Left2Right

Comments

Posted by: Stuart

I look at it as a practical issue: people need to be able to communicate with each other. We need a lingua franca. It might as well be English, given the degree of prevalence. Not making sure that kids have English proficiency is pretty much a sentence of poverty or at least isolation.

Posted by: Stuart | Jun 7, 2005 9:58:38 AM

Posted by: Austin B

Liberals draw the wrong lesson from the wars of religion. If religious and ethnic differences cause conflict, isn't it better to keep those differences to a minimum rather than encourage diversity? Had the Catholic Church not dithered so long in its handling of Luther, there would not have been any wars of religion in the first place. A hard truth, but a truth nonetheless. Similarly, today, we can reduce conflict in America by insisting on assimilation to Anglo-Protestant norms.

Furthermore, liberals congratulate themselves prematurely for having cured religious conflict through tolerance. Perhaps it is isn't that iberal tolerance quelled religious conflict, but rather that nationalism supplanted religion as most Europeans' primary source of loyalty. Thus, Catholics and Protestants learned to get along in the Netherlands and in Great Britain.

Posted by: Austin B | Jun 7, 2005 10:14:18 AM

Posted by: Josh Jasper

Austin B: Had the Catholic Church not dithered so long in its handling of Luther, there would not have been any wars of religion in the first place.

There is no possible way you could predict what would have happened had the church stamped out Luther. There might well have been other wars you never could have predicted. There were religious massacres before and after Luther, and just as there were other prophetic Rabbis at the time of Jesus, there were other Catholic dissidents at the time of Luther. We might well have just gotten another dissident withy similar leanings a few years or decades later. There's no way to be sure.

As for the linguist issues, they're being pushed by a bunch of crypto-racists, much like the 'citizens border patrol' issue. The main goal of these people is to maginalize anyone who's not like them.

I don't think we need a single unified policy on the issue. I'm content to let municipalities decide what they want to do on thier own.

Posted by: Josh Jasper | Jun 7, 2005 10:53:41 AM

Posted by: Simon

My pet solution for years has been that every 8th grader (used to be high school graduate, but why wait?) should be required to be at a high proficiency level (i.e., ready to be taught a non-lingual subject) in two languages, one of which, English, would be a nod to the need for certain sorts of shared cultural touchstones, and the other, (whatever the school district could afford to offer), a nod to our monde sans frontieres, and a way of allowing English-as-a-first-language students the opportunity to learn through the trial of picking up a second language. (And yes, that's about all I remember from my high school French class, unfortunately.)

Posted by: Simon | Jun 7, 2005 1:00:59 PM

Posted by: Achillea

For the past 10 years, I've worked for the Los Angeles Unified School District so, while my following observations are purely anecdotal, they come from some extensive experience.

1) In general, the more immersive the Bilingual and ESL (English as a Second Language) program, the more effective it is. This is especially true at elementary grade levels.

2) I have never encountered or heard of a parent in LAUSD who didn't want his or her children to learn English. Virtually all parents want to maximize their children's chances for success, and fluent English does that. In the case of parents with little to no English, they also want ready-to-hand translators.

There is no 'crypto-racist' conspiracy to marginalize non-English speakers. English is the de facto dominant language of the United States. Those who don't learn it, be it through inability or disinclination, marginalize themselves via ghettoization. Nobody has to do it to them.

As far as leaving it up to individual municipalities, that really doesn't work when it comes to American citizenship.

Posted by: Achillea | Jun 7, 2005 2:22:02 PM

Posted by: OldMountainGoat

English is the most valuable subject being taught in our public schools. Parents know it. Affluent families from other countries send their children here from half way around the world to learn English. The humble immigrant understands the value just as well, even those parents who may be illiterate in their own native languages. Let all parents express their hopes and dreams for their children with school vouchers. Can there be any doubt at the outcome? Mediocre schools will reform or die a quick death.

As to the nefarious motives of some people who want to force everyone to speak English, what can I say? I'm sure they exist... so what? Our children are threatened by illiteracy more than the occasional wacko.

Posted by: OldMountainGoat | Jun 7, 2005 3:10:27 PM

Posted by: Mitch

Two comments:

1) It is a tenuous, tendentious thread that connects "the function of government should be to foster and support the similarities that unite us" and "the pre-liberal view on social order that remains a disaster on wheels" (e.g. the Thirty Years War).

2) Despite the dictatorial overtones of instating official language(s) (where "official" is some nebulous "used by the government"), isn't there something positive to be said for there being a law that specifies a legal language? That is, in any legal writings, in order to reduce ambiguity (ha ha, no I'm not kidding)? As it stands, isn't it -possible- to have a bill submitted (federally or in any state) written in Klingon or with some Klingon vocabulary, and have it passed? OK switch that to Spanish and it becomes almost plausible somewhere in the US.

Posted by: Mitch | Jun 7, 2005 4:35:06 PM

Posted by: Larry

Just a kind of meta-comment:

As for the linguist issues, they're being pushed by a bunch of crypto-racists, much like the 'citizens border patrol' issue. The main goal of these people is to maginalize anyone who's not like them.

This "marginalize" complaint is as common as grass in the discourse of the left, but you'd think that, after making a statement like the above, it would occur to a few at least to want to check themselves in a mirror.

On the other hand, a statement like: Similarly, today, we can reduce conflict in America by insisting on assimilation to Anglo-Protestant norms. -- makes you think that maybe the two wings just cancel each other out; they certainly seem to deserve each other.

Posted by: Larry | Jun 7, 2005 5:14:39 PM

Posted by: pedro

What a pleasant surprise to agree with Achillea on something. Though I do believe that *some* of the support for making English the official language of the US comes not from people whose motivation is to look after the interests of immigrants but from rabid nationalists, I pragmatically fall on the pro-English-as-official-language camp, if only because I suspect that the burden of learning English can benefit immigrants more than it can harm them.

Posted by: pedro | Jun 7, 2005 5:26:23 PM

Posted by: pedro

I may be wrong, Larry, but I do not see the two quoted statements in the same light. I also believe that much of the drive to make English the official language of this country does not come from political groups traditionally concerned with the well-being of immigrants. Indeed, much of the tone I've heard surrounding the topic is one of nationalistic indignation.

It's just that where the rhetoric comes from does not really matter all that much to me. What matters is what consequences might the move have. I want to think that making English the official language will provide incentives for immigrants to learn the language, thereby making them less marginalized. Besides, it will make some of them polyglots, something American citizens should aspire to be one day.

As for endowing the State with the responsibility and the right to try to shape the religious inclinations of its citizens or future citizens, I find that to be a very troubling suggestion, and one which I have been trained to reflexively associate with the American right.

Posted by: pedro | Jun 7, 2005 5:48:48 PM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

If all that is meant by deeming English an “official language” is that government business is to be conducted in English, I’m all for it. Failing a school voucher system that permits multiple linguistic options, I also favor immersion in English for non-English speaking students. Then again, I still prefer the “melting pot” to the “tossed salad” theory of society and I’d much prefer to see much less government business in the first place.

I can’t imagine anyone wanting to live and raise a family in the U.S. but not wanting to master or have one’s family master English. I lived in Europe for several years and found it very inconvenient that so many Europeans still don’t speak English. After all, haven’t those people seen Star Trek? Don’t they know the whole Federation of Planets will eventually speak English because, well, because that’s what everyone on Earth speaks in the future?

Finally, Austin B’s suggestion that “we can reduce conflict in America by insisting on assimilation to Anglo-Protestant norms” is doomed to failure. As Dr. Charles Emerson Winchester III of M*A*S*H once noted, “My family has been having problems with immigrants ever since we came to America.” It’s the human condition, I’m afraid.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Jun 7, 2005 6:56:58 PM

Posted by: Mona

DAR writes: I lived in Europe for several years and found it very inconvenient that so many Europeans still don’t speak English. After all, haven’t those people seen Star Trek? Don’t they know the whole Federation of Planets will eventually speak English because, well, because that’s what everyone on Earth speaks in the future?

Ah, but if you watch the episodes carefully, you will see reference to the "universal translator." In the absence of that technology, I see no option but to have English the lingua franca of this country.

Myself, I prefer the beauty of French, but that skill has been nearly useless to me in this nation. Reality must be accommodated; as Pedro implies, that is true even if it provides succor to bigots.

Posted by: Mona | Jun 7, 2005 8:41:12 PM

Posted by: Dan Kervick

Among the agenda items and principles of the ProEnglish crowd, one component strikes me as very worthy:

"Our nation's public schools have the clear responsibility to help students who don't know English to learn that language as quickly as possible. To do otherwise is to sentence the child to a lifetime of political and economic isolation. Quality teaching of English and America's civic culture should be a part of every student's curriculum. The study of foreign languages, as an academic discipline, should be strongly encouraged."

The rest strike me as either unnecessary or undesirable.

Establishing grade-level benchmarks for English proficiency, testing for it, and demanding accountability in achieving the goals strikes me as an uncontoversially useful and appropriate educational target for schools in the United States. Knowledge of English in this country is without doubt a requirement for possessing the full range of work and life opportunites we want our students to have.

But the suggestion that bilingual education programs be ended strikes me as counterproductive in the effort to establish realistic standards for English proficiency. If beginning students do not speak English, and must be taught it, the best approach is likely to be to teach the students English in their native langauge, until such time as their English proficiency reaches a level in which classes can be taught efficiently in English. At least, this seems a reasonable hypothesis, and it should be up to trained, professional educators to decide upon the best methodology for achieving the target of English proficiency. It is foolish to mandate methodology by statute.

Many of the other proposals seem motivated by the notion that the best way to encourage rapid achievement of English proficiency is to see to it that there is a social price to pay for lacking it - prices such as not being able to read government documents, ballot instructions, etc. I suppose this is the "tough love" approach.

This strikes me as a questionable empirical hypothesis - it is at least conceivable that taking this approach would have the result of further isolating and segregating many non-English speakers. However, even if the hypothesis is correct, my sense is that the worthy end is trumped in this case by the basic unfairness of the means.

Some of the lawyers who contribute here might be able to fill us in, but my recollection was that similar requirements - such as literacy tests for voting registration - have been struck down in the past because of their discriminatory effect. Even though it might be a worthy goal to spread English proficiency in a country where it is the dominant language, it is unjust to do this in a way that disenfranchises large numbers of voters, and offers some of our citizens and legal residents unequal protection from the laws, requires unequal hardships in meeting government requirements, and provided and unequal access to government services.

Posted by: Dan Kervick | Jun 7, 2005 8:43:31 PM

Posted by: pedro

I agree with much of what Dan Kervick points out. But there is no need to mix apples and oranges, I hope. Making English the official language of government--and making English a requirement for the naturalization, for example--should be kept separate from the issue of bilingual education.

Posted by: pedro | Jun 7, 2005 9:01:48 PM

Posted by: Bret

Well, I don't disagree with the general gist, but I dislike the concept of making English "official". English is one of the most fluid languages ever. I've seen estimates that between a few thousand and a few tens of thousands of words are incorporated into the spoken and written language(s) called "English" every year.

The problem with an "official" language is one of definition. Some "official" languages, for example Spanish, have an official body that decides what words can be added. There was a flap a few years back when the French version disallowed the use of the word "email".

Such "officialness", I think, badly stifles a language. As the world language, English has a special place that requires it to be as flexible as possible.

Instead of making "English" official, I think that the government should simply not support any language in particular. Then we speak whatever we want and that would happen to be "English" - a wonderfully fluid and communicative English.

Posted by: Bret | Jun 7, 2005 10:12:21 PM

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw

"But the suggestion that bilingual education programs be ended strikes me as counterproductive in the effort to establish realistic standards for English proficiency. If beginning students do not speak English, and must be taught it, the best approach is likely to be to teach the students English in their native langauge, until such time as their English proficiency reaches a level in which classes can be taught efficiently in English. At least, this seems a reasonable hypothesis, and it should be up to trained, professional educators to decide upon the best methodology for achieving the target of English proficiency. It is foolish to mandate methodology by statute."

This is not what English-first people are objecting to. They object to trying to teach all the other subjects in non-English languages while the children are 'learning' English. This (at least in California) has tended to have the practical ill effect of ending up with children 5 or 6 years into a bilingual education and they still are not competent enough in English to move to a regular class.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Jun 7, 2005 10:42:39 PM

Posted by: pedro

Bret, don't get me started on the Spanish Royal Academy. The absence of an equivalent body 'overseeing' the English language is really wonderfully refreshing. Borges once said of a prominent prescriptivist: "Dr. Castro has enumerated some writers whose style is correct; in spite of the inclusion of my name in his catalogue, I don't believe myself disqualified from speaking of stylistics."

Posted by: pedro | Jun 8, 2005 1:31:31 AM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

There are many excellent reasons to encourage multilingualism, but none is as compelling as the reasons to encourage, short of coercion, all U.S. residents to strive for fluency in English. Following Mr. Kervick’s comments, non-English speakers already incur huge costs, both socially and economically, because of that inability. However, contra Mr. Kervick’s concerns, there is nothing discriminatory per se about deciding that one of those costs should be disqualification from U.S. citizenship, the need to seek translation assistance when dealing voluntarily with government agencies, etc. I say voluntarily because I think the criminal justice system is morally obligated to provide such assistance to non-English speaking defendants.

Arguably, adult immigrants are entitled to accept those higher costs as long as their doing so does not thereby incur unacceptably higher costs to society in general. (The rapidly growing Spanish speaking immigrant population in the U.S. is doing itself no favor, I trust Pedro will agree, insofar as it resists specifically linguistic acculturation.) It is really only in the case of the education of children that serious issues regarding the role of government arise, and that is only because we have, alas, government monopoly operated schools. But because I believe government exists to facilitate certain minimum social needs but not to bind society together, I would be loathe to see the state mandate English beyond requiring it for purely official purposes.

Combat, commerce, and copulation determine which languages thrive and which eventually die out. Of the three, only the first and least enjoyable is a proper state function. Latin died and French is surely dying, with much of the official francophone world apparently determined to hasten its demise (how would one say in French “We had to destroy the language in order to save it”?) Anyone who speaks English, Spanish and Chinese can pretty much speak to the rest of humanity, but if one were able to learn only one language, English would have to be considered by far the most practical choice.

But none of that really goes to Mr. Herzog’s question whether a common language is a necessary element of a common society. I believe it is, and for that reason alone also believe that the EU is doomed to failure. A Californian, a New Yorker and a Georgian have vastly more in common than an Italian, an Irishman and a Dane. Even if the latter three share a common second language, they do not share a common cultural experience as transmitted in the same native language. I can recall a number of conversations when living in Germany with Germans who simply could not believe that Texans and New Englanders could possibly have all that much in common. By the same token, those of us who have not spent much time outside the U.S. tend to be far more sensitive to our regional differences and oblivious to how much we share. A year or two living anywhere abroad tends to change that perception dramatically.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Jun 8, 2005 9:26:34 AM

Posted by: pedro

Since the talented Mr. Ridgely has made parenthetical reference to me, I feel obliged to say a few words.

The rapidly growing Spanish speaking immigrant population in the U.S. is doing itself no favor, I trust Pedro will agree, insofar as it resists specifically linguistic acculturation.

I won't betray Mr. Ridgely's trust. I largely agree, though I feel inclined to resist attributing active, willful resistance to linguistic acculturation to many Spanish speaking immigrants. I prefer to think that our (if I may be so bold as to speak as a Spanish speaking immigrant) collective failure to acquire the English language has a lot to do with a good number of sociological factors that have little to do with a desire to resist linguistic acculturation.

Posted by: pedro | Jun 8, 2005 9:48:19 AM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

And I, in turn, agree with Pedro. One does hear, however, what I think is misguided rhetoric to the effect that a monolinguistic Spanish speaking population in the U.S. is a per se good thing and that efforts to encourage learning English are racist, xenophobic, etc. No doubt, also, there are racists and xenophobes in the ranks of the pro English advocacy groups, but that doesn't justify a political reaction that effectively consigns far too many immigrants to a linguistic ghetto.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Jun 8, 2005 10:55:25 AM

Posted by: OldMountainGoat

Dan Kervick said:

But the suggestion that bilingual education programs be ended strikes me as counterproductive in the effort to establish realistic standards for English proficiency. If beginning students do not speak English, and must be taught it, the best approach is likely to be to teach the students English in their native language, until such time as their English proficiency reaches a level in which classes can be taught efficiently in English. At least, this seems a reasonable hypothesis, and it should be up to trained, professional educators to decide upon the best methodology for achieving the target of English proficiency. It is foolish to mandate methodology by statute.

I agree with keeping decisions local. Let professional educators design curricula. But your theory is missing the most important ingredient: parental choice. Follow the self-interest. The adults with the most to loose are parents. They are the child's best hope. Not teachers and certainly not school administrators. True, society at large suffers when a child falls through the cracks but the impact is too delayed. A more immediate feed-back loop is needed. A failing school system feels an immediate impact when parents pull their children. Standard disclaimer: there are excellent teachers and conscientious administrators that don't need prodding. Fine. But there aren't enough, at least not in my son's school district.

Dan you are speaking theoretically. I'm guessing that you have never been in a bilingual class room. My wife and I placed our son in a Spanish/English classroom so that he could learn Spanish. It was a great idea in theory only. I gave the class several weeks into the school year to settle. Then I dropped by for the morning and what a disaster! My son wasn't learning Spanish or English. None of the children were. I don't blame the teacher. Classroom logistics are complex under the best of circumstances. Keeping a bilingual classroom on track from minute to minute is an order of magnitude harder. So my wife and I pulled our son. This is how it should work. Maybe it is possible to make a bilingual classroom work. But ultimately it must be the parents who decide if their children are being served.

Give parents vouchers and leave the federal government out of it. Then you have millions of parents each making the best decision for their child. Problems will come and go. But they will be solved before a whole generation of children is lost.

Posted by: OldMountainGoat | Jun 8, 2005 2:03:12 PM

Posted by: Perseus

I don't see how liberalism is incompatible with fostering some unity. After all, the motto on the US Great Seal is E pluribus *unum*. And I don't think that sharing a common language is analogous to sharing communion. Such religious rites are part of the process of saving eternal souls, which liberalism leaves to society (rather than the state). So unless one needs to learn English to get past the Pearly Gates, I'd say that sharing a common language constitutes a civic concern with which the state may rightfully become involved. The analogy I'd use is fixing the standard of weights and measures (weren't we supposed to be using the metric system by now?).

Posted by: Perseus | Jun 9, 2005 2:37:02 AM

Posted by: Achillea

pedro: As for endowing the State with the responsibility and the right to try to shape the religious inclinations of its citizens or future citizens, I find that to be a very troubling suggestion, and one which I have been trained to reflexively associate with the American right.

While I would not reflexively ascribe that association exclusively to the American right, I do agree that that's where it predominantly lies. That's at least with regard to religion. The left has its own ideologies that it seeks to empower the state with the right and responsibility to 'enforce' but, as my Scarlet W bodice is in the laundry, I'll not go into them at the moment. Suffice it to say that I, likewise, find advocacy of such a 'thought police state' disturbing.

Two things pedro and I agree on. Surely one of the signs of the coming apocalypse.

Posted by: Achillea | Jun 9, 2005 12:35:45 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.