English-Only—Yes or No?

Background

The debate over whether or not English should be the official language of the United

States dates back almost to our beginnings. In 1795, a group of settlers from Augusta, Virginia,

who were primarily German speakers asked Congress to print copies of the laws of the new

United States in German so that they could be read by this group of new citizens who did not

understand English. This request set off a fierce debate between those who believed that these

people should learn English and those who believed that the government should provide

information in a form that these new citizens could understand so that they were well informed

of the laws of their new country (Baron, 2005).

This was only the first volley in a battle that continues today. Throughout the first part of

the twentieth century, German-speakers were the primary targets of English-only legislative

proposals and this intolerance was exacerbated by the outbreak of World War I. As we have

moved into the latter part of the century, Asian-Americans and Hispanics have become the

targets of the English-only movement, which argues that a common language is critical to our

national identity. Those who oppose English-only laws point out that diversity in our culture is a

major strength of our nation and that a bilingual population is an asset in our modern, global

environment (Debate Over Bilingualism, 1996).

Education has also become a major field of conflict in this battle. As schools have

struggled to assist non-English-speaking children to be academically successful, bilingual

education programs have been developed. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, legislation was passed and

Federal funds were funneled to assist in the development of bilingual education programs with
the intent to help students learn English and assimilate into American society. In the 1980’s and

1990’s, however, these programs came under fire from those who believed that the intent of the

programs had become to preserve minority languages rather than to help students learn to speak

English (Debate over Bilingualism, 1996).

Another factor contributing to the ferocity of this debate is the charge by those who

oppose English-only legislation that English-only supporters are motivated by racism. This

charge has been made more and more frequently in recent years and has become a stumbling

block for the English-only forces (Crawford, 2001).

At this point, English-only legislation is not a priority for either of our political parties.

Although English only legislation, including a proposed constitutional amendment, have been

introduced in one or both houses in every Congress since 1981, no action has been taken in this

area (Baron, 2005).

Analysis

I see this debate as a struggle between two views of America: one as a melting pot and

the other as a mosaic. Those who favor the melting pot view feel that immigrants who come to

the United States should assimilate and “melt’ into the population, becoming indistinguishable

from every other American. These people see uniformity as a strength in our society and support

English-only legislation. Those who favor the mosaic view see each individual person as a tiny

piece of the American picture. While they add to the beauty of the picture and are critical to the

whole, they maintain their own identity and culture. These people point to diversity as a strength

of our society and oppose English-only proposals.

 English-only proposals may have some advantages. First, if English were the official

language, this would encourage new immigrants to learn and use English more quickly. This

would help them fit into new communities, make friends, and become productive members of

our society. It would also avoid some stereotyping of immigrants and perhaps reduce prejudice

and racism to a certain degree. Next, English-only would save money by eliminating any need

for governments to print materials in multiple languages. It would eliminate the need to fund

bilingual education programs and eliminate the need for multilingual ballots for elections.

Interpreters would no longer be required in the legal system or in the health care industry.

Finally, requiring people to learn and use only English promotes ease of communication and

reduces suspicion created when people speak in another language. If everyone speaks and

understands English, there is much less chance of a miscommunication occurring.

However, there are compelling arguments against the English-only movement. First, an

English-only law for the United States is very likely be ruled unconstitutional. An English-only

law passed in Arizona in 1988 was ruled unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the free

speech protections of the U.S. Constitution. This decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals and their decision was allowed to stand by the United States Supreme Court. A

national English-only law would undoubtedly be challenged on similar grounds (King 2014).

Next, English-only efforts are thinly-veiled attempts to eradicate the culture of non-English

speakers in this country. This idea of cultural invasion is not new in the United States. In the late

eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Native American children were removed from their

homes and placed in white-run schools where they were taught English and the white way of life,

a process which, over time, devastated the culture and language of many Native American tribes.

African slaves, brought to this continent against their will, were also subject to cultural invasion,
with the result that much of their native cultures and languages were eradicated. Over time,

campaigns were waged against other immigrant groups coming to the United States: Germans,

Irish, Italians, Jews, and others, all with the goal to force their assimilation into white, Anglo-

Saxon, English-speaking culture.

Today’s Asian and Hispanic immigrants face a similar campaign to force their

assimilation and the English-only movement is a key piece of that effort. When examined

carefully, English-only groups are often found to have a fear of immigrant groups and racism at

the root of their thinking (King 2014). Their view is that immigrants are a threat to our

“American” way of life. These are not values that we want to uphold in our society. Next, being

bilingual has been shown to improve overall academic performance by students (Debate over

Bilingualism, 1996). Most students from Europe are bilingual to a degree—that is, they know

their native language as well as some English. My experience with exchange students from

European countries has been that they have very good English skills and that their other

academic skills are equally strong. Where is the harm in promoting bilingualism among our

students if it has positive outcomes? Finally, diversity is what makes our nation unique and

therefore stronger. If students in American schools share their classroom with other students

who come from a variety of cultural backgrounds and have an opportunity to learn first-hand

about cultures other than the dominant white culture, this can only serve to sow the seeds of

understanding and tolerance, which are key for the future of our nation in an increasingly global

society.

I would never be in favor of a constitutional amendment making English the official

language of the United States. I believe that diversity, tolerance, and understanding of the

culture of others is a strength in our nation, and that includes the use of a variety of languages.
From the very moment the first Europeans landed on the shores of the North American continent,

we have been a nation of immigrants. This truth has made us a better nation as each immigrant

group brought its own, unique art, culture, literature, food, drink, traditions, and language to this

country and shared these things with the rest of us. This has made us a better nation and a

stronger and more tolerant people. Last month, a photograph went viral on the Internet during

the Little League World Series. The photograph showed two young boys sitting on the ground

with their cell phones, using the technology to communicate because they spoke different

languages. That photo of those two boys gives me hope that all of the hate, racism, and

intolerance that seems to have pervaded our everyday lives in recent months is merely an

illusion, a cloud that can soon be lifted from our lives. Children instinctively want to get to

know people who are different from them. Children do not see color or ethnicity—they see only

another human being. If only the rest of us would try looking at others through the eyes of a

child, the world would be a better place.

 Works Cited

Baron, Dennis. "Official American English Only." PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 2005.

Web.

Crawford, James. "A Nation Divided by One Language." The Guardian. Guardian News and

Media, 08 Mar. 2001. Web.

"Debate Over Bilingualism." CQPress.com. Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 19 Jan. 1996. Web.

King, Robert D. “Should English Be the Law?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 25 Sept.

2014, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/04/should-english-be-the-law/

376825/.

Walenta, Craig. "Constitutional Topic: Official Language - The U.S. Constitution Online."

Constitutional Topic: Official Language - The U.S. Constitution Online -

USConstitution.net. USConstitution.net, 24 Jan. 2010. Web.