[NIFL-ESL:1512] Re: English only

• Next message: BAUMVV@aol.com: "[NIFL-ESL:1513] Re: Eng for farm laborers"
• Previous message: arnade@erols.com: "[NIFL-ESL:1511] Re: English only"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost.nifl.gov [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA09355; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:06:51 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:06:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <Pine.A41.3.96a.971114130702.57054A-100000@dante33.u.washington.edu>
Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Carl Grove <cdgrove@u.washington.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-ESL:1512] Re: English only
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
Content-Length: 303
Lines: 10

I've been thinking about this Unz initiative more.  I keep coming back to
one question:  given the Lau v. Nichols decision, if the Unz initiative
passes, what are the chances it will stand up in court, assuming that the
courts will rely on expert testimony in its decision?

Any thoughts?

Carl Grove

• Next message: BAUMVV@aol.com: "[NIFL-ESL:1513] Re: Eng for farm laborers"
• Previous message: arnade@erols.com: "[NIFL-ESL:1511] Re: English only"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 14:09:42 EDT