letter to the editor: for posterity, and because I lose things
As is quite common, there was an opinion piece in the local paper in which someone argued for English Only legislation. Here’s the letter I wrote in response — which they offered to print if I could cut it down to 200 words. I declined, as I was already over my weekly time allowance for language-related outrage. It would have required too much effort to make it shorter (and yes, I am paraphrasing Ben Franklin). This all happened a few years ago but I’m posting it now because I ran across a draft of the letter (which I had not saved anywhere).
—————–
To the editor:
Mr. xxx of Bellingham writes to encourage readers to work for the passage of official English legislation in Washington. He believes legislation establishing English as the official language of the state is necessary, and that without it national unity and well being are at risk.
Across the country, calls for similar legislation rely on the same myths, hyperbole and lack of historical fact and logic. What Mr. xxx cites as good and necessary can also be seen as xenophobic, mean-spirited, restrictive, discriminatory and protectionist. The reasons cited most often in support of such legislation are all transparently false.
- English is not threatened in any way: it is the predominant language of trade globally and of all spheres of public life in the U.S.
- The proportion of non-English speakers was larger at the turn of this century than it is now (the 1890 census recorded 4.5 times as many non-English speakers than did the 1990 census). In 1910 the census recorded that no English was spoken by 23 percent of foreign-born whites, 39 percent of Japanese, 41 percent of Chinese, and 66 percent of other immigrants. In 1990, only 10 percent of foreign born residents spoke no English.
- All immigrant groups have gradually become Anglicized but this process was not legislated; it came about as a part of the larger process of assimilation.
Facts like these are never countered with similar hard data by proponents of language protectionist legislation or English Only. They provide anecdotal evidence and unsupported claims founded in racism and xenophobia. Such groups would like to cut federal services, restrict access, and deny legal protection on the basis of language, but they conveniently overlook the fact that some 40,000 people are on waiting lists for English as a Foreign Language classes in California alone. As has been pointed out time and time again, laws making English the official language do nothing to increase or fund language classes, nor do they teach a single person English.
The simple fact is, the status of English as the majority language was much more of a question in earlier times, but it survived without intrusive legislation. Official English legislation violates the first amendment as well as the fourteenth, which forbids abridging the privileges and immunities accorded to naturalized citizens.
Finally, this legislation is short sighted and mean spirited. It does not promote national unity; it is a gatekeeping mechanism aimed at very specific populations. English Only legislation and the organizations which promote it are countered by principled resistance from other civic, religious and professional organizations, among them the National Council of Teachers of English, the Modern Language Association, TESOL, American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages, the Center for Applied Linguistics, the American Psychological Association, the National Council for Black Studies, and the National Council of Churches of Christ. All of these organizations have published position papers which provide more background.
We have so many better things to do with our time and energy. Please encourage your legislators to put aside this hurtful, impractical and short sighted legislation to take up more important issues.
