Common Sense English Act

[Mia Kalish]

My friend who is getting her PhD in Bilingual wrote a wonderful paper
specifically on the political implications of German in early America. I
don't remember the details, but someone - could've been Washington but I
don't think so - was worried because he thought all the German speakers
would be able to group together against him and interfere with his political
aims. He made an argument that if German were allowed, that pretty soon, the
whole legislature would be German and not English (etc, etc, etc). 

He floated a bill to ban German - of course it failed. People saw right
through it. I wonder, do you think people were smarter or more perceptive,
maybe less insecure, then? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
On Behalf Of MJ Hardman
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:30 PM
To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [ILAT] Common Sense English Act

You are forgetting that for a very long time German/Dutch was a rival for
English; there were many German/Dutch newspapers and all the rest.  There
are still many places in the US where German is the common language.  Are
they going to prohibit, e.g., the Amish, etc. from speaking German in the
places where they sell their goods?

MJ

On 1/31/08 5:25 PM, "Aidan Wilson" <aidan at USYD.EDU.AU> wrote:

> To be fair, the bill only makes it not unlawful for an employer to
> require their employees to speak English while on the job. But all the
> same, I reckon it bites. Especially given the reasons they cite:
> 
>     (1) throughout the history of the United States, English has been
>     the common thread to unify the American people much as they are
>     united under one flag;
> 
> Isn't it the case that Spanish will be more populous that English in the
> US in about... 15 or so years?
> 
>     (2) Americans overwhelmingly believe that it is very important for
>     people living in the United States to speak and understand English;
> 
> It does not follow that other languages are unimportant, or somehow
> deleterious.
> 
>     (3) there is vast support among the American people to allow a
>     company to require its employees to speak English while on the job;
> 
> Really? I'd like to see that survey. In any case, we have elected
> representatives for a reason, if all policy was decided by referenda,
> we'd have zero taxes and no services.
> 
>     (4) in 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
>     against the will of the American people, filed more than 200
>     lawsuits against employers who implemented `English in the
>     Workplace' policies;
> 
> So in effect, all this would be doing is protecting those 200 employers?
> On the converse, legalising language requirements might allow many times
> more such abuses of equal employment rights to occur. Also, I wonder how
> they qualify 'against the will of the American people'.
> 
>     (5) the EEOC has sued the Salvation Army for implementing an
>     `English in the Workplace' policy which gives employees a year to
>     learn English;
> 
> English lessons for employees are good, but they are not synonymous with
> 'no other language allowed'. This sentence is a little ambiguous anyway
> and I can't tell what's being inferred. Was it the Salvation Army's
> policy of providing English lessons that constituted a breach of equal
> rights? I doubt it. In which case, if someone made a complaint on such
> grounds then it probably provides the best evidence for this bill;
> protecting people who do the right thing by their employees from stupid
> charges like this. But I expect the courts would be able to take care of
> this, rather than swiftly legalising any such linguistic rights abuses.
> 
>     (6) when a group of employees speaks a language other than English
>     in the workplace, it may cause misunderstandings, create dangerous
>     circumstances, and undermine morale.
> 
> Not the problem of the other language or its speakers. If a group of
> employees chooses to exclude a monolingual English speaker from their
> own in-group, then they'd exclude them using any means at their
> disposal. It just so happens that language may be a particularly salient
> method, but it is not the cause of the circumstances or the morale.
> 
> That's it, the entire bill. Suffice to say I'm less than convinced.
> 
> Aidan Wilson
> Audio at Paradisec
> 
> On 01/02/08 06:11, Melissa Pond said:
>> 
>> Information about it can be found here:
>> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4464
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
>> 
>> Melissa Pond
>> Director of Library Services
>> Leech Lake Tribal College
>> P. O. Box 180
>> 6945 Little Wolf Rd. NW
>> Cass Lake, MN 56633
>> 218-335-4240
>> 218-335-4282 (fax)
>> melissa.pond at lltc.edu <mailto:melissa.pond at lltc.edu>
>> 
>> "I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library." -
>> Jorge Luis Borges
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> *From:* Indigenous Languages and Technology
>> [mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] *On Behalf Of *rrlapier at AOL.COM
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:09 PM
>> *To:* ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
>> *Subject:* [ILAT] Common Sense English Act
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What do people know about HR 4464? The Common Sense English Act that
>> will "require employees to speak English while engaged in work"?
>> 
>> Rosalyn LaPier