The Language Gap As A Handicap?

The following is an essay I wrote in April concerning a series of articles on America's English-only debate.

English dominates the United States as the nation’s de facto language of commerce and entertainment. Although scattered pockets of non-English speakers and nods to “cultural diversity” fragment the language’s cultural reign, it is otherwise monolithic in its influence. Robert D. King’s “Should English Be the Law?” S. I. Hayakawa’s “Bilingualism in America: English Should Be the Official Language,” Greg Lewis’ “An Open Letter to Diversity’s Victims,” and Myriam Marquez’s “Why and When We Speak Spanish in Public” use well-reasoned arguments to explore the role English plays in American life as well as the extent (if any) languages such as Spanish threaten its supremacy. King and Marquez argue that the English-speaking majority is in no danger and should accommodate non-English speakers. Lewis and Hayakawa argue that non-English speakers should adapt to the mainstream for their own good as well as that of the masses. Each brings so many different views to the discussion that a reader may easily support making English mandatory in public schools while simultaneously opposing a law making English the official language of the United States.

For instance, King frames his argument with histories of the Official English movement and of other national languages, balancing his own observations in such a way that they could seem indifferent were it not for the nine pages leading to his proposed solution: “Benign neglect is a good policy for any country when it comes to language, and it’s a good policy for America.” Lewis is keen to report such facts as California’s English-only education substantially improving Hispanic elementary students’ grades, but he is blunter in his assessment of administrators who supported the earlier system of bilingual education (“liberal educational segregationists,” he calls them); he is downright quarrelsome when he segues into a tangent involving Ebonics and employment. Marquez is the most personable of the quartet, largely due to a first-person narrative drawn from her life as an Hispanic in America. The most reasonably passionate is Hayakawa. He has no difficulty providing data similar to Lewis’, but he also supplies his own experiences as an American, a son of immigrants, and a politician. Sentences such as “As a former resident of California, I am completely familiar with a system that uses two official languages, and I would not advise any nation to move in such a direction unless forced to do so” provide introductions for his essay’s supporting details.

One of those details cited by Hayakawa is the extensive use of English in India, arguably because the country would be in a multilingual muddle otherwise. This answers King’s contention that “India gets along pretty well with a host of different languages,” a rather bold remark considering how King adds that “English functions more nearly than Hindi as India’s lingua franca” without addressing why. This is probably because King regards languages as nothing compared to the “unique otherness” of a nation’s dominant character: his other example of multilingualism, Switzerland, is actually further removed from American size, population, and culture than India, but it possesses a solid cultural identity that enables it to function well with four different languages. However, his appears to be a minority view. Hayakawa, Marquez, and Lewis presume that language is a key component of cultural identity.

So while King suggests that “America has that unique otherness,” Hayakawa suggests it means nothing if Americans cannot communicate that “otherness” to one another. Hayakawa writes, “While it is certainly true that our love of freedom and devotion to democratic principles help to unite and give us a mutual purpose, it is English, our common language, that enables us to discuss our views and allows us to maintain a well-informed electorate, the cornerstone of a democratic government.” The argument is that America is a nation of immigrants, and “English unites us as American-immigrants and native-born alike.” Marquez strongly resists the notion that one must speak English to become culturally American, yet concedes that when she and her family speak Spanish it is because they wish to maintain ties to their ancestral culture, indicating that language is in fact very important to social integration. Lewis proposes that the reason behind American bilingual education is that Hispanic children should not have to learn English because they “are at risk for losing their cultural identity” by learning English. Hayakawa tones that notion down to merely say that bilingual education sometimes comes “dangerously close” to making avoidance of English the main goal, a declaration that still seeks to undermine claims that English’s presence in America is secure. King admits that “in much of the world, ethnic unity and cultural identification are routinely defined by language,” so it is fair to ask whether it is wrong for Americans to define Americanism as including English speech.

France is a major example of national identity through language, as President Chirac recently highlighted when he stormed out of a summit after a fellow countryman favored English and refused to do a presentation in French. Note that France maintains the Académie Française, a government entity devoted to preventing the “corrupting forces” of foreign language. Should French be law? Does a language spoken by a clear majority justify creating law to ostracize speakers of a minority language and thereby restrict their freedom to express themselves in whatever way they can? Thomas Jefferson observed, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Like King, Marquez contends, “From its inception, [the United States] was careful not to promote a government-mandated official language.” Perhaps the reality is English’s influence in American culture is not absolute, and that is not necessarily a negative value. There are non-English speakers living in the United States who may be unwilling to learn the language due to age, disinterest, or situation, but they are capable of exercising their rights as Americans.

Countering that last thought is the observation that they cannot exercise their rights as well as English speakers. Both sides of the debate offer variations on the idea that exclusively speaking a foreign language is crippling in American society. King writes, “It has always been taken for granted that English is the national language, and that one must learn English in order to make it in America.” Indeed, Lewis argues that “To succeed in America—with a number of relatively minor although often highly visible exceptions—it’s important to speak, read, and understand English as most Americans speak it.” Hayakawa reports how many Hispanic students fail academically in America because they were not taught English from the start. Marquez concurs that “to get ahead here, one must learn English.” There is agreement that the language gap is a hindrance for the minority, so the real issue is one of correcting that imbalance.

Please recall that King sides with leaving the matter to correct itself. Marquez appears to support government assistance for those who speak little or no English, as when she references voting ballots for German speakers in 19th century Pennsylvania. This is an especially sore point for Hayakawa, who notes that contemporary efforts to do the same target only those who are not white (since Caucasians are “presumed to be able to learn English without difficulty”) and ignore that there are already ways to achieve the same end (absentee ballots, translators allowed at voting booths, etc.). His solution is to use bilingualism solely for teaching students enough English to enter regular classes within two years of their educations. Lewis’ position is simply that teaching Standard English is imperative to allowing all citizens the opportunity to succeed, and “those who promote ‘diversity’” are to blame for denying many linguistic minorities that opportunity.

That brings to mind an interesting political juxtaposition among the articles. Lewis repeatedly warns on how "liberals who still blindly support bilingual education are condemning a significant portion of Spanish-speaking children to second-class economic citizenship.” There are strong words in the sentence: ‘blindly,’ ‘condemning,’ ‘second-class,’ and they all point to ‘liberals.’ King is the only one to note that many liberals supported English-only measures (including Bill Clinton, though he later expressed regret) and many conservatives opposed them (including George W. Bush). Marquez offers no blatantly political comment whatsoever, and Hayakawa focuses his attention on the perceived failures of specific U.S. legislators and his expectations for U.S. legislators in general.

Politicians are expected to act in the best interests of their constituencies, but practical considerations also play a role. As Marquez illustrates in her interactions at home and in public, there is no linguistic takeover of America planned, there is no disrespect toward English intended, and knowing one language does not preclude the learning of another. So why should others care for an official language? More to the point, why should others pay for it? King reports that laws in Quebec kept imported goods for Passover off the shelves because they were not labeled in French. Marquez and King both point to many bilingual immigrant parents who complain about how their children are failing to learn their parents’ tongue. Consider that a claim that English’s presence in America is secure. Hayakawa’s condemnation of government bilingualism as expensive is well-taken, particularly when he draws attention to the likelihood of it costing Americans billions, but he neglects to mention the costs of uniformly enforcing any English-only law; he then claims that recognizing Spanish as well as English as official languages would open the door for the multitude of other languages spoken in the U.S. though he does not explain why creating one official language cannot have the same effect. Lewis insists that “Membership in [racial or ethnic or cultural] groups is reductive” and Americans should devote their energies to “truly positive and universal values” instead, but the idea of citizens using their individuality to contribute to society is unenforceable. It is a noble but nebulous concept. The people rather than the government must bring about the change.

The overall effect of these four articles is the feeling that English merits becoming a requirement in U.S. public schools, but that using law to enforce any language is highly questionable. Lewis and Hayakawa are right to acknowledge that being able to communicate with all quarters of society is advantageous through a shared language. King and Marquez are less persuasive in their marginalization of that idea, but they touch on the overriding matter that making English law is essentially a means of regulating speech. All make apparent that there is a language gap in America and that every American in some sense bears the chore of reconciling the sides.