspect of the issues lies in bilingual education, the goal being to find the highest success rates in students learning English. What began as a question of whether or not English should be instituted as the official language of the U.S has opened up further debates in areas such as education, with the most prominent voice being to rule out bilingual education entirely. In the news lately is the California initiative to rid its school systems of bilingual education and revert back to the old 'sink or swim' methods. While it is true that the arguments behind such measures are not completely based in racist ideals, historically these methods have not been the most successful for the greatest number of students. Opinions regarding bilingual education are almost as diverse as the number of languages spoken in America, while many believe that completely ruling out bilingual education in schools is the correct solution, 'it was well nigh impossible to find an authority in second-language acquisition who argued that bilingual instruction was, in itself, ineffective ' much less a diversion from English. No one claimed it was a panacea. Or that it would work in every school with every student from every background. Simply that it was a valid and promising approach' (Crawford 'Anti-Bilingual Initiative'). The previous policy on education in the school systems was that English was the language to be taught seeing as the majority of the population speaks this language, and immigrants or those who do not speak English would have to learn fast or be left behind. This however, was later agreed to be somewhat unconstitutional, and experts theoretically agreed that bilingual education was much more effective than 'sink-or-swim' methods. A fairly recent change to bilingual education in the US was the expiration of the Bilingual Education Act, instituted in 1968, and 'promoting equal access to the curriculum, traning a generation of educators, and fostering achievement among students' (Crawford 'Bilingual Education'). This was not unexpected, following 'years of attacks by enemies and recent desertions by allies in Congress (Crawford), and it is left to the future to see if other states will begin following California's example in setting their own initiatives, as Arizona did in 2000. As of now however, these two are the only states with an attempt to mandate English-only education, but nothing has been made law thus far. With No Child Left Behind, the government will continue to support English language learners' (ELLs) education, although with the expiration of the Bilingual Education Act in 2002, the money will be spent in new and different ways from the past. The main goal of these programs will be rapid learning, much like the ways of the past, and hopefully studies will reflect positive results in the future.
Works Cited Crawford, James. 'Anti-Bilingual Initiative,' 'Bilingual Education,' 'Canards' 'Issues in U.S. Language Policy,' 'Language Legislation,' and 'Official English.' November 30, 2005. National Virtual Transition Center. 'Languages Spoken in the U.S.' November 29, 2005.
Bookmark 
Share your paper 
Contact 
Search 
Most Popular
