Laurn 1

Amber Laurn English 1201.634 Dr. Cassel March 29, 2013 To Be Official, Or Not To Be

The English Language Amendment (referred to as the ELA) was introduced in 1981 by Californian Senator Samuel I. Hayakawa. In essence, its purpose was to make Americas de facto language the official language. The proposed amendment calls for prohibition of state laws, ordinances, orders, programs, and policies that require the use of other languages. As author Vickie Lewelling explains in her research, neither the Federal government nor any state government could require any program, policy, or document that would use a language other than English (Lewelling). The ELA has gained substantial support in the last decade because it is seen as a symbolic measure instead of what it truly entails and the fallout that will follow in its wake. According to the Encyclopedia of Cultural Issues, Official English bills and constitutional amendments have been introduced in every subsequent session of Congress since 1981, but none has come close to final enactment (Sharpe and Armonk).. America having an official language is not a new concept, and it was even a topic of discussion during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. As E.L. Judd states, when the founding fathers vetoed the idea their reasons included a belief in tolerance for linguistic diversity within the population, the economic and social value of foreign language knowledge and citizenry, and a desire not to restrict the linguistic and cultural freedom of those living in the new country (Judd). The ELA contradicts the core values that this country was built on. We valued freedom, diversity, and

Laurn 2

tolerance at one time, and without these beliefs we would not be the country that we are today. The ELA will strip us of these rights that we take for granted. The English Language Amendment is a symbolic proposal in which supporters argue that in a pluralistic nation such as ours, government should foster the similarities that unite us, rather than the differences that separate us, and unless we become serious about protecting our heritage as a unilingual societybound by a common languagewe may lose a precious resource that has helped us forge a national character and identity from so many diverse elements (Chavez). The supporters feel that we should feel proud to be Americans and embrace the main stream culture, and to be able to do that, we have to have a bond and speak a common language. An Official Language would benefit our society. If everyone is able to communicate, then they can become a contributing member of society. Currently the government prints official documents in many different languages to help those who do not speak English fluently. Drivers tests are offered in Spanish, election ballots are printed in several languages, and courts and immigration offices employ translators. According to the US English website, the cost of providing multilingual services, including bilingual education, adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year (US English, Inc). English is seen as a win for both society and the government. The drafting of language legislation highlights the existence of language conflicts between majority and minority languages coexisting within a nation. As Tom Crawford explains, by legally defining the status and use of such languages, language legislation can be used to resolve such conflicts (Crawford). Because America has come to have two predominate languages - English and Spanish - within the last decade, the ELA clarifies which is the explicit

Laurn 3

language that is to be used by the government, and therefore it is not an English only proposal. Bilingualism will still be acceptable; immigrants need to understand the pride that comes with knowing the local language and being a functioning part of society. This is patriotism to the fullest and part of being an American, and will help with the transition into society. Without Official English, linguistic communities are free to flourish. We already have large Chinatowns, Little Italys, and other language centric communities. This allows immigrants to function without having to learn English and maintain their native tongue. This goes against the very grain of the ELA. We need to have these immigrants educated and integrated within the community. Not having an official language makes for little incentive to immigrates or their children to learn English. Other countries that do have multiple languages, like Belgium and Canada, have civil unrest and attempts have been made to abdicate themselves from the country along with other forms of social instability. We cannot be a united country if this is the case. Business is conducted in English in most international companies. Having immigrants in America learn English only prepares them for the venture. Being bilingual would actually be a benefit to them in this situation. While some would argue that the ELA is ethnocentric and discriminates against immigrants on the bases of impeding language rights, most immigrants lose their native tongue by the third generation as seen in the below chart from the 2002 journal Demography. While immigrants do lose their language, they retain their

Linguistic Life Expectancies By Generation

Laurn 4

cultural identity whilst also becoming an American. Of the twenty-seven amendments that have been ratified in our Constitution, four would be directly violated by the ELA. The one amendment that sets America apart from any other country is the First Amendment, our freedom of speech. The Constitution declares that we are not to abridge the freedom of speech of our citizens. The ELA would drastically interfere with the freedom of all mono and bilingual immigrants. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial. If a person does not speak English and the court proceeding cannot be conducted in a language other than English, how is that considered a fair trial? The Sixth Amendment allows the accuser to face his accuser and to cross-examine them. Again, if no other language than English is allowed in a court room, Federal or other, then the accused cannot exercise his right when he is not fluent in English. The Fourteenth Amendment would also be violated by Official English. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that laws cannot discriminate against certain groups based on specific characteristics, such as race, gender, or national origin and was reinforced in Hernandez vs. New York, when the Supreme Court held that language profiency can be viewed as one of these classifications. So, with the passage of one amendment, the government would have to modify previous amendments that have been in effect for over two hundred years in order accommodate Official English. America thrives on information, yet we do not have all the information on legislation that would profoundly change our society. If were to allow the ELA to be enacted, we would severely limit the passage of information to and from millions of immigrants. We provide information in multiple languages in order to be able to inform everyone equally. Without this, people will lose the ability to take a drivers test, vote, and have a translator provided in the time need. The ELA is an ethnocentric law that pushes to assert our dominance over other cultures

Laurn 5

out of fear of being overran ourselves. Official English sets up a class system of them and us, thus pushing immigrants into social isolation and further from main stream society. The ELA was targeted at particular ethnic groups: Latinos. With the recent influx of Latinos, Americans are feeling pressured to protected their culture and language. Senator Hayakawa said himself, It is not without significance that pressure against English language legislation does not come from any immigrant group other than the Hispanic: not from Chinese or Koreans or Filipinos or Vietnamese; nor from immigrant Iranians, Turks, Greeks, East Indians, Ghanaians, Ethiopians, Italians or Swedes. The only people who have any quarrel with the English language are the Hispanics at least the Hispanic politicians and bilingual teachers and lobbying organizations (US English). Here is a man, who is of Japanese descent, and he wants to take away rights for immigrants that do not conform to our idea of an American. You should not have to speak English to be an American. Speaking the language does not automatically qualify a person as an American. If a person was to move to France and speak French, they are not automatically French. It is societys decision whether or not we should be considered American regardless of the language which we speak. We are so loyal to America and our language, but we fail to realize that we no longer speak our native tongue. We were colonized by the British, and they brought British English to America. We spoke British English when the Constitution was written. When did our language change? Did the immigrants cause it? No, we are an ever evolving society and our language follows suit. Instead of punishing all the immigrants, why can we not correct the original problem of not being English literate? If we want immigrants to learn English, then we need to mandate it in our naturalization process. The government needs to provide adequate access to language

Laurn 6

training classes and incentives to keep the people who do speak English here in the United States. If we have a problem, we need to solve it, not put a band aid on it and hope for the best when in reality it just festers until it can no longer be ignored. Official English has its pros and cons depending on your view of immigration and how it is affecting our culture. We have been an open country for opportunity no matter your background for over two hundred years. If a hands-off policy has worked thus far, why change it? English is the implicit language, and everyone knows and understands this when coming to America. Government proceedings are performed in English, and only when needed is there another language brought into the system. I personally do not see another language taking the place of English.

Laurn 7

Works Cited Alba, Richard D., John Logan, Amy Lutz, and Brian Stults. 2002. Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the grandchildren of modern immigrants. Demography. 39 (3): 467-484. Crawford, James. "The Official English Question." 2007. Language Policy. 1 November 2012. <www.languagepolicy.net>. Gershon, Sarah Allen and Adrian D. Pantoja. "Patriotism and Language Loyalties: Comparing Latino and Anglo Attitudes Toward English-Only Legislation." Ethnic & Racial Studies 34.9 (2011): 1522-1542. Web. 1 November 2012. Judd, E.L. "The English Language Amendment: A case study on language rights." TESOL Quarterly (1987): 21. Lewelling, Vickie W. "Official English and English Plus: An Update. ERIC Digest." Washington D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, May 1997. Web. 1 November 2012. Marshall, David F. "The Question of an Official Language: Language Rights and the English Language Amendment." International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1986.60 (1986): 7-75. Web. 2 November 2012. McArthur, Tom. "English Language Amendment." 1998. Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. 1 November 2012. <www.encyclopedia.com>. Sharp, M. E. and Armonk. "English as the Official Language." Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices 2010. Web. 1 November 2012.

Laurn 8

U.S. English, Inc. "Official English: Claims vs. Realities." 2012. U.S. English, Inc. 2 November 2012. <www.us-english.org>.