There have always been "foreign" languages spoken in this country. In addition to the languages which have been spoken (at least briefly) by immigrants to this country, there are languages other than English which existed in pre-colonial times (Native American Indian languages), those which pre-date the American Revolution (Dutch, French, German, and Spanish), and some which were created on US soil (Cajun French, Louisiana French Creole, Pennsylvania Dutch, Colorado and New Mexico Spanish(and several other Spanish varieties), Hawaiian Pidgin English, Gullah, American Sign Language, and French Cree). Although English has been the predominant language in this country, it has never been the exclusive language of this country. There is no mention of language preference in the US Constitution. According to the National Education Association (NEA), the Articles of Confederation were printed in German as well English.
Following two big waves of immigration to the USA, movements cropped up to make English the official language of the US government. These movements seem to be based on fear of the particular immigrant population on the rise. In the early 20th Century, it was primarily the southern and eastern European immigrants. Today it's primarily the Latino and Asian immigrants. Many people believe that the immigrants today are not assimilating as quickly as those in the early part of this century. According to the ACLU, today's immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as earlier generations of Russian, Italian and German immigrants.
In the past few years, several bills, known as the Language of Government Act, have been introduced into Congress which would make English the official language of the United States government. The most prominent of these bills is HR 123, the Bill Emerson English Empowerment Act of 1996. It was passed by the House of Representatives and there is similar legislation pending in the Senate.
HR 123 would make English the official language of the Federal Government. All Federal Government business would be conducted in English. The only exceptions to this law would be for teaching foreign languages; actions, documents or policies necessary for international relations, trade, or commerce; actions which protect the rights of victims of crimes or criminal defendants; documents that include terms of art or phrases from languages other than English, and that which is necessary for Census work. It would repeal the Bilingual Election Requirements section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
One bill introduced,HR 351, deals solely with repealing the Bilingual Election Requirements section. It is known as the Bilingual Voting Requirements Repeals Act of 1995/96. It would end the printing of election ballots in languages other than English.
States with English Only Laws and Legislation:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.
In 1969, Illinois issued a statute repealing "American" as the official state language.
Bilingual States and Territories
Hawaii has declared its official state languages to be English and Hawaiian. New Mexico has declared English and Spanish as its official languages. In Puerto Rico, the official languages are English and Spanish.
Some specifics
Some of the official English laws do more than simply declare English as the official language of the state. Some laws prohibit the use of public funds on the use of any language other than English. According to the ACLU, in Dade County, Florida, fire safety pamphlets cannot be printed in Spanish, Spanish language signs for public transportation have been outlawed. Some explicitly make English the language of instruction in public schools. In California, bilingual ballots have been outlawed and suits against anyone who disregards English as the official language of the state are sanctioned. Tennessee requires that all official government documents, communications, and public instruction be in English only.
One of the first cases about language use to be tried by the Supreme Court was Meyer v. Nebraska*, 1923. In this case, a parochial school teacher in Nebraska taught a bible story in German and was thus found guilty of violating a 1919 statute which mandated that English be the only language of instruction in all schools, private and public, allowing for foreign language instruction only once the student has successfully passed the eighth grade. The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the decision.
In U.S. ex rel. Negron v. New York*, 1970, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of a Puerto Rican farm laborer, Negron, who killed a fellow worker during a drunken brawl. Negron spoke only Spanish, but the trial was not translated. He was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty years to life. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling led to the enactment of the Federal Court Interpreters Act of 1978.
Lau v. Nichols*, 1974, is the precedent for the educational rights of minority language students. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that treating all students the same and , thus subjugating English deficient students to the "sink or swim" method of instruction is a violation of their civil rights.
In Puerto Rican Organization for Political Action (PROPA) v. Kusper*, 1973, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a simple official English statute can not be used to prevent provision of government services in other languages.
In 1989, in Asian American Business Group v. City of Pomona* the Federal District Court ruled that requiring business owners to devote at least half of the space to English alphabetical characters on business signs featuring foreign alphabetical characters was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In 1988 in Arizona, a constitutional amendment, Article 28, was adopted by voter initiative. The amendment was later found to be unconstitutional in Yniguez V. Arizonans for Official English by both federal district and appellate courts. The case was brought to the Supreme Court in Arizonans for Official English et al v. Arizona et al.. On March 3, 1997, the Court held the law on grounds that the case was moot and should therefore never have been retained on adjudication of the merits by the lower courts.
Maria Kelly Yniguez, who was a state employee, sued the State on the grounds that Article 28 of the State Constitution violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Article 28 states that the state and its representatives are required to act in no other language than English. Yniguez used both English and Spanish in her work and feared if the Article were to be broadly interpreted, she might face dismissal from her job or other disciplinary measures if she did not stop speaking Spanish while conducting state business.
The Federal District Court declared the Article overbroad and unconstitutional. Arizonans for Official English , which had sponsored the Article, filed suit with the State Attorney General , but the Attorney General was not allowed to be a party to the suit. The next day, Yniguez left her job for another in the private sector. The court decided that the case could continue, even though Yniguez was no longer employed by the state. Her suit could have implied a plea for nominal damages, therefore the court went ahead with the case. The court found Yniguez was entitled to nominal damages from the state. The Supreme Court found that the case was indeed moot once Yniguez was no longer working for the state, and therefore dismissed it.
In January, 1997, an English Plus resolution was submitted to the House of Representatives. It is in response to the Official English bills circulating in Congress. The resolution stresses that English is the de facto language of the United States of America, and fluency in English is crucial to success in the country. It also stresses the importance of multilingualism as it enhances our global competitiveness. It mentions the use of Native American languages for national security. The resolution states that English is not in danger. Ninety-four percent of U.S. residents speak English, according to the 1990 U.S. Census. English Only legislation is unnecessary and would violate the traditions cultural pluralism, divide people along ethnic lines, jeopardize vital government services to those with limited English abilities, and hinder the development of language skills.
The English Plus Resolution states that the U.S. Government should pursue policies that 1. encourage all residents to become fully proficient in English, 2. encourage all residents to learn and maintain skills in languages other than English, 3.assist Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, and other indigenous peoples of the United States in their efforts to prevent the extinction of their languages and cultures, 4. continue to provide essential services as needed in languages other than English, and 5. to recognize the importance of multilingualism.
So far, three states have endorsed a policy of English Plus: New Mexico, Washington, and Oregon.
With Bilingual Education programs, the majority of funds are spent on teaching children in their native language rather than on teaching them English. The programs are not effective. It takes up to seven years before children can be mainstreamed into English only classrooms. Proponents of "official" English feel that children have a right to learn English and to be assimilated as soon as possible, and that the bilingual education programs in place today do not work toward this goal
According to TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages), there may be problems with some bilingual programs, but it has been shown that children who do not fully acquire a language by the age of seven are severely handicapped in their later academic lives. It is vital that children feel they are not being looked down on for the language they speak. Children sent to English only classes, to "sink or swim" more often than not sink. If they do not effectively learn English, they cannot hope to learn their other subjects. Teaching children most of their courses in their native language in addition to teaching them English is the beast way to ensure they learn not only English, but that they learn the other subjects and acquire cognitive skills necessary to survive academically.
According to GSS data from 1994, the majority (63%) of Americans favor making English the official language of the United States with all government business being conducted solely in English. Whether or not respondents were born in the USA had little affect on how they responded. There were some differences in response with regard to race. Whites were more likely to be in favor of Official English, and less likely to be opposed to it than Blacks and those in the other race category. Blacks were more likely to be opposed and less likely to be in favor than respondents in the other two race categories. Women were slightly less likely to be in favor and slightly more likely to be opposed to Official English.
| Response | Total | US Born | Foreign Born | White | Black | Other | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Favor | 62.8% | 63.0% | 59.8% | 66.0% | 46.6% | 50.8% | 60.1% | 65.9% |
| Neutral | 9.7% | 9.3% | 13.7% | 8.6% | 15.3% | 11.9% | 9.9% | 9.3% |
| Opposed | 27.6% | 27.7% | 26.5% | 25.4% | 38.1% | 37.3% | 29.9% | 24.7% |
A study of California residents done by Louis Harris and Associates** in 1984 informed respondents that proposition 38 would put California on record as urging that federal law be changed so that ballots and other voting materials would be printed in English only, then asked them if they were voting today on proposition 38 how would they vote. A large majority (67%) responded that they would vote yes.
| Response | Percent |
|---|---|
| Would Vote Yes | 67.20% |
| Would Vote No | 28.60% |
| Undecided | 4.20% |
According to GSS data from 1994, the majority (63%) of Americans feel that in areas where a lot of people don't speak English, election ballots should be printed in some languages other than English. Only slightly more respondents who were not born in the USA said ballots should be in languages other than English. Whites were somewhat more likely than Blacks and those in the Other racial category, to feel that election ballots should be printed in English only. Males were somewhat more likely than females to believe ballots should be in English only.
| Response | Total | US Born | Foreign Born | White | Black | Other | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only in English | 36.8% | 37.0% | 34.0% | 39.7% | 23.4% | 23.3% | 32.6% | 42.0% |
| In Other Languages | 63.2% | 63.0% | 66.0% | 60.3% | 76.6% | 76.7% | 67.4% | 58.0% |
A study of current and former teachers done in 1985 by Louis Harris and Associates**, reveals that the majority (51%) of teachers feels that there are adequate programs for bilingual education. Although a large proportion (30%) feel that inadequate programs for bilingual education is a problem.
| Response | Percent |
|---|---|
| Very Serious | 12.30% |
| Somewhat Serious | 18.10% |
| Not Very Serious | 23.10% |
| Not at All Serious | 27.90% |
| Not Sure | 17.50% |
| Not Applicable | 1.10% |
In another study by Louis Harris and Associates**, subjects were asked whether the government policy should promote bilingual education classes that teach English and teach other substantive subjects in the child's native language or if policy should mandate that substantive subjects be taught in English. The majority of subjects responded that substantive subjects be taught in English (64%).
| Substantive Subject in: | Percent |
|---|---|
| Native Language | 33.60% |
| English | 64.30% |
| Not Sure | 2.10% |
| Response | Ten Dollars | Twenty-Five Dollars |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 29.90% | 28.30% |
| No | 70.10% | 71.70% |
| Response | Total | US Born | Foreign Born | White | Black | Other | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Agree | 11.3% | 11.2% | 13.3% | 12.0% | 6.5% | 10.5% | 9.5% | 13.8% |
| Agree | 36.9% | 37.1% | 33.6% | 38.6% | 25.4% | 32.9% | 33.0% | 42.0% |
| Disagree | 42.6% | 42.9% | 39.8% | 41.2% | 53.8% | 42.1% | 46.0% | 38.1% |
| Strongly Disagree | 9.2% | 8.8% | 13.3% | 8.2% | 14.2% | 14.5% | 11.5% | 6.1% |
In 1994, the GSS asked respondents how they felt about bilingual education. According to the GSS data, the majority of Americans are somewhat or strongly in favor of bilingual education (40% and 28%, respectively). Significantly more foreign born respondents were strongly in favor of bilingual education than those born in the United States (42% and 27%, respectively). Blacks and Other respondents were more likely to be in favor of bilingual education then White respondents. Females were somewhat more likely to be in favor of bilingual education than males.
| Response | Total | US Born | Foreign Born | White | Black | Other | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly in favor | 27.7% | 26.6% | 41.6% | 25.1% | 39.4% | 44.3% | 30.9% | 23.8% |
| Somewhat in favor | 40.0% | 40.5% | 34.7% | 39.4% | 45.1% | 36.1% | 41.0% | 38.8% |
| Somewhat opposed | 17.1% | 17.8% | 8.9% | 18.8% | 8.0% | 11.5% | 16.9% | 17.4% |
| Strongly opposed | 15.1% | 15.1% | 14.9% | 16.7% | 7.4% | 8.2% | 11.2% | 20.0% |
In 1994, respondents of the GSS were asked how much time they felt should be devoted to bilingual education. If children should be mainstreamed immediately, i.e., no use of their native language in school, if they should spend an year or two in bilingual classes and then be mainstreamed into English on;y classes, or if they should have the option of taking classes in their native language through high school. According to the GSS data, almost half (48%) of Americans feel bilingual education should last 1 to 2 years then children should be placed in mainstream English only classes. Only 15% felt that bilingual education should be an option through high school. Foreign born respondents were more likely to say either that children should be mainstreamed immediately or that bilingual education should be available through high school. Blacks and Others were significantly more likely than Whites to say bilingual education should be available through high school. They were also somewhat less likely than Whites to feel children should be mainstreamed immediately. Females were only slightly less likely than males to say English deficient children should be mainstreamed immediately and only slightly more likely than males to say bilingual education should be available through high school.
| Response | Total | US Born | Foreign Born | White | Black | Other | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No bilingual classes | 36.0% | 35.4% | 43.6% | 37.3% | 29.0% | 31.7% | 34.9% | 37.4% |
| 1-2 years | 48.3% | 49.1% | 37.6% | 48.6% | 48.4% | 43.3% | 47.8% | 49.0% |
| through high school | 15.7% | 15.5% | 18.8% | 14.1% | 22.6% | 25.0% | 17.4% | 13.6% |
Organization Opinions
According to Schlafly , legally stating English as the official language of the USA or any constituent part thereof has the effect of reaffirming a common bond. Proponents of "official" English feel English unites us and accentuating our difference divides us. They feel that E pluribus unum (From the many, one) is becoming E uno plures (From they one, many).
According to the National Education Association (NEA), making English legally the official language is unnecessary as it is already the defacto official language. This country has always had a substantial percentage of citizens and residents who spoke a foreign language. We have never needed a law to state that English is the official language. Immigrants have always eventually learned English (if not the immigrants themselves, their children). According to the ACLU Briefing Paper Number 6 "English Only", over 95% of first generation Mexican Americans are English proficient, and more than 50% of second generation Mexican Americans have entirely lost their native language skills. 98% of Spanish-speaking Hispanic families feel that it is vital that their children learn to speak fluent English, the same is true for only 94% of native English speakers.
Less than 1% of all government publications are printed in languages other than English. 99.94% are printed in English. It is important for those who are not English proficient to have access to information. These people are often recent immigrants and may be discriminated for more reasons than their lack of knowledge of English it is important that they have some recourse to the law. When one's life or property is at risk, it is mandated by the Constitution that that person be informed, regardless of their ability to understand English.
It is clear that in order for the United States to remain competitive in the international arena, more US citizens will have to become proficient in a second language. It is in our best interest to promote the study of "foreign" languages and cultures. If children or adults already have ability in a language other than English, their ability should be nurtured rather than stamped out. It is also important give English-deficient persons sufficient access to programs which effectively teach them English. It is not under debate whether English should be the predominant language in this country. Immigrants are ever eager to learn English, for they know what a disadvantage it is not to be fluent in the dominant language of a country.
The best solution is to allow non-native speakers of English to develop their English skills while allowing them to retain their native languages and at the same time promoting second (and third) language acquisition by native speakers of English.
Preserving the Linguistic Heritage of the United States
Much of the debate about English only focuses on recent immigrants who are English-deficient. However, there is another issue which needs to be examined. What will happen to indigenous languages if English is declared the official language of the USA? Much damage has already been done. In the 1920s Native American Indians were forced to attend English-language boarding schools and were punished for using their native languages. Many feared their children would likewise be punished and therefore chose not to teach their children their native tongue. Today most of these Native American languages are on the verge of extinction. There has been a movement among the Native Americans to revive their languages. This movement has had government backing (Native American Language Act, 1990). Some of the bills introduced into Congress ruling English as the official language, would wipe out any government aid to these language programs.
The issue is especially critical with regard to Native American languages, for this is the only place they are spoken. Unlike Spanish , French, Vietnamese, and Chinese, which are spoken elsewhere, if these languages die out here, they will be gone from the face of the earth. Can the government make special allowance for Native American languages? Allow governmental funding for programs that teach these languages, but not other languages?