English Only Laws

[Harold Schiffman]

 English Only Laws<http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/english_only_laws/>
<http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/index.php?author=1/>  James
Joyner<http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/author/site_admin/>
 | Monday, November 19, 2007

[image: English Only Zone
Sign]<http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/english_only_laws/english_only_zone_sign/>The
EEOC recently ruled that requirements that employees speak English on
the job violate the 1964 Civil
Rights<http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/english_only_laws/#>Act.
This led to action in Congress to overturn the regulations, which in
turn sparked heated exchanges among the legislators, John
Fund<http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010881>reports:

It's been less than a week since New York's Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov.
Eliot Spitzer had to climb down from their support of driver's licenses for
illegal aliens. Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has moved to kill an
amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring
their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such
lawsuits: the Salvation
Army<http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/english_only_laws/#>
.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a moderate Republican from Tennessee, is dumbstruck
that legislation he views as simple common sense would be blocked. He noted
that the full Senate passed his amendment to shield the Salvation Army by
75-19 last month, and the House followed suit with a 218-186 vote just this
month. "I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
intended to say that it's discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his
or her employee, 'I want you to be able to speak America's common language
on the job,' " he told the Senate last Thursday.

But that's exactly what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is
trying to do. In March the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift
store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the
job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to
learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic
employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the
firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not "relevant"
to job performance or safety.

Alexander's framing is, to say the least, disingenuous. A requirement to be
able to communicate with customers and other employees in English would
certainly be relevant. At issue here are rules requiring people to speak *only
English* while on the job site.

Still, as anecdotes Fund recounts later in the piece make clear, the
cultural animus over the language debate is strong. Both English and Spanish
speakers are viscerally attached to their language, which is integral to
their cultural identities.

To native speakers of the traditional language of the United
States<http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/english_only_laws/#>,
it seems obvious that those who wish to live here should learn and
communicate in that language. The idea that people would simultaneously
leave their native land for the opportunities available here but still feel
the need to maintain their heritage, including dressing and speaking in the
manner they did back home, is simply bizarre.

Indeed, not so long ago, it was the official policy of the United States
government. My mother immigrated to the United States from West Germany in
1964, by virtue of having married my father, and became an American citizen
in 1965. The booklet she was given to study for her citizenship exam was
very explicit that there is no such thing as a German-American or
Italian-American or any other hyphenated-American; there are only Americans.


That idea has largely been abandoned. Indeed, even native-born Americans
whose ancestors have been here for generations often affect a deep affinity
for a homeland they, in most cases, have never seen. This has been
particularly true in recent years for African-Americans, whose ancestors
were often brought here involuntarily and then, to say the least, not
integrated into the dominant culture.

The massive surge in Spanish-speaking immigrants, legal or otherwise, has
exacerbated this trend. Cuban-Americans have come to dominate parts of
Florida. Puerto Ricans, who are American citizens by law but often not by
culture, have a major impact in several parts of the mainland. And, of
course, Mexican and Central American immigrants have turned communities all
over the country into bilingual — or even predominately Spanish — havens.

In the case of Mexican immigrants, there's also the issue of much of the
Southwest having been part of their ancestral homeland once upon a time.
While the *Reconquista* idea is ridiculous and overhyped, there's no doubt
that this history has created a stronger sense of entitlement to maintain
Latin culture and to resist assimilation.

Further, the fact that millions of these immigrants are here illegally
further complicates the matter. On the one hand, it makes it virtually
impossible for them to integrate into the society and encourages them to
build community networks with other illegals. On the other, it adds to the
resentment of natives, especially those who are competing with them for work
and seeing their wages driven down, at those who speak Spanish.

Most of the impetus for rules requiring workers to speak only English at the
workplace are visceral. Logically speaking, there's no reason that Bob
should care that Jose and Julio are speaking to one another in Spanish;
they're not talking to him, after all. In fact, though, there doing so makes
him feel excluded, paranoid (they might be talking about him!), and angry.

It's not unreasonable, then, for employers to seek to ward of these
conflicts by insisting that workers speak English on the job. There are
enough stresses in the workplace without adding in a linguistic caste
system.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/11/english_only_laws/
**************************************
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. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20071120/a97f112e/attachment.htm>