" 1 AMONG the truths held to be self- national languageirinnaros id musThe administrative countyróf: Lòs ¿ evident since America shook, off, its an unfortunate, oversight. Angeles is an example. As it fills colonial yokea that, ita citizens which Senator Walter, Huddleston of with immigrants, it is far from remain English-speaking people. Kentucky, now hopes to remedy. becoming the melting pot of political Certainly, it never occurred to Arguing before the Senate Judiciary rhetoric. Instead it has been made Nathaniel Gorham, Richard, Dobbs Subcommittee in favour of his pro- into a pepperpot of linguistic nationSpaight, William Few or any of posed, constitutional, amendment, he alism. At the last survey, the county the others assembled at the Philadel- warned his colleagues: "If we contin- had 83 different tongues,bruns, N phia State House in,,1787 to spell ue along the path we now follow, I'Under state law, the county it out. There is not one word in the believe we will do irreparable dam- schools must establish a bilingual US Constitution which specifies, the age to the unity that our common class when more than 20 pupils language has helped us preserve."speak a language other than EngWhat worries the senator and lish: The headmaster of a Hollywood many other Américans is that a high school explained what this can growing proportion of people believe mean: "At a recent parents' night, all their proclaimed right to the pursuit the speeches had to be translated of happiness automatically excludes from English into Korean, Armenian any struggle with, the pages of "and Spanish. It took 25 minutes to Webster's unabridged English "get through one three-minute spiel. dictionaryasno teen girl? J It was a fiasco. gnThe census bureau has found that the US has 806,000 Chinese speakers,, 701,000 Japanese,,,354,000 Korean. 261,000, Vietnamese, and 14,600,000 Spanish., The practical effects of this civic babel can be chaotic and expensive, -> Manchester Guardian Weekly June 24, 1984 At one elementary school, only 5 per cent of its intake speak English. The laws written into the California Statue, Book, through, the skilfully applied political pressure of minority groups do not require the others. to learn the native language. "Making English our 'official' language: two views" Outlook/Section F/ Sunday 29 July 1984/pages 1 and 2 This effort will ostracize Hispanics and other language minorities. By Arnoldo Sanchez Torres The constitutional amendment legislation calling for English as the official language of the United States raises one fundamental question that has not been answered by its proponents: Why is such a measure necessary? Advocates of this initiative would have you believe there is a clandestine movement to make Spanish the nation's official language. They would also have you believe that 45 percent of the Hispanic community only speaks Spanish. Not only is that inaccurate, it is untrue. Even more disappointing and destructive is that the measure's proponents have and will continue to attempt to persuade the American people to support this effort by appealing to their fear of foreigners and by preaching ethDocentrism. Recent Census Bureau data show, in a review of the ten cities with the largest Hispanic populations, that 77.7 percent of their Hispanic community speaks English at home. The data further show that Hispanics 18 years and older have the greatest dependency on Spanish. If proponents of the measure are truly concerned about the English language, why not provide more bilingual opportunities? Bilingual education provides the transition for non- and limited-English-speaking children to learn the English language. If proponents were committed to ensuring that the limited-English-speaking population learn the English language, why not propose constructive initiatives such as subsidizing English language classes for those who need and want to learn English. Yet, it is suggested that a constitutional amendment would prevent the U.S. from being divided like our neighbor to the north, Canada, which has been torn apart and threatened by secession. Much that has been said about Canada is misleading, a review of that nation's history will show that its divisions run deeper than just language. Further, any insinuation that Hispanics would attempt to secede from the United States is an insult to the men and women who have fought and died in defense of this country. It is interesting that from the American Revolution to Beirut, Hispanics have answered America's call to protect its shores. Let us not forget that in 1917, Puerto Ricans were granted citizenship in time to fight World War I, and did so with honor. It is inconceivable to us that a group of people who would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for a country would be willing to separate itself from it. In considering this initiative, it must be understood that this is not the 13th Amendment ending slavery. This is not the 14th Amendment calling for equal protection laws. This is not the 15th Amendment ending racial discrimination or the 19th Amendment allowing women to vote. Nor is this the Equal Rights Amendment. It is our opinion that this is nothing but a frivolous attempt to amend the Constitution and a backhanded attempt to further ostracize Hispanics and other language minorities from fully participating in society in the same way that Jim Crow laws ostracized blacks. What must be done? Americans must sensitize themselves to the realities that exist within the Hispanic community. Our desires are no different from those of earlier immigrants: We want to become full partners in a society we have contributed to and have died for in defense of Democratic ideals. This constitutional amendment is antithetical to President Reagan's free market principles of developing appropriate conduct through financial incentives. Specifically, it is obvious to most Hispanics that the best and, in most cases, the only way to realize the American dream is to learn English. Consequently, the greater the upward mobility potential for Hispanics, the more likely that we will learn English quickly. Instead of an unworkable, expensive and counterproductive constitutional amendment to mandate individual behavior, the proponents of this measure would be better advised to develop an effective jobs program, and to create and improve educational opportunities. The Senate is conducting hearings today on a proposed constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the United States. On first glance such an amendment does not seem particularly controversial or significant. English is the language of commerce and government in the United States. Certainly we are known as an English-speaking nation. In fact, it probably comes as a surprise to most Americans that the United States has no official language. The English language is in no danger of disappearing. The vast majority of Americans are solidly, perhaps unwisely, monolingual English speakers. English continues to be the unchallenged language of business and public life. Proficiency In English continues to be a requirement for new citizens. English is, de facto, our common language. Therefore, what could the proposed constitutional amendment possibly accomplish? In fact, this is not an Inoffensive and innocent proposal; the civil rights Implications are tremendous. Its supporters claim that it would end the right to ballots in non-English languages and restrict support for educational approaches. which utilize nom-English languages. Thus, what this amendment could accomplish is the disenfranchisement of significant numbers of Hispanic citizens, the end of court Interpreters for non-English proficient persons, and the elimination of support for bilingual education in our schools. As supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment have discovered, amending the Constitution is a long and sometimes unpredictable process, so it is possible that this amendment will never be enacted. However, the amendment is not the only manifestation of "English-only" sentiment; for example, there are bills pending in Congress specifically designed to repeal the bilingual provisions in the Voting Rights Act, and residents of San Francisco last fall passed Proposition 0, requesting this repeal. Indiana recently adopted English as its official state language, Joining Kentucky, Nebraska, lilinols, and Virginia which have passed similar laws. The California Committee for Bal lots In English has announced that it has over half the signatures needed to place an Initiative on English-only ballots for the November ballot In California. Such attempts to disenfranchise Hispanic and other language-minority citizens are reprehensible. The bilingual provisions to the Voting Rights Act were added in 1979 to enable language-minority citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Bilingual ballots are required only in places where more than five percent of the citizens of voting age are members of a specified language minority group, and where the literacy rate is higher than the national rate. The law affects 505 counties in 30 states and targets only Spanish, Native American and Asian-Pacific languages. Voting materials In Spanish are important for Puerto Ricans, citizens by birth, who are eligible to vote in U.S. elections upon the establishment of residency in the continental United States. Bilingual ballots are also important for Hispanics born and raised in the United States who, because of historic denial of equal educational opportunity, are not fully proficient in English. Bilingual ballots do not affect the requirements that newly naturalized American citizens be seriously endangered by large numbers of new language-minority immigrants, that the proportion of foreign-born citizens in the United States is dramatically lower are not determined by popularity polls or cost estimates, but rather by our Constitution and statutes. I suspect that what is really behind these measures is fear of the growing Hispanic population In the United States and uneasiness at the numbers of Hispanic voters. Some people also confuse bilingualism with being unable to speak English. Earlier this year Sen. Walter Huddleston (D-KY), a Senate sponsor of the proposed constitutional amendment, held a press conference at which he presented "evidence of growing bilingualism, as if bilingualism were a contagious disease. Bilingual people, by definition, speak two languages (one of them English In this case). How anyone could object to bilingualism is beyond me. Hispanics do not dispute the fact that full proficiency In English is the key to full participation In American life. Hispanics differ from other citizens and Immigrant groups not because we don't want to speak English, but rather because most of us also value bilingualism doesn't make us any less American than other citizens. Logic and fact are not the strong suit of many of the proponents of these English-only measures. Some of these groups also decry the axistance of celebrations such as Hispanic Heritage Week, and imply that the existence of Spanish lottery tickets In New York Is evidence of creeping bilingualism. These objections do not focus solely on Hispanics; they also oppose Jewish Heritage Week, Black History Month, and Asian Pacific-American Heritage Week. In conclusion, this proposed amendment is unncessary. Worse, It may serve to disenfranchise Hispanic citizens, restrict Hispanic access to understandable Instruction in our schools, and deny due process to limited English-proficient persons in the courts. Congress should commit itself to examining the civil rights implications of English-only proposals. This is not an Innocent Issue, and members of Congress should think very carefully about enacting legislation which will violate the civil rights of their constituents. (The National Council of La Raza is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan National Council of La Raza 20 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 628-9600 |