English only

[Matthew Ward]

That's a good question...  as I understand it, most of the "English
Only" laws are mostly symbolic, having little or no legal force.  That
doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of reasons to oppose them, however.

The law in question, however, was supported by millionaire Ron Unz, who
is concentrating on anti-bilingual education.  I have been concerned for
years that his initiatives would endanger immersion programs, and this
article confirms my fears.  As someone noted earlier, a similar law (I
don't know whether it was Unz-backed or not) is tied up in the courts in
Alaska, because Natives feared that it would prevent them from using
their languages in the public sphere.  So far, the only state to defeat
one of these Unz-backed initiatives has been Colorado (round of applause).

If there is a silver lining here, it is that this makes the initiatives
look very bad:  it isn't "helping" immigrant kids to learn English, it's
prevent Native Americans from taking the steps necessary to preserve
their languages.  That's wrong, and yes, barbaric.  I believe that the
majority of Americans can recognize this.

Rrlapier at AOL.COM wrote:

> Another question, I believe there are now 23 or 26 states who have
> passed "english only" legislation? How many are states with
> significant Native populations?
>
> I know that Montana is an "english only" state and we have 7
> reservations and 12 tribes.
>
>
> Rosalyn LaPier
> Piegan Institute
> www.pieganinstitute.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20040304/44537298/attachment.htm>