Front Page arrow Conclusions arrow English: Let's not make it official
Cartoons by Marlette
TheSequitur.com Sections
Front Page
Nation
World
Culture
Progress
Conclusions
Cartoons by Marlette
TheSequitur.com Blogs
Morning Coffee
Fire In A Theater
Bonnaroo News
Administration
About Us
Submissions
Corrections
Advertising
Donate
Opportunities
New at TheSequitur.com
Most Read

Join other friends of TheSequitur.com at MySpace. 

TheSequitur.com Feeds

Support TheSequitur.com
English: Let's not make it official Print E-mail
Share:
Delicious
Digg
NewsVine
Reddit
Stumble
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Written by the Editorial Board   
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Despite all the issues that threaten the well-being of Americans – from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the inevitable implosion of our outdated and overburdened social security system – our congressional leaders insist on focusing their efforts on a non-issue people have been arguing about since the 1800s: whether or not English should be the official language of the United States of America.

America has done just fine without an official language. And if it ain’t broke …At best, this is evidence of lawmakers flagrantly investing valuable time pursuing unnecessary legislation. At worst, it is a useless xenophobic response to the obvious immigration problems in this country that will not only fail to solve the problems with that system, but hearkens back to Jim Crow laws by stifling the ability of American citizens to take part in the democratic process.

There is a wide range of proposed laws to make English the nation’s official language, but the worst of them would have all government-related documents (including voting ballots and income tax forms) presented only in English and would allow government entities to sue groups and individuals who do not abide by the English-only law when issuing government material. The impact of this kind of measure should be immediately obvious to anyone who has been to the DMV or recently voted and had the option of reading their driver license or ballot instructions in English, Spanish, or another language. It means a decrease in accessibility to government documents for a large portion of the population.

While it would be prudent for immigrants to learn English in order to maximize their ability to interact with the majority English-speaking U.S. population, it is not something we should mandate. A native Spanish speaker may be able to read and comprehend English fluently, but if he or she is more comfortable communicating in Spanish, why should we deny that opportunity? Furthermore, if that opportunity provides the person a more reasonable way to access the democratic process, instituting the use of English-only documents undermines the ideals on which this country was founded.

As we near the point where people of Hispanic origin are the largest minority group in the nation (and the majority in some places) this debate will only continue. Indeed, it may heat up in the run up to November 2008. What we can do is send a frank message to Congress. Quit wasting your time (our time, really) on this non-issue and start working on legislation that will address the many other problems our nation faces. America has done just fine without an official language. And if it ain’t broke …

Dwayne Robinson abstains from all staff editorials.

Share:
Delicious
Digg
NewsVine
Reddit
Stumble
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
< Previous   Next >
Comments

You must javascript enabled to use this form

I have a suggestion ... instead of 'English Only' how about 'English Always' ? Here is what I mean:

Have you ever seen a Spanish language publication and wondered what the title/headline means? Have you ever driven by a business with signage in Russian/Korean/Arabic etc and not had a clue what they were selling? Why is that OK? Certainly I understand that merchants in Chinatown are going to advertise in Chinese because of the many local residents who are more comfortable in their native language. That's cool. But doesn't such 'Chinese Only' advertising discriminate against English speaking consumers?

I propose a law be created that requires: (1) all non-English commercial signage (of any size) to include English translations in a reasonably sized subscript [some sort of % of the original text size]; (2) all non-English publications must have English translations of headlines, titles, chapter names, and captions; and (3) all non-English broadcasts should have English subtitles/2nd-Audio per whatever the same rules are that currently support these features in the other direction.

Such a law will have two powerful benefits: (A) it will encourage the use of English in all commercial settings thus opening the door for potential customers that otherwise would avoid such businesses due to the language barrier, and (B) increase the opportunity for non-English speakers to be exposed to English words for familiar products thus expanding their ability to shop at English speaking businesses.

Posted by Low Sea, on 11/29/2007 at 02:30

Things aren't that simple. Note that, 'In March of 2007, a local office of the EEOC sued the Salvation Army over its requirement that employees must learn English. The Salvation Army prevailed against a similar lawsuit in 2003 [Cosme v. The Salvation Army, (284 F.Supp.2d 229 (D. Mass. 2003)].' It is one thing not to have an official language. But requiring the private sector to suppport other languages is beyond acceptable.

Posted by Erik Kengaard, on 11/16/2007 at 08:57

 1 
Page 1 of 1 ( 2 Comments )
©2007 MosCom



TheSequitur.com Home | About Us | Submissions | Opportunities | Donations | Advertising | DMCA | Terms of Service | Contact Us
The Sequitur Media family of Web sites: TheSequitur.com | MorningCoffeeBlog.com | FireInATheater.com
Copyright 2005 - 2008 | Sequitur Media, LLC | All Rights Reserved