The future of global English The need for intelligibility and the need for identity often pull people – and countries – in opposing directions. The former motivates the learning of an international language, with English the first choice in most cases; the latter motivates the promotion of ethnic language and culture. Conflict is the common consequence when either position is promoted insensitively. There are ways of avoiding such conflict, of course, notably in the promotion of bilingual or multilingual policies, which enable people both ‘to have their cake and eat it’. But bilingual policies are expensive to resource, in both time and money, and they require a climate of cooperation which for historical reasons often does not exist. Any decision to reject English has important consequences for the identity of a nation, and it can cause emotional ripples (both sympathetic and antagonistic) around the English-speaking world; but there have been very few such rejections of English to date, and the populations in the countries which have done so are sufficiently small that even in total there has been no noticeable impact on the status of the English language as a whole. There is, however, one country where, on grounds of population-size alone, a major change in the sociolinguistic situation could turn ripples into waves. That is the USA. Contrasting attitudes: the US situation Given that the USA has come to be the dominant element in so many of the domains identified in earlier chapters, the future status of English must be bound up to some extent with the future of that country. So much of the power which has fuelled the growth of the English language during the twentieth century has stemmed from America. We have already noted that the country contains nearly four times as many mother-tongue speakers of English as any other nation. It has been more involved with international developments in twentieth-century technology than any other nation. It is in control of the new industrial (that is, electronic) revolution. And it exercises a greater influence on the way English is developing worldwide than does any other regional variety – often, of course, to the discomfiture of people in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, who regularly 127 ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE express worries in their national presses about the onslaught of ‘Americanisms’. As we have seen in chapter 1, there is the closest of links between language and power. If anything were to disestablish the military or economic power of the USA, there would be inevitable consequences for the global status of the language. The millions of people learning English in order to have access to this power would begin to look elsewhere, and (assuming the new political magnet used a language other than English) they would quickly acquire new language loyalties. It is unlikely that a corresponding loss of power in any other country would have such a serious effect. Even if, for example, the entire English-speaking population of Canada decided to switch to French, or the entire Englishspeaking population of South Africa opted to speak Afrikaans, the implications for English as a world language would be minor. As can be seen from the listing in chapter 2, relatively small numbers of people would be involved. No one has suggested that the power of the USA is seriously at risk from external forces, as we begin the new millennium; the International Institute for Strategic Studies (in The military balance 1996–7 ) reports that the USA still has by far the most powerful conventional armed forces in the world and is the largest arms producer. But during the 1990s increasing attention came to be focused on a domestic debate in which, according to one set of arguments, there are internal forces threatening the country’s future unity. As we have seen in chapter 2 (p. 36), some analysts consider the English language to have been an important factor in maintaining mutual intelligibility and American unity in the face of the immigration explosion which more than tripled the US population after 1900. For those who take this view, the contemporary movement among some immigrant populations to maintain their original cultural identity through safeguarding their mother tongues is – given the large numbers involved – a matter of some consequence. What has emerged is a conflict between the demands of intelligibility and identity (of the kind outlined in chapter 1), and one outcome has been the ‘official English’ movement. Although the various arguments are in many ways unique to the USA, given the large numbers of people and 128 The future of global English languages involved, and relating as they do to the rights of individuals as enshrined in the US Constitution, they need to be carefully noted by people in other countries, for ethnic minority and immigrant populations – and thus the competing pressures of identity preservation vs. assimilation – are everywhere. Although there is no official-language movement in Britain, for example, it is not impossible to imagine an analogous situation developing there, as well as in Australia, where immigration trends in recent years have been especially dramatic, and where in the 1990s the country’s attitude towards Asian immigrants emerged again as a political issue. A summary of the main issues is therefore of some relevance, in a book dealing with the future of global English.5 Why, in a country where over 95 per cent of the population speak English, should there be a movement to make English official? People do not start making a case for a language to be made official until they feel they need to; and the circumstances in which they need to are usually very clear. As already mentioned (p. 84), the typical scenario is one where a language has come to be threatened by the emergence of a more dominant language. It may take a long time for people who speak the threatened language to respond: in the case of Welsh, the reversal of several hundred years of English domination has begun to show real results only recently, starting with the Welsh Language Act of 1967. Similar movements can be seen in Ireland, Hawaii, New Zealand, and Quebec. Inevitably, in such cases, there is a secondary reaction, with English-users finding themselves – often for the first time – on the defensive (in relation to such matters as job applications, where bilingualism may be advantageous), and insisting that the status of English be guaranteed. But in a country where the language is already so dominant, and its position for so long taken for granted, why should the question of its official status arise at all? Before going into the reasons, it should be mentioned that the positions for and against ‘official English’ have been argued 5 For the sociolinguistic situation in contemporary USA, see Herriman and Burnaby (1996: chapter 6). For the US-English position, see . For a critique of the English-Only position, see Nunberg (1999). 129 ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE with varying amounts of moderation and extremism, and that several views are possible on each side. On the pro-official side, no fewer than three bills came before the House of Representatives in January–February 1995, all sponsored by Republicans (but with varying amounts of inter-party support), expressing different attitudes and recommendations about the use and status of other languages. The most moderate of these (HR 123, sponsored by Representative Bill Emerson), outlined below, saw itself partly as a means of empowering immigrants by giving them greater opportunities to acquire English. Considerably more radical was HR 739, sponsored by Representative Toby Roth, which allowed for fewer exceptions in the official use of other languages, and repealed the 1965 Act providing for bilingual education and bilingual ballots. More restrictive still was HR 1005, sponsored by Representative Pete King, which allowed for even fewer exceptions in the use of other languages. The latter two proposals made little political progress; but HR 123 received the support of US English, the country’s leading organization campaigning for official English, and it was this bill which eventually went to a vote, in August 1996, being passed by the House of Representatives (under the name of the Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act) by 259 to 169. However, pressure of time in a presidential election year did not allow the bill to reach the Senate, and it remains to be seen how the issue will fare in future Congresses. This summary of the main clauses of the Emerson bill is based on the bill as presented to the House on 4 January 1995. It does not include any amendments introduced at the committee stage in July 1996 or thereafter. (1) the United States is comprised of individuals and groups from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds; (2) the United States has benefited and continues to benefit from this rich diversity; (3) throughout the history of the Nation, the common thread binding those of differing backgrounds has been a common language; (4) in order to preserve unity in diversity, and to prevent division along linguistic lines, the United States should maintain a language common to all people; 130 The future of global English (5) English has historically been the common language and the language of opportunity in the United States; (6) the purpose of this Act is to help immigrants better assimilate and take full advantage of economic and occupational opportunities in the United States; (7) by learning the English language, immigrants will be empowered with the language skills and literacy necessary to become responsible citizens and productive workers in the United States; (8) the use of a single common language in the conduct of the Government’s official business will promote efficiency and fairness to all people; (9) English should be recognized in law as the language of official business of the Government; and (10) any monetary savings derived from the enactment of this Act should be used for the teaching of the non-English speaking immigrants the English language. In a series of further clauses, it was made clear that ‘official business’ meant ‘those governmental actions, documents, or policies which are enforceable with the full weight and authority of the Government’ – this would include all public records, legislation, regulations, hearings, official ceremonies, and public meetings. The bill allowed the use of languages other than English in such cases as public health and safety services, the teaching of foreign languages, policies necessary for international relations and trade, and actions that protect the rights of people involved in judicial proceedings. Private businesses were not affected. The bill also stated that it was not its purpose ‘to discriminate against or restrict the rights of any individual’ or ‘to discourage or prevent the use of languages other than English in any nonofficial capacity’. There are also several positions on the anti-official side, though here it is not so easy to make generalizations. To begin with, there are many cultural perspectives, as we would expect from a population which includes, on the one hand, a major Hispanic group of over 28 millions (according to the 2000 census) and, on the other, a range of ethnic groups some of whose members number only a few thousand. Over 18 million claimed to speak a language other than English or Spanish in the home, in that 131 ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE census, with over 300 languages involved. Also, there is no single authoritative source of statement to refer to, but many organizations, each of which has its own political agenda. The observations below, accordingly, will not necessarily be endorsed by everyone who opposes official English legislation. They are paraphrases of views expressed in various policy statements, alternative proposals, and press articles or letters. But the points can be used in aggregate to spell out the case for opposition. A wide range of arguments is used by each side in support of its case. ! The political argument: for Pro-official supporters see in the emergence of major immigrant groups, and the support for immigrant language programmes, the seeds of separatism, and the eventual dissolution of the unity which is reflected in the very name of the United States and its motto (E pluribus unum, ‘One out of many’). They look fearfully at the language-inspired separatist movement in nearby Quebec, which came close to success in 1995, and draw attention to the emergence of incendiary separatist attitudes such as are expressed by the Chicano Movement of Aztlan (MECha) or by the University of California student publication, Voz Fronteriza (‘Voice of the frontier’), where writers envisage large tracts of the US south-west as one day returning to Hispanic (Mexicano) control. The term ‘official Spanish’ is increasingly encountered, in this connection. The fact that there is a linguistic dimension to the conflicts which destroyed former Yugoslavia is also sometimes cited as an example of the dangers lurking beneath the surface of a multilingual community: Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, for example, participating in the debate on the Emerson bill, was one influential voice which referred to the perils of US ‘Balkanization’. From this point of view, English is viewed, according to one pro-official columnist in 1995, as a social adhesive – as a linguistic glue which guarantees political unity. According to another, the language has been the basis of social stability in the USA, and any threat to this stabilizing influence would lead to the growth of ‘countries within a country’ – linguistic ghettos which would 132 The future of global English discourage contact between groups and slow down the process of socialization. Attention is drawn to the size of the possible rift, especially in relation to the use of Spanish, with the US Census Bureau predicting more Hispanics than African-Americans in the USA by the year 2010, and a Hispanic population of over 80 million by 2050. ! The political argument: against Anti-official supporters maintain that an official English bill is unnecessary – that the fears have been wildly exaggerated, there is no risk of disunity, and no danger of Babel. They argue that most immigrants are assimilating nicely – certainly by the second generation – and that the natural course of events will eventually produce a new social balance, without any need for legislation. There is no more need to make English official now, it is suggested, than there was at the time of the Revolution, when Dutch and German were for a while spoken by substantial numbers. The natural urge that people have to succeed will provide the required motivation for the learning of English. A common observation, they point out, is that first-generation immigrant parents actually find it harder to persuade their children to learn their language of origin than to learn English. It is felt that English could not possibly be in danger, in any case, when over 95 per cent of the population speak it ‘well’ or ‘very well’. It is the other languages which are actually in danger. Many accordingly hold the view that the official English bill is an unwarranted federal intrusion into self-expression, violating cultural pluralism, and – insofar as it is perceived as a policy intended to limit and control minorities – increasing the chances that communities would divide along ethnic lines. Even if English were made official, the argument continues, the use of a common language does not guarantee ethnic harmony. A community can be torn apart on racial, religious, political, or other grounds, even when both sides are united by a single language (see p. 16). There are evidently bigger issues in the world than linguistic ones, and this is reflected in some of the descriptors used by those most violently opposed to the ‘official English’ proposals, such as ‘elitist’, ‘racist’, ‘anti-immigrant’ and ‘anti-Hispanic’. 133 ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE ! The socio-economic argument: for Pro-official supporters maintain that, at a time when there is considerable competition for limited funds, an expensive multilingual support policy is undesirable. It is not as if there is just a single alternative language which is in need of protection (as in the case of Canada): there are well over 300 languages to be taken into account. They point out that no country could afford a language policy which tried to give official protection to so many languages. The Canadian situation, dealing with just two languages, cost that country nearly $7,000 million dollars in the decade from 1980 to 1990. The USA, with ten times the population, and many more languages, would have to find some multiple of that total each year, depending on how many languages were selected for support. The problem of selection is thought to be particularly serious. Pro-official supporters draw attention to the difficulty of saying that a language can receive official recognition only after it reaches a certain point of growth. If 5 million were chosen as the cut-off point, for example, it would be inevitable that people who spoke languages which were just a little short of that figure would claim that the division was unfair. Some commentators therefore argue that no principled selection is possible, and that the country is in an all-or-none situation. If ‘all’: any foreign-language groups with a tiny number of speakers would be able to claim official support – but the country would soon go bankrupt, if it adopted such a policy. The only alternative, this line of argument concludes, is to support ‘none’ – other than the language of the vast majority, English. It is also argued that the provision of alternative language services (such as the option of taking a driving test in a range of different languages) is highly wasteful of resources, because they are so little used. One of the main themes of the leading pro-English organization in the USA, US English, is to draw attention to cases of this kind. For example, it cites the fact that in 1994 the Internal Revenue Service distributed half a million forms and instruction booklets in Spanish, but only 718 were returned. It expresses concern about the cost of a language policy in which, for instance, in 2002 California was offering licence exams to drivers in thirty-three different languages. It concludes that a better return 134 The future of global English for money would come from spending it elsewhere: in improving the English-language abilities of immigrants to the USA. There is an important issue of empowerment here: pro-official supporters argue that educational programmes in the immigrant’s mother tongue are no real help, because they eliminate the incentive for immigrants to learn English, and this keeps them in low-paid jobs. Official status, it is asserted, would help to safeguard English as the language of opportunity. There would also be enormous savings in efficiency, both at national and local levels, it is suggested, if everyone had the competence and confidence to rely on English as their medium of communication in official contexts. This would also ensure that everyone would understand road signs, safety regulations at work, medicinal instructions, environmental hazard warnings, and the like. If it is possible for someone to have such a poor knowledge of English that they have to take a driving exam in another language, the argument concludes, it is improbable that they will be able to cope with the English-language demands placed upon them by the multiplicity of road-side instructions. ! The socio-economic argument: against Anti-official supporters doubt whether government time and money would really be saved, given the cost and complexity of introducing the new law. In particular, they question whether the legislation could possibly be enforced, and point to the difficulties of giving a precise definition to the notion of ‘official’, in relation to language, and of making a clear and consistent distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ discourse. For example, would a march in support of some minority issue be a public or private event, and would it be permitted to carry banners in languages other than English? The fear is that the public domain will gradually erode the private one, ultimately threatening freedom of speech. Especially in a country where there is a great readiness to use the courts to solve disputes, the new law would, it is felt, cause greater complications than it would solve, and would probably be more expensive to implement and maintain. It might actually end up being honoured more in the breach than in the observance, with the legislation proving inadequate to cope with the realities of a highly complex and dynamic social situation. An important complication is that any 135 ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE new layer of federal control would also have to be implemented alongside the individual laws enacted by several states (twentyseven by 2002), which already display a great deal of variation. The ‘all-or-nothing’ view of language support is also hotly contested, using the following line of reasoning. There may indeed be no principled way of drawing a line between one group of languages and another, but it does not follow from this that nothing should be done to help those who speak the more widely used languages, where relatively large numbers of people would benefit from receiving a modicum of support in their mother tongue. The fields of health and safety, such as those cited above, provide a good example of areas where much more could be done than is available at present. Some commentators have drawn attention to the different situation in other countries which have high immigrant populations. In Germany, for example, pharmaceutical companies have to provide instruction labels in five Gastarbeiter (immigrant ‘guest-worker’) languages: Turkish, Italian, Spanish, Serbo-Croatian, and Greek. They are not required to carry such labels in the several other languages currently found in Germany, such as Russian and Polish. In this view, to introduce a policy banning all such labels on the grounds that some languages cannot be represented is felt to be absurd. It is thought to be common sense to provide safety instructions on medicine bottles in as many languages as is practicable, to minimize the risk to as many people as possible. It is not feasible to help everyone who has difficulty with English, but it is not acceptable to conclude from this that the government should therefore help none of them. Even though the moderate official-English position maintains that it has no intention of harming ethnic identity or the natural growth of languages other than English, anti-official supporters claim that the withdrawal of resources and the fresh focus on English is bound to harm the provision of services in these languages, even in areas which are supposed to be protected, such as health care and law enforcement. It is also thought likely that interest in foreign-language learning will further diminish, and this is felt to be an unfortunate development at a time when the climate in international business competitiveness and political 136 The future of global English diplomacy is one where foreign-language ability is increasingly seen as advantageous (see p. 18). ! Educational issues Several other kinds of argument are used in the debate – in particular, to do with educational theory and practice. For example, the pro-official position is concerned that many students in bilingual education programmes are being taught by teachers whose own level of English is of a low quality, thus inculcating an inadequate command of the language, and a ‘ghetto dialect’ that will mark the speakers as socially inferior. They point to the shortage of adequately trained teachers, and to the many problems in assigning students to the right kind of programme for the right length of time, and claim that bilingual programmes are not as efficient as English-immersion programmes in fostering the transition to mainstream English classes. Anti-official supporters stress the value of bilingualism as part of a child’s learning experience, observing that immigrant children are more likely to do well in learning a second language if their own language is valued by the society in which they find themselves. They stress the potential for success of bilingual education programmes, arguing that the best predictor of achievement in English for immigrant children by age eighteen is the amount of time spent in bilingual classrooms. If there are inadequacies in the educational system, it is suggested, these are due to the failure of government to provide enough financial support for learning resources, educational facilities, and teacher training, and to the fact that bilingual programmes are available to only about 25 per cent of students with limited English proficiency. The ‘official English’ bill, it is pointed out, does virtually nothing to enable fluency in English to be universally achieved – other than simply stating that it must be. To evaluate the arguments on both sides would require a detailed consideration of such matters as teaching methods, research procedures, and assessment goals, and is too complex an area to be given summary treatment in the present book.6 But it is 6 The relationship between bilingualism and education is well addressed in Baker and Prys Jones (1998); see especially pp. 290–1 in relation to official English movements. 137 ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE important to appreciate that a great deal of time has been, and continues to be, devoted to this issue. Many of those who support the pro-official position feel that the pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. From a position where transitional programmes were being devised to get children into the English-speaking mainstream as quickly as possible, they now see a position where these programmes are being used to preserve cultural identity and to reduce integration. From a position where immigrants were expected to learn English, they note cases of non-immigrants in schools now having to learn the immigrant language. From a position where English was the language an immigrant needed for a job, they now note cases where a monolingual English person would have to learn an immigrant language in order to be eligible for a job. They fear a society in which people will be appointed first for linguistic reasons, and only secondly for their other abilities and experience. These fears are by no means unique to the USA, of course. They surface wherever a bilingual policy is in operation. But they are expressed with special strength in the USA, partly because of the large numbers involved, and partly because the democratic tradition is so strongly supportive of the rights of the individual. Many anti-official supporters, unconvinced by the pro-official arguments, find that there is no alternative but to conclude that the ‘official English’ position is one of (consciously or unconsciously held) elitism or discrimination. Minority languages are not being protected, in their view, but restricted. An ‘official English’ law, according to an alternative proposal which was formulated (the ‘English Plus Resolution’, introduced in the House in July 1995 by Representative Jose Serrano), would be ‘an unwarranted Federal regulation of self-expression’ and would ‘abrogate constitutional rights to freedom of expression and equal protection of the laws’. It would also ‘contradict the spirit of the 1923 Supreme Court case Meyer v. Nebraska, wherein the Court declared that “The protection of the Constitution extends to all; to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue”.’ To disregard this tradition of thinking, it was argued, could make a difficult social situation still more difficult. The Serrano bill claimed that official English legislation 138 The future of global English would ‘violate traditions of cultural pluralism’ and ‘divide communities along ethnic lines’. By contrast, multilingualism could bring benefits to a community, helping to promote empathy between different ethnic groups. The leading linguistics organization of the USA, the Linguistic Society of America, in 1995 issued a statement on language rights whose final paragraph summarized the tenor of this approach:7 Notwithstanding the multilingual history of the United States, the role of English as our common language has never seriously been questioned. Research has shown that newcomers to America continue to learn English at rates comparable to previous generations of immigrants. All levels of government should adequately fund programs to teach English to any resident who desires to learn it. Nonetheless, promoting our common language need not, and should not, come at the cost of violating the rights of linguistic minorities. The ‘English Plus Resolution’ began by recognizing English as ‘the primary language of the United States’ alongside the importance of other languages spoken by US residents, and asserted that ‘these linguistic resources should be conserved and developed’. It repeatedly stressed the value of multilingualism to the US community: this would ‘enhance American competitiveness in global markets’, ‘improve United States diplomatic efforts by fostering enhanced communication and greater understanding between nations’, and ‘promote greater cross-cultural understanding between different racial and ethnic groups’. It recommended that the US government should pursue policies that: (1) encourage all residents of this country to become fully proficient in English by expanding educational opportunities; (2) conserve and develop the Nation’s linguistic resources by encouraging all residents of this country to learn or maintain skills in a language other than English; (3) assist native Americans, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, and other peoples indigenous to the United States, in their efforts to prevent the extinction of their languages and cultures; 7 Linguistic Society of America (1996). 139 ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE (4) continue to provide services in languages other than English as needed to facilitate access to essential functions of government, promote public health and safety, ensure due process, promote equal educational opportunity, and protect fundamental rights, and (5) recognize the importance of multilingualism to vital American interests and individual rights, and oppose ‘English-only’ measures and similar language restrictionist measures. However, the Serrano bill made no further progress in 1996, with political attention eventually focusing exclusively on the Emerson proposal (p. 130). By the end of 1996, the future direction of the ‘official English’ debate was still unsettled. The language arguments had become increasingly polarized, and forced into line with the party politics of an election year; and the emotional level of the debate had escalated. There seems to be something about the intimate relationship between language, thought, individuality, and social identity which generates strong emotions. And in a climate where supporters of official English (no matter how moderate) came to be routinely labelled ‘racist’, and immigrants wishing to use their own language (no matter how cultured) were castigated by such names as ‘welfare hogs’, it was difficult to see the grounds for compromise. The argument has continued unabated into the new millennium. The number of states enacting official English legislation increased from twenty-two in 1995 to twenty-seven in 2002, and a further round of legislation began in May 2001, when an English Language Unity Act was introduced in the House of Representatives (HR 1984). Opposition from the academic linguistic community continues to be intense. New Englishes Salman Rushdie comments, in an essay called ‘Commonwealth literature does not exist’,8 that ‘the English language ceased to be the sole possession of the English some time ago’. Indeed, when even the largest English-speaking nation, the USA, turns out to 8 Rushdie (1991). 140 INGUSH F O U N D A T I O N , ISSUE BRIEFING INC. E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many, One Why English as a common language Is critical to America's unity "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American..." Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 Introduction All U.S. coins since 1873. The seal of the President of the United States. The seals of the Vice President of the United States, of the United States Congress, of the United States House of Representatives, of the United States Senate and of the United States Supreme Court. All of these uniquely American symbols contain the phrase E Pluribus Unum: out of many, one. This motto of the United States of America has come to represent what our nation is all about. We are a melting pot, the place where people of all backgrounds, colors and cultures come together. But without a common language unifying us, £ Pluribus Unum cannot exist. Alexis de Tocqueville, the preeminent observer of American civic culture, wrote, "The tie of language is perhaps the strongest and most durable that can unite mankind." Support for making English the official language of the United States government is broad and bipartisan. Recent polling data shows 84 percent of Americans are supportive of English as the official language of the United States, 80 percent of U.S. voters believe immigrants who move to America should adopt American culture, and 81 percent support a U.S. company's right to require employees to speak English on the job . So why, with strong and consistent support of English as our official language, are some still opposed to the concept? 1 In the following pages, this issue briefing will examine the most common arguments promoted by opponents of Official English. We will use clear and easy to understand research, charts and arguments to make the logical case supporting English as our nation's binding language. Part I: Out of many, one: Will one official language make it harder for immigrants to succeed? Part II: Out of many, one: Will one official language prevent active citizenship? Part III: Out of many, one: Will one official language put immigrants' children at a disadvantage? Part IV: Out of many, one: Will one official language put immigrants' health at risk? Out of many, one: Will one language make it harder for immigrants to succeed? In 2007, the native born population earned, on average, $65,021, compared to the average $50,867 earned by the foreign-born population . And while 99 million nativeborn people have graduated high school or attended some college, only 12 million foreign-born people can say the same 11 2 Non-English speakers face additional challenges as they fall behind the rest of the population when it comes to educational attainment and income. Yet those opposed to Official English claim that by naming English as the language of our government, immigrants will lose access to necessary government services, access to job opportunities and a host of other falsities. Income o f Native vs. Foreign-born P o p u l a t i o n s , 2007 $75,000 and over $50,000 to $74,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $25,000 to $34,999 •LII $15,000 to $24,999 Under $15,000 0 5 -f10 15 20 25 30 N1111• I>«i of h o u s e h o l d s (in millions) • Income of Foreign-born Population (in millions) The Official English movement B Income of Native Population (in advocates that providing constant millions) native language translations to receive government services places immigrants at a disadvantage. While we support the right of immigrants to maintain their native language and heritage, it is clear that without the government providing translation services, immigrants are pressured to learn English in order to gain access to these government resources. This, in turn, allows them not only to receive the services they desire, but also puts them at an advantage when applying for a job. Each year, $65 billion in wages are lost due to poor English language skills . Take this real world example: in October of 2011, the Hispanic unemployment rate in the Providence area was more than twice the unemployment rate of the entire state of Rhode Island. This discrepancy has been attributed to a move away from what was once a manufacturing base, leaving people who once held those manufacturing jobs now struggling to find new work that does not require them to speak English . 10 3 And while opponents claim that Official English will discriminate against immigrants, in 2002, two professors from New Mexico published a study in the academic journal "Applied Economics," in which they presented findings demonstrating that immigrants who reside in states that have passed Official English make more of an effort to learn English than those who reside in states without English as the official language. Immigrants who have learned more English are more likely to be employed, more likely to be employed in higher-skilled jobs and more likely to earn more money. These immigrants are also more likely to be involved in their communities or participate in education or training programs . The bottom line is that more literate immigrants are more involved citizens. 4 Out of many, one: Will one language prevent active citizenship? The United States is a land of opportunity. Since its founding, our government has operated through a democratic process, following the goals and ideals presented in the Declaration of Independence—a Declaration proclaiming the unalienable rights of all: among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In 2010, our nation's immigrant population reached 40 million—the highest number in United States history . Over the past decade, nearly 14 million new immigrants settled here, showing that even as our country has faced rampant unemployment, job loss and a growing national debt, it is still a land of promise and a place where foreigners and natural born citizens alike can aspire to reach the American dream. 5 Despite this desire among many foreigners to experience life in America, there are increasing numbers of United States residents who have not, by choice or by circumstance, learned our nation's de-facto language: English. In fact, the number of Americans who speak English "not at all" jumped from 1.22 million in 1980 to 3.37 million in 2000, to 4.49 million in 2007 . 6 "91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agree that learning English is essential to succeed in the U.S ." 7 Unfortunately, what has been hailed as the melting pot already appears to be on its way to becoming a salad bowl. Rather than cultures blending together into one, pockets of people sharing the same background or foreign language are popping up across the country, giving citizens no room to grow, no room to learn, no room to share their unique history. All too often, critics of Official English claim that designating English as the official language of the United States will cause a collapse of all other cultures and languages within the country. Opponents of Official English often argue that providing documents such as driver's license manuals, election ballots and government forms in English (rather than foreign languages) will isolate foreign-language speakers and prevent them from participating in American society. In reality, English is the single most important factor in an immigrant becoming an American. Since 1906, some capacity to speak English has been a formal legal requirement for naturalization. By printing ballots, driver's license manuals and other materials only in selected languages, we are isolating smaller populations of foreign language speakers, who will still be left out of the election process. In addition, the cost of these materials adds up for already cash-strapped localities. An Election Supervisor in Highlands County, Florida estimated that providing bilingual ballots could cost just his one county $32,000 to $50,000 per election®. And the California Department of Motor Vehicles reported that the annual cost to provide language services is $2.2 million . To provide these same translation services nationwide would cost nearly $8.5 million each year . Many state and local governments do not have room in their budgets to spend money translating documents, many of which will never get used, into foreign languages. 9 6 "79 percent of Americans believe immigrants should be required to learn English before they are granted citizenship ." 10 Rather than pandering to foreign language speakers in their native language and delaying their assimilation, we should use government processes (such as elections and driver's license exams) to encourage immigrants to learn the English language, showing them that only when they fully grasp the English language will they fully be able to participate in society as U.S. citizens. Out of many, one: Will one language put immigrants' children at a disadvantage? One of the most common inaccuracies spread by opponents of Official English is that establishing English as our national language will eliminate the ability to read, write and speak other languages. To the contrary, the Official English movement strongly encourages the learning of foreign languages. In our increasingly global economy, bilingualism can net an employee an average of 58 cents more per hour than a monolingual employee , and teaching a foreign language while a child is school-aged sets them up for the biggest advantage later in life. 11 The Official English movement does stress that English should be the primary language of America—and citizens are encouraged to learn additional languages on top of that. Nowhere does this become more important than when examining our nation's school systems. From 1995-2005, there was a 57 percent jump in the number of limited English proficient students nationwide . And between 1980 and 2009, the number of children ages 5-17 who spoke a language other than English at home jumped from 4.7 million to 11.2 million, establishing that 21 percent of that school-aged population speaks a language other than English at home . 12 13 For a parent who speaks another language at home, due to language barriers, he or she is likely to be less involved in the child's education and is more likely to rely on the child to act as a translator in day to day situations. For the child, not only do many school districts not have the resources needed to meet the needs of limited English proficient (LEP) students, but LEP students are more likely to drop out of school than ever to become proficient in English . Not to mention LEP students have much lower high school graduation rates Growth in Number of Limited English Proficient Students 70 00% nationally than other students. 14 The solution is clear: learn English. Anti-Official English advocates often claim that most 50.00% immigrants recognize the benefit of learning English upon 2 40.00% arriving in the United States, 0 and that Official English would only serve to make them legally 30.00% bound to do something they already agree to. Statistics, 20.00% however, indicate otherwise. The 2000 Census showed that astonishingly, only one-fourth of 10.00% elementary-aged English language learners are foreign 0.00% born—with three out of five born 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 20051996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2006 in the U.S. to immigrant School Year parents, and one out of five being third-generation immigrants. If immigrants chose to learn English on their own, the three-fourths of our nation's elementary English language learners who were born to immigrant parents would be raised with knowledge of English as well. 60.00% • Growth in Number of Limited Engush Proficient Students "96 percent of Latinos say it is very important to teach English to the children of immigrant families /' 15 Official English serves many advantages when it comes to improving the educational success of immigrants and their children, and understanding these benefits is crucial to ensuring the bright future of our coming generations. Out of many, one: Will one language put immigrants' health at risk? Opponents of Official English argue that making English our nation's official language will remove translation services and will thus leave foreign language speakers at risk when dealing with urgent medical issues. In reality, a closer look needs to be taken at the issue of language barriers in the health care field. As previously discussed, when an immigrant is not proficient in English, he or she is less likely to have a high paying job—or a job that offers benefits like insurance coverage. A 2003 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that language proficiency has a strong impact on health insurance coverage, access to healthcare and the quality of that care. It asserts that limited English proficiency is tied to lack of insurance and problems communicating with health care providers. "Latinos who have... limited English proficiency are much more likely to be uninsured less likely to use health care services^ and more likely to experience problems communicating with their health care providers ." y 16 On top of the risk to health, limited English proficiency in healthcare is expensive: healthcare providers spend up to $267 million for interpretation services, about $4 per LEP emergency room, inpatient, outpatient or dentist visit . So not only does limited English proficiency put immigrants at risk of mistakes in diagnosis or treatment, misunderstanding medical instructions and other serious complications, but it also places an added financial burden on the federal agencies required to pay these bills. 17 Learning English would not only place immigrants on stronger footing when it comes to taking control of their own health, but it would also save government agencies millions of dollars that could be used to make further advances in healthcare and medicine. It is worth noting that Official English legislation generally includes exemptions in the event of health and medical emergencies. This means that even if a county, state or the country declares English their official language, if someone has a health or medical emergency, personnel are still able to interact in the at-risk person's native language. The bottom line is that Official English promotes English learning, which can lead to better medical care—but it also does no harm to non-English speakers, as it does not prevent the government from using other languages when necessary in health situations. Conclusion Each nation around the globe showcases its own unique customs, traditions and history. In America, the melding of these is what allows us to become one. In order for America to remain the melting pot it has so proudly become, there must be a way for each individual to share his or her own history. We must have a common uniting factor—otherwise America becomes a nation divided into countless distinct cultural groups, each operating independently of one another, each living in a bubble of customs, traditions and lifestyles familiar to its home country. Immigrants come to America for many reasons, but above all, most come here to prosper. They come here in hopes of pursuing the American dream and creating a better life for themselves and their future generations. A USA Today poll found that 76% of immigrants want to become naturalized citizens to gain the right to vote; 70% thanks to the legal rights and protections that come along with citizenship; and 65% of immigrants wanted to become naturalized because of the commitment and pride in being an American . Rather than focusing on our differences and what divides us, we must focus on the one thing that has the power to unite all Americans: a common language, English. 18 "We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him he may well prove not well worth carrying. We must in turn insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and to join with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship." Theodore Roosevelt, 1916 Sources Rasmussen Reports poll, conducted May 8-9, 2009. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, as of March 2008 The Providence Journal. "Providence-Warwick-Fall River area has nation's highest Hispanic jobless rate," by Kate Bramson. October 12, 2011, "A Human Capital Concern: The Literacy Proficiency of U.S. Immigrants," by Andrew Sun, Irwin Kirsch & Kentaro Yamamoto. Educational Testing Service Policy Information Report, March 2004. U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2010. U.S. Census, 2000 & American Community Survey "Language Use in the United States: 2007," issued April 2010. Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 2002. "Bilingual ballots not required," by Robert Boyer. Highlands Today, October 15, 2011. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress, "Assessment of the Total Benefits and Costs of Implementing Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency," March 14, 2002. Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 adults, June 17-18, 2005. Margin of error +/- 3%. California Department of Personnel Administration, Pay Differentials, Revised April 1, 2011. U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA). "The Growing Numbers of Limited English Proficient Students," 2006. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2011. The Condition of Education 2011. The Lexington Institute. "The Value of English Proficiency to the United States Economy" by Don Soifer. April 2009. Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet, "Hispanic Attitudes Toward Learning English," June 7, 2006. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. "How Race/Ethnicity, Immigration Status and Language Affect Health Insurance Coverage, Access to Care and Quality of Care Among the Low-income Population," by Leighton Ku & Timothy Waidmann, August 2003. National Conference of State Legislatures Children's Policy Initiative. "Language Access: Helping NonEnglish Speakers Navigate Health and Human Services," by Ann Morse. January 2003. USA Today, poll by Cristina Abello and Adrienne Lewis, December 6, 2004. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 C o p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 2 b y t h e U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . No p o r t i o n of t h i s w o r k m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of t h e U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . A l l c i t a t i o n s to t h i s w o r k m u s t c r e d i t the U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n , Inc. T h i s U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n I s s u e Briefing is p u b l i s h e d by the U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n a s p a r t of its m i s s i o n to d i s c u s s , d e v e l o p , a n d d i s s e m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d to l a n g u a g e p o l i c y in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . N o t h i n g w r i t t e n h e r e i n i s to b e c o n s t r u e d a s n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t i n g t h e v i e w s of t h e U . S . E N G L I S H F o u n d a t i o n , its B o a r d of D i r e c t o r s , o r its o f f i c e r s , o r a s a n a t t e m p t to a i d o r h i n d e r t h e p a s s a g e of a n y bill b e f o r e C o n g r e s s o r s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s . Spanish at School Translates to Suspension By T.R. Reid Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 9, 2005 KANSAS CITY, Kan., Dec. 8 -- Most of the time, 16-year-old Zach Rubio converses in clear, unaccented American teen-speak, a form of English in which the three most common words are "like," "whatever" and "totally." But Zach is also fluent in his dad's native language, Spanish -- and that's what got him suspended from school. "It was, like, totally not in the classroom," the high school junior said, recalling the infraction. "We were in the, like, hall or whatever, on restroom break. This kid I know, he's like, 'Me prestas un dolar?' ['Will you lend me a dollar?'] Well, he asked in Spanish; it just seemed natural to answer that way. So I'm like, 'No problema.' " But that conversation turned out to be a big problem for the staff at the Endeavor Alternative School, a small public high school in an ethnically mixed blue-collar neighborhood. A teacher who overheard the two boys sent Zach to the office, where Principal Jennifer Watts ordered him to call his father and leave the school. Watts, whom students describe as a disciplinarian, said she can't discuss the case. But in a written "discipline referral" explaining her decision to suspend Zach for 1 1/2 days, she noted: "This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school." Since then, the suspension of Zach Rubio has become the talk of the town in both English and Spanish newspapers and radio shows. The school district has officially rescinded his punishment and said that speaking a foreign language is not grounds for suspension. Meanwhile, the Rubio family has retained a lawyer, who says a civil rights lawsuit may be in the offing. The tension here surrounding that brief exchange in a high school hall reflects a broader national debate over the language Americans should speak amid a wave of Hispanic immigration. The National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, says that 20 percent of the U.S. school-age population is Latino. For half of those Latino students, the native language is Spanish. Conflicts are bursting out nationwide over bilingual education, "English-only" laws, Spanish-language publications and advertising, and other linguistic collisions. Language concerns have been a key aspect of the growing political movement to reduce immigration. "There's a lot of backlash against the increasing Hispanic population," said D.C. school board member Victor A. Reinoso. "We've seen some of it in the D.C. schools. You see it in some cities, where people complain that their tax money shouldn't be used to print public notices in Spanish. And there have been cases where schools want to ban foreign languages." Some advocates of an English-only policy in U.S. schools say that it is particularly important for students from immigrant families to use the nation's dominant language. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) made that point this summer when he vetoed a bill authorizing various academic subjects to be tested in Spanish in the state's public schools. "As an immigrant," the Austrian-born governor said, "I know the importance of mastering English as quickly and as comprehensively as possible." Hispanic groups generally agree with that, but they emphasize the value of a multilingual citizenry. "A fully bilingual young man like Zach Rubio should be considered an asset to the community," said Janet Murguia, national president of La Raza. The influx of immigrants has reached every corner of the country -- even here in Kansas City, which is about as far as a U.S. town can be from a border. Along Southwest Boulevard, a main street through some of the older neighborhoods, there are blocks where almost every shop and restaurant has signs written in Spanish. "Most people, they don't care where you're from," said Zach's father, Lorenzo Rubio, a native of Veracruz, Mexico, who has lived in Kansas City for a quarter-century. "But sometimes, when they hear my accent, I get this, sort of, 'Why don't you go back home?' Rubio, a U.S. citizen, credits U.S. immigration law for his decision to fight his son's suspension. "You can't just walk in and become a citizen," he said. "They make you take this government test. I studied for that test, and I learned that in America, they can't punish you unless you violate a written policy." Rubio said he remembered that lesson on Nov. 28, when he received a call from Endeavor Alternative saying his son had been suspended. "So I went to the principal and said, 'My son, he's not suspended for fighting, right? He's not suspended for disrespecting anyone. He's suspended for speaking Spanish in the hall?' So I asked her to show me the written policy about that. But they didn't have one.” Rubio then called the superintendent of the Turner Unified School District, which operates the school. The district immediately rescinded Zach's suspension, local media reported. The superintendent did not respond to several requests to comment for this article. Since then, the issue of speaking Spanish in the hall has not been raised at the school, Zach said. "I know it would be, like, disruptive if I answered in Spanish in the classroom. I totally don't do that. But outside of class now, the teachers are like, 'Whatever.' " For Zach's father, and for the Hispanic organizations that have expressed concern, the suspension is not a closed case. "Obviously they've violated his civil rights," said Chuck Chionuma, a lawyer in Kansas City, Mo., who is representing the Rubio family. "We're studying what form of legal redress will correct the situation." Said Rubio: "I'm mainly doing this for other Mexican families, where the legal status is kind of shaky and they are afraid to speak up. Punished for speaking Spanish? Somebody has to stand up and say: This is wrong."
Purchase answer to see full attachment