[lg policy] Indiana: We need linguistic diversity

[Harold Schiffman]

We need linguistic diversity
------------------------------
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa District 5, who is best known for his
anti-immigrant statements, recently reintroduced legislation to declare
English the official language of the United States. He has proposed this
English Language Unity Act seven times without success, but this latest
attempt resonates with President Trump’s fixation on monolingualism.

The U.S. has a troubling history with English-only policies and ideologies.
The current administration only adds to the U.S’s bad track record with
language policies, and it reinforces the nation’s failure to recognize
linguistic diversity as a relevant form of diversity.

Trump’s English-only rhetoric is, above all, anti-Spanish. Not only was his
campaign the first in several election cycles not to use ads in Spanish,
but he overtly disparaged the Spanish language with mocking catchphrases.
“Bad hombres” is the example par excellence.

King’s proposed bill defines the English language as the “common thread
binding individuals of differing backgrounds” in the U.S., but leaves no
place for linguistic diversity within its definition of what constitutes a
“diverse” nation.

Government business is already carried out primarily in English, but the
enactment of an English-only policy runs counter to the increasingly
pluralistic approach to language taken on the other side of the border.

Mexico recognizes 69 official languages. Its policy gives legal standing to
68 indigenous languages in order to facilitate government communication
with indigenous communities. These legal obligations are not always carried
out in practice, but speakers of languages other than Spanish are
nonetheless legally entitled to documents translated into their local
language.

Enumerating languages under the law may not be a pragmatic solution, but
leaving the official language unspecified allows government actions to be
carried out in whichever language a situation warrants. Official documents
can be translated to other languages when most expedient, and
interpretation can be carried out without legal impediment.

In the 2011 hearings for an earlier version of the English Language Unity
Act, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan District 14, delivered his testimony in
broken Spanish to make a simple point. His Spanish-language statement would
be prohibited under this law, since Congressional testimony is an official
government transaction.

As Conyers points out, the law would not merely prohibit use of non-English
languages in formal Congressional settings. It could also impede everyday
business, like obtaining a driver’s license or registering children for
school, which qualify as official government transactions.

U.S. businesses have ditched most English-only workplace policies following
years of litigious battles over the interpretation of Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission policies. Implementing the English Language Unity
Act would only reimplant these discriminatory ideologies in U.S. society.

Linguistic minorities have no guaranteed protections under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, but the EEOC protects from discrimination based on national
origin, which can encompass differences in linguistic background.

Bilingualism suggests a coexistence of two languages, not the imposition of
one over the other. Instead of unifying the nation under a common language,
the English Language Unity Act makes the English language antagonistic to
linguistic diversity in the U.S.

kmilvert at umail.iu.edu


http://www.idsnews.com/article/2017/03/linguistic-diversity

-- 
**************************************
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, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20170328/24f61275/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list