English Only
Essay Preview: English Only
Report this essay
How can there be free speech if it’s only English? Even though 97 percent of this countrys population speaks English, some lawmakers find it necessary to implement legislation declaring English the U.S.s “official language,” even going so far as to propose legislation that bars the use of any other language in certain governmental functions.Combine this with the fact that the national debate on the use of Ebonics, or black English, made its way to Capitol Hill earlier this year, and it makes one wonder: if such a large portion of our population speaks one language, why do we have such heated debates on the issue of language rights?
On Dec. 18, the Oakland school board passed a resolution to treat Ebonics as a second language. The board voted to recognize Ebonics as the “primary language” of many of its students (black students form a slight majority in the district) and to teach students in this language so they will better understand English. The board described Ebonics as “genetically based,” suggesting that schools might seek federal funds earmarked for bilingual education.
After receiving a backlash from the media, policymakers and just about everyone else under the sun, the board restated its position a month later. It dropped a reference to African-American speech being “genetically based” and eliminated a proposal that students be taught in Ebonics. Instead, it called for teachers to learn “African-American language systems” so they can help “move students from the language patterns they bring to school to English proficiency.”
For some Washington lawmakers, however, the changes in the Oakland school boards position werent enough. In a Senate subcommittee meeting on Jan. 23, only three of the 16 members of the subcommittee that oversees federal education spending attended the hearing, and two stayed only briefly. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the subcommittees chair, said he called the hearing in part to consider whether the federal government should have a role in funding Ebonics programs. Education Secretary Richard W. Riley has said that because federal law defines black English as a dialect rather than a language, the Oakland program is not eligible for federal bilingual aid.
At the time the board announced its policy, there were suggestions that the district would apply for additional federal funds to teach Ebonics as a second language. With that no longer being a possibility, members of the Oakland school district defended their Ebonics policy before the Senate subcommittee trying to assure lawmakers it would not use any of its federal funding for Ebonics instruction.
But the debate is far from over. There are several other kinds of federal aid available including $7.7 billion given to schools nationwide every year to help educate poor children. Since schools have more discretion over that money, it may be used for Ebonics education.
While the debate continues about effective ways of teaching and reaching certain students, and how to fund these programs, some lawmakers are trying to assure that English is the only language spoken in some governmental capacities.
Seven pieces of English-Only/Official English legislation were introduced during the 104th Congress. Two bills that received the greatest degree of focus were H.R.123 (“Language of Government Act of 1995” introduced by Rep. Emerson) and S. 356 (“Language of Government Act of 1995” introduced by Senator Shelby). Both bills would declare English the official language of the federal government, mandate that all official business of the federal government be conducted in English, allow any person injured from a violation of this law to sue, repeal any federal laws protecting language rights that are inconsistent with this, and would not preempt any state law.
During the second session of the 104th Congress, the House took up an extended version of H.R.123, as well as H.R. 351, which would repeal language provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Both bills passed a House vote, but failed to move in the Senate. The original Senate version of the bill failed to move out of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. For both versions, President Clinton threatened to veto any legislation that would limit bilingual education or language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Meanwhile, the movement to make English the official language got a boost in March when the High Court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, set aside on procedural grounds a U.S. appeals court ruling that said an “English only” law in Arizona violates free speech. The Courts ruling has the legal effect of reviving the Arizona amendment, which had been struck down.
There are two separate cases coming out of Arizona on this issue. The first one, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, No. 95-974, questioned whether Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution declaring English the official state language violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The justices did not consider the merits of the case, but rather, ruled that because the Spanish-speaking woman in whose name the case was originally filed had left her job before the appeal courts 1995 ruling, the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to consider her argument that Article 28 violated her right to free speech.
Article 28, which was adopted by a slim majority of Arizonas voters in a 1988 ballot initiative, prohibits all state government employees and elected officials from speaking any other language while performing government functions.
Declaring English the official language of the “ballot, the public schools and all government functions and actions,” the law applies to “the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. . . all political subdivisions, departments, agencies, organizations and instrumentalities of [the] state including local governments and municipalities. It broadly requires that every level and branch of government, including every entity and person, “act in English and no other language.” According to this Article, any “person who resides or does business in [the] state” has the right to sue to enforce its provision.”
Maria-Kelly Yniguez, an employee of the Arizona Department of Administration who handled medical malpractice claims brought against the state, was the original plaintiff in the case. Before Article 28 was passed, Yniguez spoke in Spanish with her clients while performing her job. However, she stopped speaking Spanish at work when the Article was passed for fear of being reprimanded, or worse,