Outline
There has been a very controversial debate in U.S, where Americans and government officials have been arguing over the implementation of laws of “English only”. Those opposing the implementation of these laws propose that, bilingualism should be allowed in various official operations, which is prohibited by laws of “English only”. Due to lack of enough support against bilingualism, law that would require English to be the only language for official use in U.S was not passed. Therefore, these laws were and are still being implemented at state levels in some states in America.
Introduction
According to (Sandra12), laws that require English to be the only official language that should be in U.S were introduced at the state level as well as the federal level in 1990s. These laws required all public operations in U.S government and that of its states to be conducted in English including resolutions, elections, judicial proceedings, orders and records. Laws that require English to be the only language that should be used in U.S came as an opposition to the decision that allowed other languages to be used in U.S. Previously, the Supreme Court of U.S and the Act of Civil Rights had mandated a support of language for those students who were not proficient in English. This decision by Supreme Court stated that, it would be discriminative to provide instructions to students in English language only. Discrimination of students due to their sex, race, national origin as well as color was prohibited. “For learning to be effective, students had to be in a position to communicate with their teachers as well as other students” (Sandra13). This rendered requirements for the possession of English skills before getting engaged in regular learning a very unfair decision for students who were not proficient in English. Up to this day, there is a continuing debate on whether it is fair to have English language as the only language that should be used in U.S official operations.
According to (Sandra14-15), supporters of bilingualism argue that, it is necessary for students be confident in expressing themselves in their different native languages prior to the introduction of English curriculum. However, supporters of laws that require English to be the only language that should be used in U.S and its states argue that, if students who lack proficiency in English are made to learn English as early as possible, it will benefit them in learning as well as in communication processes later in life. These laws of “English only” were fueled in 1980s by a movement that was opposed to bilingualism and arguments of this political movement were supported by cultural conservatives, where the use of English language only was said to result to social cohesion. Laws of “English only” regard bilingualism as a source of social separation on ethnical grounds. However, the movement that was in support of “English only” laws lost power when it was realized that, there was a connection between members of the movement with organizations that advocated the control of population in U.S as well as immigration restrictions.
It was not long before support for laws of “English only” gained support again, which took place in 1990s. This was followed by the passing of an Act that empowered English language which proposed restriction of bilingualism in official operations including instructions to students who were not fluent in English. However, it was not possible to have the law of “English only” passed since there lacked national laws that restricted bilingualism. This meant that, since it was not possible to make demands for English as the only language to be used in U.S part of law, it would not be included in the constitution. Therefore, it was left to individual state governments to impact the demands in their own states which have brought about heated debates from the supporters of bilingualism. (Michael 38-40)
Debate on Laws of “English Only” And Bilingualism at the State Level
According to (Jill 44-47), a number of states have already made English the only language that is used in their official operations among them being California which introduced this practice in 1998. This was after the supporters of laws of English only exceeded those of bilingualism, which restricted programs of bilingual education from being carried out in California’s public schools.
Students who lacked proficiency in English were required to go through English immersion programs before being accepted in courses that were taught in English. This did not go unchallenged since California had registered the most number of students who were not proficient in English than other U.S states and were therefore in support of bilingualism. This opposition resulted to a challenge of the proposition of Laws of English only in federal as well as state courts.
Implementation of laws of “English only” in some of U.S states have left a large number of elderly immigrants who are not proficient in English to find it hard to vote due to lack of provision for bilingual ballots. Bilingualism supporters maintain that, the provision for campaign materials in other languages would allow voters who are not proficient in English to be more informed before engaging themselves in voting processes. On the other hand, it is argued that, a single official language which in this particular case is English would help U.S government in unifying its citizens who are diversified. This has been in response to a census that was conducted in1900 that revealed that, thirty two million people in U.S live in households where other languages are spoken and fourteen million people out of the large number are not proficient in English. (Carol 67)
In 1995, Bob Dole addressed attendants of an American convention stating that, the restoration of America’s greatness would demand for more than bringing back the country’s defenses. He argued that, Americans have to revisit the concepts that feature the meaning of true American citizenship. He sited an example where English needs to be taken as the country’s official language, requiring its citizens to put aside other languages that bind them to their native countries and become united in one language for the whole of America’s population. Members of a particular advocacy group referred to as U.S English, have a different proposal from other supporters of laws of “English only” as they argue that, it would be appropriate to have English as the primary language of U.S but it should not be used as the exclusive language. They continue to argue that only official proceedings should have English as the only language used, giving allowances for bilingualism in some places like police stations, hospitals, tourist sites and emergency rooms. (Taylor 47-48)
Supporters of bilingualism argue that implementation of laws that require English as the only language to be spoken is a reaction that would portray hostility to the rapidly increasing number of immigrants who are entering U.S day in day out. This accusation was supported by Bill Clinton when he was addressing a group of Hispanic Caucus. Clinton said that, he was not against English being an official language for America, but was worried whether young children who migrated to America would be in a position to comprehend other things that were taught in English. He was also worried whether those hardworking Americans who pay taxes but are not proficient in English would be in a position to cast their votes like any other citizen of America. In 1995, Parris who was a Governor of Maryland opposed a bill that required the state of Maryland to have English as the only language that would be used in official operations of the state. “Implementation of such a bill would cause separation among Americans living in Maryland” (Carol 68-71)
(Rosa 25-27) found out that, another instance was in the state of Arizona where supporters of bilingualism sued Arizona’s Governor together with state officials who were in support of laws of “English only” so as to stop them from enforcing that law in their state. Utah is another state that had laws of English only integrated in their state’s constitution which took place in 2000. However, it was attacked by voters who pointed out some areas where Utah’s lawmakers had not taken consideration of. They argued that, law had provided some exceptions where bilingualism was allowed, among them being public health as well as public education. These measures were to be read to prohibit an exercise of bilingualism in Utah. This made the union of Civil liberties sue officials who had passed the law, where the union represented nonprofit organizations and government employees who were to be negatively affected by the law. This led to ruling that put limitations to the provisions of that law by a district court in Utah which argued that, the law should not limit the use of bilingualism among elected officials as well as government employees.
Conclusion
Even as more states continue to carry out negotiations that are supposed to culminate in the implementation of laws of “English only” in their respective states, debate on whether this practice will unite Americans or separate them still continues. (Taylor 49) Supporters of bilingualism argue that, United States’ naturalization of its citizens can be achieved without having everyone using English as their language of communication; be it immigrants or indigenous U.S citizens. On the contrary, supporters of laws of “English only” argue that, it is only through the use of a uniform language that Americans will be united since according to them, bilingualism divides Americans on ethnical grounds. “It would be appropriate for the federal government to intervene and bring the debate to an end where Americans should also exercise some level of flexibility in order to have universal unity” (Guadalupe18-22).
References
Carol L. Conflict, identity and cultural pluralism in comparative perspective: Oxford University Press, 2001 pp 67-71.
Guadalupe S. The rise and fall of federal bilingual education in the United States: University of North Texas press, 2004 pp18-22.
Jill N. American Cultural pluralism and law: Greenwood publishing group, 1996 pp 44-47.
Michael A. Languages in a globalizing world: Cambridge University Press, 2003 pp 38-40.
Rosa C. Bilingual education: ABC-CLIO 2002 pp 25-27.
Sandra D. Language rights and the law in the United States: Multilingual Matters, 2003 pp12-15.
Taylor J. California politics, propositions and people of color: Greenwood publishing Group, 2001 pp 47-49.