between the Tamil-speaking minority and the Sinahala-speaking majority has resulted in the loss of innumerable lives over the years. Clearly, our nation can learn some valuable lessons from the problems these countries have experienced as a result of their respective bilingual/bicultural policies. Mr. Chairman, it is vital that the U.S. not retrace the dangerous paths taken by these nations. I am therefore troubled by the trend toward government-sponsored bilingualism in America and the implications of such policies. While few would deny that mastery of English is vital to our nation's immigrants becoming full and participating members of society, official policies, such as those that recognize other languages as the accepted language of the ballot box and as a legitimate means of instruction, as well as offical non-English documents, available for food stamp and welfare applications, drivers license examinations, and consumer complaint questionnaires, to name just a few, may actually hinder the learning of English. Rather than encouraging the adaptation of immigrants to the speech and customs of their new homeland, government-sanctioned programs, such as multilingual ballots and bilingual education, serve to discourage proficiency in English and to enhance dissimilarities between immigrants and the mainstream of American life, thereby inhibiting the process of acculteration. The English Language Amendment I have introduced, therefore, seeks not only to provide a needed measure of legal protection to the English language but to halt the trend towards government policies which actively promote languages other than English while clarifying many of the contradictory signals which our government is sending to our nation's linguistic minorities. United States naturalization laws, for example, require competency in English as a precondition of U.S. citizenship. However, federal law since 1975 has required that people of limited English proficiency who vote, and thus who exercise the highest privilege of U.S. citizenship, be provided with ballots in their native language. The ELA would put an end to the use of multilingual ballots, thereby reversing one of the many government-sanctioned programs which do not encourage competency in English and reaffirming that proficiency in English is essential to full participation in our nation's democracy. Another welcome application of the ELA would be in our nation's schools. For almost a decade we have highlighted bilingual education as the method for increasing limited English proficient (LEP) students' proficiency in English. This approach was essentially institutionalized by the federal government in 1975 when the Department of Health, Education and Welfare developed guidelines, the "Lau remedies," which require local school districts to provide instruction for LEP students in their native language as a precondition of eligibility for federal funds. In my view, bilingual education appears to have become an end in itself, rather than the means for immigrants to become full and participating members of American society, and has served all too frequently to impede the learning of English and to maintain a separate language and culture. Certainly we have an obligation to provide language assistance to our nation's LEP population, particularly given the large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming to the U.S. speaking little if any English; this amendment would not preclude our doing so. The amendment would, however, change the focus of bilingual education programs. While the ELA would not eliminate the use of bilingual education, it would restore emphasis on its use as a transitional instructional tool and would give local school districts more flexibility to utilize a broader range of approaches which best meet not only the unique needs and circumstances of their LEP students, but which meet their budget priorities as well. In my view, Mr. Chairman, government-sponsored programs such as multilingual ballots and bilingual education, while well-intentioned, have become linguistic barriers which impede the process of assimilation of our nation's growing immigrant population. Such programs are truly a great disservice to America's immigrants for they essentially tell our nation's newcomers that proficiency in English is not vital to their full participation in society. I would submit, however, that nothing could be further from the truth. How can we expect our nation's linguistic minorities to become involved and productive members of society if they are unable to speak the language of their new homeland? Clearly, proficiency in English is essential to educational, professional and social opportunities far America's immigrants. As Senator Hayakawa has stated in the past, "The language we share is at the core of our identity as citizens, and our ticket to full participation in American political life. We can speak any language we want at the dinner table, but English is the language of public discourse, of the marketplace, and of the voting booth." This remark underscores possibly the most important goal of the ELA to make clear to immigrant parents and children alike that mastery of English is indispensible for becoming a full member of American society. While it is important to consider what the ELA would do, it is equally vital to note what the proposed amendment would not do. While critics of the ELA may consider the amendment to represent a xenophobic and nativistic call for monolingualism in America, the ELA in no way seeks to discourage the study of foreign languages in the United States. Clearly, competency in languages in addition to English is essential in today's interdependent world and the ELA would not prohibit or discourage the teaching of foreign languages in public schools or colleges nor would it prohibit foreign language requirements in academic institutions. Furthermore, the ELA addresses the mandatory use of foreign languages in the offical business of the U.S. not the private use of languages other than English. This proposed amendment in no way seeks to discourage the use of foreign languages in private contexts, such as homes, churches, private organizations, commerce and private schools. Mr. Chairman, let me stress in closing that the ELA should by no means be construed as a betrayal of the diverse cultures which make up our great nation. America has been immeasurably enriched by the cultural diversity of our society and thus it is vital that this diverse cultural tradition be preserved. I would submit, though, that our common language has been a powerful factor in forging strength and unity from such diversity. It is therefore vital that we put an end to short-sighted government-sponsored programs which discourage proficiency in English and which tragically serve to keep many of our nation's linguistic minorities on the fringes of America's Englishspeaking mainstream. The ELA is an important step in the right direction. T 1 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 2, 1983 • Mr. SHUMWAY. Mr. Speaker. I share the view of many Americans This resolution, identical to House Joint Resolution 442 introduced in the 97th Congress by the Honorable Robert Dornan, will stop the use of the bilingual ballot, will allow the instruction in English in non-Englishlanguages for the purpose of making students proficient in English, and will end the use of foreign languages in subject-matter instruction. It is important to note that this res The text of the bill is as follows: SECTION 1. The English language shall be BECTION 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall require, by law, ordinance, regulation, order, decree, program, or policy. the use in the United States of any lan. guage other than English. SECTION 3. This article shall not prohibit any Law. ordinance. regulation. order. decree, program, or policy requiring educa tional instruction in a language other than English for the purpose of making students who use a language other than English proficient in English SECTION 4. The Congress and the States may enforce this article by appropriate leg. islation I have read and fully support Senate Joint Resolution 167, a Constitutional Amendment to make English the official language of the United States. As a President of the PAC, I spend a great deal of my time promoting our Polish heritage, culture and language. I feel this is important. People should not forget who they are, where they come from. We should keep alive the struggle and language of our forefathers. and However, when a people leave one country and seek refuge in another, a country with greater freedom and greater opportunities, it becomes all our duty to see that this country's greatness is maintained. A universal language, open communications, personal independence have always been a prime ingredient in that greatness. The first thing newcomers learn to share is a language. Those who wish to spare their people the burden of learning a new language are either ignorant or tyrants who want to control and have final power over these people. Who would be writing these words to you today if I had not been forced to learn English. We would all be prisoners in our own communities, limited and dependent, the very situation many immigrants are fleeing from. Today, there are many young Americans who have always enjoyed freedom and independence. When something comes too easily, we tend to forget its value. But, with each immigrant who learns English you can be assured there are Americans who have heard his story and appreciate their country more. How can Americans remain united if we encourage separation? We must have some way of communicating the things that bind us together, that which makes us Americans. Is there anyone who had to learn the English language and after learning it could honestly say he would prefer never to have learned it? I offer you my best wishes and full support for this amendment and will encourage others to do so also. Sincerely yours, DBlichoss Michael Blichasz 1 804 N. 24th Street • Philadelphia, Pa. 19130 (215) 627-0454 • 739-3408 |