<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=520162003-05062001>my two
cents:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=520162003-05062001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=center><SPAN class=520162003-05062001> <FONT face=Arial>The
English Language Unity Act of 2001</FONT></DIV>
<P align=center class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT face=Arial>by
Dennis Baron<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial>Legislation to make English the official
language of the United States is before the House of Representatives once again.
Just about every year since 1981, lawmakers have introduced an English language
amendment to the Constitution or a bill in Congress to make English official.
All of these have failed because making English official has always been
associated with prejudice against people who don’t speak English, whether they
are immigrants or natives, and because the vast majority of non-English speaking
Americans wind up speaking English after all, a situation which renders language
legislation unnecessary. This year’s official language installment is called the
“English Unity Act of 2001.” Its clear anti-immigrant bias suggests that it too
deserves to fail.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial>The English Unity Act, designated H.R. 1984
(can the Orwellian overtones of that number be accidental?), seeks to “reaffirm
English as the official language of the United States.” But what does not exist
cannot be reaffirmed: English has never been America’s official language. Though
there was some debate over a national language in the 18<SPAN
class=520162003-05062001>th</SPAN> century, and Noah Webster urged Congress to
name a “federal” language, the founders never established English as official.
It’s not that they favored multiculturalism or multilingualism. Most likely they
felt that English was already so strong it needed no defense. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial>H.R. 1984 mandates that the official
functions of the government of the United States be conducted in English,
something that is already the case and has been since the country’s founding.
The bill also requires that naturalization ceremonies be held in English, a
common provision of the various “language of government” acts put forward in
recent years. But the English Unity Act asks as well that “all citizens should
be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States.” Current law requires new citizens to be able to “read or write simple
words or phrases” in English. In significantly raising the literacy threshold
for naturalization, H.R. 1984 aims at exclusion, not unity. Few of those who are
already citizens, whether native-born or naturalized, would be able to pass a
literacy test based, for example, on Title 8, the complex section of the U.S.
Code which deals with naturalization. The stiff reading requirements of H.R.
1984 call to mind the literacy tests that were used in the past to bar
immigrants from citizenship, and to prevent African Americans from
voting.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial>Despite the fears of the authors of the
English Unity Act of 2001, English is not endangered in the United States. One
of the first things nonanglophones do upon coming to this country is try to
learn English. According to the 1990 Census, 97% of the people in this country
claim to speak English well (language figures for the 2000 Census have not yet
been released). Even if some of those responding to the Census question don’t
speak English particularly well, their answers clearly show they know that
speaking English well is desirable. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial>It is not English, but the minority
languages of the U.S. that are in danger of disappearing. The children of
nonanglophones are learning English in record time, and all the attempts by
ethnic communities to preserve their languages in this country have failed
dramatically. Without any federal intervention, the U.S. has achieved a state of
monolingualism that nations intent on designating official languages can envy.
But monolingualism means that American employers cannot find enough workers with
competence in the other languages we need to compete in the global economy.<SPAN
class=520162003-05062001></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=520162003-05062001></SPAN>Even
if English doesn’t need protection, sponsors of H.R. 1984 want to ratify English
as a unifying principle in the United States. According to the Unity Act, a
common language is the glue that holds our otherwise fragmented society
together. We can eat our ethnic foods and celebrate our various holidays, but we
can tolerate such cultural diversity only if a common English keeps us from
going our separate ways. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples around the
world where language has not been able to counteract the divisive powers of
politics and religion: the two Koreas, the two Irelands, the former Soviet bloc.
Closer to home, though apparently forgotten by the sponsors of the English Unity
Act, the American Civil War demonstrates that a common language was not
sufficient to keep the Union united.</FONT></P>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.75pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<P class=MsoBodyTextIndent
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 0in; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><FONT
face=Arial>Supporters of official English often point to such countries as
India, Belgium, and Canada, where linguistic diversity is associated with
political unrest, even violence. But it is restrictive language legislation that
contributes to the unrest in these countries. Enacting official English in the
United States will similarly backfire. The English Unity Act will divide rather
than unite us. Instead of drawing nonanglophones to the mainstream, it will
label them as unwelcome and discourage them from pursuing their goal to
assimilate, economically, politically, and socially, and to learn
English.</FONT></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"> </P></SPAN>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>_________________</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Dennis Baron,
Head
debaron@uiuc.edu</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Department of
English <A
href="http://www.english.uiuc.edu/baron"
target=_blank>http://www.english.uiuc.edu/baron</A></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>University of
Illinois
217-333-2390</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>608 S. Wright
St.
fax: 217-333-4321</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Urbana, IL 61801</FONT>
</P>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>