Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h7VNo5714605; Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3F528215.5050309@csulb.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Kevin Rocap <krocap@csulb.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:9348] Re: The English-Only Propoganda X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 17758 Lines: 292 Dear Ken, Quick correction. You mention the "English-Only" activist JW Crawford. Just the opposite. If you are referring to the James Crawford in the bibliography of your e-mail, he has been one of the strongest research and policy voices opposing English-Only and exposing the negative ramifications of "official English" policy approaches (see his book "At War with Diversity: U.S. Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety" among others). His website has great information on the positive value of bilingualism, the myths of the "English-Only" movement and more. He is actually a kind of policy watchdog for attacks on the rights of languag minority populations in the U.S., just FYI: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/ In Peace, K. Ken Taber wrote: >Here we go again. I have researched the propaganda of English-Only Movement >in this country that began in 1987. It is the same English-Only nonsense >that led to the META agreement in 1989. It is in direct opposition to the >legel history of LEP programs in this country and wishes to change existing >law. They claim their minor victories but every time they take on a real >challenge in federal court, they lose. Their newest claim is that the No >Child Left Behind does not mention bilingual education and there was no peep >from the other side. The point they forget to mention is no part of the NCLB >can violate the decisions Supreme Court. That would make NCLB >unconstitutional. The NCLB clearly does not violate OCR guidelines >concerning LEP students. The states that want to go down this misguided and >misinformed path need only look at what happened in Florida, California, and >Texas. This movement is a joke. But I must read their propaganda since many >people believe this nonsense. I have copied and pasted the lasted info. I >could find. Please read with caution. Some of their claims are simply their >own wishful thinking and not based on current law. I guess its time for >another federal case to silence these bigots. They take valid research >studies and misrepresent notable scholars and their findings to draw their >English-Only conclusions. States that follow their advice are begging for a >federal lawsuit. It is dangerous to listen to this movement. Pure propoganda >and lies. I challenge any expert in the field to support their claims. And >politicians that support these quacks are leading their states down a murky >legal battle. Why is it always necessary to go to court to fight these >jerks. The other problem is that may people are actually believing their >lies without double checking their research. If I submitted this paper to my >Florida Atlantic University professor, I would throw out the door. I like to >think this stuff is just ignorance but I really feel it nothing but pure >discrimination. I apologize for my angry tone but if educators in the field >start believe this garbage as real research then we as a country are in real >trouble. This report must have some political muscle. It was funded by the >US Dept. of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement with >a disclaimer that these opinions do not necessary reflect the positions or >policies of OERI or ED. There is even a link to the English-only activist JW >Crawford. I guess the federal courts will have to hear this case so we can >put an end to this English-Only movement once and for all. Here we go >again!!!- Ken > >Ken Taber >kentaber@inetgenesis.com > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---------------------------------------------------- >"Official English and English Plus: An Update >Vickie W. Lewelling, ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics >May 1997 >EDO-FL-97-07 > >At the time of Independence, America was populated by speakers of many >languages, including English, German, French, Spanish, and hundreds of >American Indian languages. When the founding fathers decided not to declare >an official language, their reasons included "a belief in tolerance for >linguistic diversity within the population, the economic and social value of >foreign language knowledge and citizenry, and a desire not to restrict the >linguistic and cultural freedom of those living in the new country" (Judd, >1987, p. 15). The issue of an official language has surfaced periodically >throughout U.S. history but was not raised in Congress until 1981, when >Senator S.I. Hayakawa of California introduced a constitutional amendment to >make English the official language. On the surface, the idea appeared to be >a symbolic gesture - to give English, the de facto language of the country, >official status. However, the proposed amendment also called for prohibition >of state laws, ordinances, orders, programs, and policies that require the >use of other languages. Neither the Federal government nor any state >government could require any program, policy, or document that would use a >language other than English. >Concern over the implications such an amendment could have for U.S. citizens >and residents whose native language is other than English led to formation >of an English Plus language advocacy coalition of more than 50 civil rights >and educational organizations. In 1987, the coalition established the >English Plus Information Clearinghouse (EPIC). EPIC's purpose is to fulfill >the need for centralized information on language rights and language policy, >to respond to efforts to restrict the use of languages other than English, >and to promote an alternative to Official English. > >What Is Official English? > >The Official English movement seeks to make English the official language of >the United States through passage of a constitutional amendment. Supporters >argue that "in a pluralistic nation such as ours, government should foster >the similarities that unite us, rather than the differences that separate >us" (Wright, 1992, p. 129) and "unless we become serious about protecting >our heritage as a unilingual society-bound by a common language-we may lose >a precious resource that has helped us forge a national character and >identity from so many diverse elements" (Chavez, 1987, p. 11). Providing >education or services in other languages, it is feared, will give rise to >ethnic separatism and the breakdown of national unity; the way to prevent >this rift is to make English the official language. >The movement is spearheaded by two groups, English First and U.S. English. >Goals of the movement are to encourage ratification of a constitutional >amendment making English the official language of the United States; to >repeal bilingual voting requirements; to reduce funding for bilingual >education; to enforce English language and civics requirements for >naturalization; and to expand opportunities for learning English (U.S. >English, 1992). > >What Is English Plus? > >English Plus is based on the belief that all U.S. residents should have the >opportunity to become proficient in English PLUS one or more other >languages. For nonnative speakers of English, this means the opportunity to >acquire proficiency in English as well as maintain proficiency in their >native language. For native English speakers, this means the chance to >become proficient in a language other than English, while continuing to >develop English proficiency. >Proponents of English Plus view cultural diversity as a national strength >and believe that it provides the United States with a "unique reservoir of >understanding and talent" (EPIC, 1992, p.152). They support access to >bilingual services and education to provide a bridge for language minority >individuals who are not yet proficient in English. They point to evidence >that suggests immigrant groups are, in fact, very motivated to learn >English. Such evidence includes results of a survey of 2,817 Americans of >Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban descent, which showed that more than 90% of >the respondents believe U.S. citizens and residents should learn English >(Duke, 1992). English Plus proponents see lack of opportunity, not lack of >motivation, as the primary barrier to acquiring English. In their view, this >is confirmed by the thousands of prospective ESL students who are regularly >turned away because there are not enough classes to accommodate them. >English Plus supports legislative measures designed to provide linguistic >assistance to Americans who are not fluent in English, including interpreter >services in emergency situations such as 911; multilingual medical services; >bilingual education and employment training; and multilingual drivers >license exams. On the federal level, these include the bilingual provisions >of the Voting Rights Act and the Court Interpreters Act. State provisions >may also call for language services in civil courts and at migrant health >and substance abuse centers. "National unity and our constitutional values >require that language assistance be made available in order to ensure equal >access to essential services, education, the electoral process, and other >rights and opportunities guaranteed to all members of society" (EPIC, 1992, >p. 151). >English Plus supporters agree with official English proponents that >proficiency in English is indispensable and that opportunities must be >provided for all U.S. residents to learn English. They do not believe a >constitutional amendment will accomplish these goals, and they argue that >official English laws are counterproductive because they restrict the rights >and access to essential services of individuals who are not yet >English-proficient. > >Bilingual Ballots > >The Voting Rights Act of 1965 eliminated literacy requirements for voting >because they were seen as discriminatory against Blacks in the South. In >1975, to eliminate discrimination based on language proficiency, the House >and Senate Judiciary Committees added the provision of election materials in >languages other than English in jurisdictions where at least 5% of the >population is American Indian, Asian American, Native Alaskan, or of Spanish >heritage. English Plus advocates maintain that "the right to vote is >fundamental because it provides a means to preserve all other rights" >(Trasvi-a, 1992, p. 263). Voting materials are written at levels as high as >college English; only about a third grade level of English literacy is >needed to pass the literacy test for naturalization. Many native born >Americans, such as some American Indians and Hispanics in the Southwest, >especially the elderly who were taught little English in school, may be >unable to cast an informed vote in English. >Official English proponents argue that people cannot cast an informed vote >without knowing English, and that allowing non-English speakers to vote may >make them prey to bloc voting by special interest groups. They argue that >bilingual ballots are contradictory to citizenship laws, which require >fluency in English, and inhibit the learning of English (Bikales, 1986). > >Bilingual Education > >Bilingual education programs use both the student's native language and >English for instruction. In support of these programs, English Plus >advocates cite research that emphasizes the positive influence native >language development has on second language proficiency. Lack of first >language development has been shown, in some cases, to inhibit the level of >second language proficiency and cognitive academic development (Hakuta, >1990). >Krashen (1992) suggests that successful bilingual education programs >actually result in faster acquisition of English. Content matter taught in >the native language can be transferred to the second language. In the >regular classroom, confronted with both concepts and language that are not >comprehensible to them, limited English speakers learn neither the content >nor the language. Research indicates that language acquisition occurs only >when incoming messages can be understood (Krashen, 1992). >Official English proponents believe that bilingual education programs >advocate maintenance of native languages and cultures at the expense of >English, and that they encourage children not to learn English or become >part of American society. They suggest that by teaching students English as >quickly as possible, schools "make it clear to immigrant parents and >children alike that mastery of English is indispensable for one's becoming a >full member of American society" (English Language Amendment, 1984). > >Official English and English Plus Legislation > >Although the Senate convened hearings on Official English in 1984 and the >House did so in 1988, the English Language Amendment has never come to a >Congressional vote. In 1991, Official English advocates took a different >approach and launched a statutory form of Official English. Such legislation >would apply to the federal government alone and would require only a simple >majority vote in Congress, in addition to the President's signature. This >Language of Government bill has appeared in several versions, and one of >these bills, H.R. 123, passed the House of Representatives in 1996. However, >the companion measure never came to a vote in the Senate, and the bill died >in the 104th Congress (Crawford, 1997b). A similar bill, also designated >H.R. 123, is pending in the 105th Congress. If enacted, English would be >designated the official language of the United States government, and the >use of other languages in all federal government programs, publications, >proceedings, and services would be outlawed-with a few exceptions for >national security, language teaching, and the use of Native American >languages (Crawford, 1997a). In opposition to English Only measures, English >Plus legislation has been introduced in the form of a nonbinding policy >statement. >At the state level, Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, and Nebraska >have constitutional amendments designating English as the official state >language. In addition, in March 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the >decision by Arizona state and appellate courts that had ruled Arizona's 1988 >English language amendment unconstitutional. However, provisions of the >amendment cannot be enforced until another case, Ruiz vs. Symington, is >resolved. States with official English statutes include Arkansas, Georgia, >Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North >Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, >and Wyoming. Bills are pending in 13 states, including Connecticut, Iowa, >Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, >Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Hawaii has passed an amendment >declaring both English and Hawaiian official languages. >The English Plus movement has provided a means for advancing policies that >support linguistic pluralism at the state level. For example, New Mexico has >adopted a resolution declaring that proficiency in more than one language is >beneficial to the nation, that English needs no official legislation to >support it, and that proficiency in other languages should be encouraged. >Oregon and Washington have also passed English Plus resolutions. > >References >Bikales, G. (1986). Comment: The other side. The International Journal of >the Sociology of Language, 60: Language Rights and the English Language >Amendment, 77-85. >Chavez, L. (1987, December 4). English: Our common bond. A speech presented >to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. >Crawford, J. (1997a). English only bill reintroduced in 105 th Congress. >English only update VIII [on-line]. Available: >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD >Crawford, J. (1997b). Issues in U.S. language policy: Language legislation >in the U.S.A [on-line]. Available: >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD >Duke, L. (1992, December 16). Poll of Latinos counters perceptions on >language, immigration. The Washington Post, p. A4. >English Language Amendment 1984: Hearings on S.J. Resolution 167 before the >Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 98th >Cong.,2nd Sess. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO. >EPIC. (1992). The English plus alternative. In J. Crawford (Ed.), Language >loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy. Chicago: >University of Chicago Press. >Hakuta, K. (1990). Bilingualism and bilingual education: A research >perspective. Focus No. 1. Washington, DC: NCBE. >Judd, E. L. (1987). The English Language Amendment: A case study on language >rights. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1). >Krashen, S. (1992). Sink-or-swim "success stories" and bilingual education. >In J. Crawford (Ed.), Language loyalties: A source book on the official >English controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. >TrasviÑa, J. (1992). Bilingual ballots: Their history and a look forward. In >J. Crawford (Ed.), Language loyalties: A source book on the official English >controversy.> Chicago: University of Chicago Press. >U.S. English. (1992). In defense of our common language. In J. Crawford >(Ed.), Language loyalties: A source book on the official English >controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. >Wright, G. (1992). U.S. English. In J. Crawford (Ed.), Language loyalties: A >source book on the official English controversy. Chicago: University of >Chicago Press. >Updates on the official English debate can be found at >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD. > > > >This report was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational >Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education, under contract no. >RR93002010. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions >or policies of OERI or ED." > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:16:21 EST