Re: RE English only gets a hearing..

From: Johnson, Alice (ajohnson@SMTP.nifl.gov)
Date: Fri Nov 03 1995 - 12:35:39 EST


Received: from SMTP.nifl.gov ([198.77.188.36]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.6.8/940311.01ccg) with SMTP id LAA09155 for <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 11:29:53 -0500
Received: from cc:Mail by SMTP.nifl.gov id AA815430524; Fri, 03 Nov 95 12:35:39 EST
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 12:35:39 EST
From: "Johnson, Alice" <ajohnson@SMTP.nifl.gov>
Encoding: 148 Text
Message-Id: <9510038154.AA815430524@SMTP.nifl.gov>
To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Subject: Re: RE English only gets a hearing..
Status: RO
X-Status: 

     The following is the test of the best argument against "English Only" 
     that I have come across:
     
     "Official"or Not, English Is the Nation's Language
     
     by Senator Paul Simon
     
     "Periodically one issue arises that has superficial appeal:  Make 
     English the official language of the United States.  (A few go even 
     further and want to make "American" the official language.)
     
     The reality is that English is the official language of our country.  
     Anyone who lives in the United States and wants to participate in any 
     meaningful way in our economy or in our political process has to learn 
     English.
     
     Exactly what it would mean to declare English the official language I 
     don't know -- and neither do its sponsors.
     
     When I appeared in a debate with the person promoting the idea in 
     California, I asked:  Does this mean there could be no court 
     interpreters for someone in a California trial who speaks on only 
     Chinese?  Does this mean that we would prohibit New Mexico from 
     printing documents in both English and Spanish?"  And on and on.  No 
     these things were not meant.
     
     It is unclear precisely what is meant, other than the same vague 
     anti-foreign feeling that has been part of our country since its 
     earliest days.
     
     Many believe that today we have the highest percentage of our 
     population speaking English than at anytime in our history.
     
     But that misses a basic point.  Years ago, you could come into this 
     country and easily get a job swinging an ax or a sledgehammer, and if 
     you spoke Swedish or Italian or Polish in stead of  English, that was 
     no great obstacle to getting a job.
     
     Today, we are a vastly different society.  To get most jobs, you have 
     to fill out an application form, impossible to do if you don't read 
     English.  
     
     If you are a custodian in a plan or school, your employers want you to 
     be able to read and understand the instructions for using cleaning 
     compounds and chemicals.
     
     Farming in no longer relatively simple chores.  Farming today means 
     operating milking machines and computers, in addition to the more 
     routine duties.
     
     In the world of 1989 and beyond [NOTE:  This column was first 
     published on March 26, 1989] acquiring an adequate education is 
     increasingly important.  And almost as essential is being able to 
     speak and read and write English.
     
     The way to really deal with the problem for those who do not have this 
     skill is not to advocate making English the official language, but 
     providing classes for those who do not speak English.
     
     And one of the ironies of the campaign to make English the official 
     language is that many of those who back it are the same people who 
     vote against funding classes to reach people how to speak English.
     
     In Los Angeles, there are about 35,000 on the waiting list to get into 
     classes to acquire English skills and approximately 83,000 in 
     California.
     
     There were 4,749 on waiting lists last year to get into these adult 
     education classes in Illinois.  New York City has a waiting list of 
     10,000.
     
     Yes, learning the English language is important in our nation with so 
     many immigrants.
     
     But the way to handle the problem is not pious-sounding proclamations 
     that English is out official language.  The way to deal with the 
     problem is to provide funding for classes so that those who do not 
     speak English can learn it."
     
     (Published March 26-April 2 1989 in numerous Illinois newspapers.) 
     
     Copies of this column are available (free of charge, of course) from 
     Senator Simon's press office (202/224-2152).
     
     It is clear that Sen. Simon is in the minority on this issue on 
     Capitol Hill -- support for English Only is gaining momentum rapidly 
     and there is a good chance that Congress will soon pass English Only 
     legislation.  
     
     If those of you in the places he mentioned (or other areas with long 
     ESL waiting lists, for that matter) provided Sen. Simon with an update 
     on the current number of people on waiting lists in your community, I 
     suspect he would write another column on this that could be 
     disseminated widely.  (He writes one once a week and is always happy 
     to provide copies, upon request, to anyone who is interested.)  
     
     -- Alice Johnson (former education staffer for Sen. Simon)
     National Institute for Literacy
     202/632-1516
     alice_johnson@ed.gov
     
     
     
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE English only gets a hearing..
Author:  nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov at INET
Date:    11/3/95 11:17 AM


Meg Gam's anecdote about her intermediate ESL class with 8 
different languages represented, and learners from all walks of 
life (businessmen, gan members, cooks, factory workers, etc.) and 
their unilateral desire to learn and speak English just proves 
how unnecessary and mean-spirited the English Only position is.  
     
Immigrants want and need to learn English.  They don't need 
legislation to force them into the classes; what they (and, by 
extension, we as adult ESL educators) do need are more resources 
to provide enough programs to meet their needs, so they don't 
have to learn in classes of 50, and they don't have to wait years 
(really) to get in a program.
     
I agree with Rep. Engels - the English Only amendment is 
"shameless immigrant-bashing."  And I wonder why Congress doesn't 
focus on real issues, like how can we provide educational 
services for all adult learners, how can we make affordable 
health care available to everyone, and why is a supposedly 
ethical, "civilized" society considering providing a tax cut for 
the wealthy while attempting to balance the budget on the backs 
of the poor, the elderly, the sick?
     
Why are they wasting their time on an amendment that serves only 
to slap those on the face who have the audacity to have a native 
language other than English (and who, gasp, might actually prefer 
to use this native language at times, sometimes even in public!)?
     
Now I'll duck.
     
Miriam Burt
Center for Applied Linguistics
Washington, DC
miriam@cal.org
     
     



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 13:21:41 EST