Army Discharges Arabic-Speaking Soldier

Harold Schiffman haroldfs at gmail.com
Wed Aug 9 13:04:21 UTC 2006


All:  I have begun to post messages with a disclaimer attached.  But I would
reiterate what others have said, namely, that issue of the dismissal of the
gay Arabic linguist is a language policy issue because gender (and sexual
preference) are, like many other issues, often intertwined with language
policy issues.  It's hard to find a language policy issue anywhere that
doesn't have a covert issue of some other kind attached; some social
scientists use this as an excuse to ignore the *language* issue in
language policy disputes, because there's always something else to focus on:
ethnicity, identity, social class, racism, whatever...

HS


**************************************************************************

N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the
owner or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree
with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal.


**************************************************************************



On 8/8/06, Wayne Wright <wayneewright at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>  Hal,
>
> Thanks for your comment. The posting of news items representing a variety
> of opinions is one of the most valuable services you provide on this list. I
> am confident that the majority of list members are capable of understanding
> what is a newspaper article, be able to make their own critical judgement
> about the content, and not interpret the posting of the items as somehow
> reflective of the views of the poster.
>
> The article on the discharged Arabic-speaking soldier is most definately a
> language policy issue, particularly given the major shortage the government
> has of Arabic speakers.
>
> Keep the articles coming!
>
> -Wayne
>
> Wayne E. Wright, PhD
> Bicultural-Bilingual Studies
> University of Texas, San Antonio
>
>
> *Harold Schiffman <haroldfs at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> As "moderator" of this listserv, I should say that the articles I forward
> are those that I find mentioning language and/or policy, and that some of
> them are in fact objectionable to me.  (These are mostly in the area of the
> attacks on illegal immigrants, the "need" for officialization of English,
> the "refusal" of immigrants to learn English, etc. etc.)
>
> I send some of these along because it seems to me that people on this list
> need to know what's being said in sources they might not usually read.  Part
> of the point of sending any or all is to stimulate discussion; so if people
> would like to discuss what's wrong with the reportage, this is what is
> supposed to happen.
>
> So I welcome contrary opinions, and/or more accurate information.
>
> H. Schiffman
> List Owner
>
> On 07 Aug 2006 20:41:36 -0700, Michael Erard <erard at lucidwork.com> wrote:
> >
> >  I will second Bill Beeman's note and add that this is a listserve, not
> > a peer-reviewed journal, a fact-checked publication, or an outlet for
> > government opinion.
> >
> > Michael Erard
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20060809/09cf4efe/attachment.html>


More information about the Lgpolicy-list mailing list