Viewing Page: 1 | 2 | 3 Next >>>

Language as Oppression: The English Only Movement in the United States

By Andrew Hartman

The hegemonic power of capital¾sometime visible, sometimes invisible¾propagates an increasing gravitation to English as the common global language. The spread of English seems to be analogous to the spread of capitalism. Within the United States¾the country most responsible for the global expansion of capital, following in the footsteps of imperial Britain¾resides the largest population of native English-speakers of any country. Despite the huge influx of non-English-speakers from the global South and East since the 1965 Immigration Act (which relaxed earlier restrictions), the domination of English in the United States is not threatened; according to the 1990 census, 97% of U.S. residents speak English "well" or "very well." The 2000 census revealed that, while there has been a growing percentage of non-English-speaking immigration, rates of English fluency are on the rise. In 1990, E.J. Hobsbawm labeled a movement to declare English the official language of the United States "absurd" and wrote: ". the idea that the supremacy of English in the USA is, or is likely to be, in jeopardy, is political paranoia."1 The absurdity of such a notion notwithstanding, the English-only movement gained momentum in the 1990s and, according to some opinion studies, is currently supported by over 80% of the body politic.2

So widely popular a movement is bound to enjoy legislative successes. Recently, Iowa became the twenty-fourth state to mandate English as its official language. Citizens in English-only states must interact with their local and state governments using only English (this includes voting)¾a startling development. However, the movement has more far-reaching implications. The structure of education for non-English-speakers is being dramatically altered across the country due to the English-only movement and the resulting backlash against bilingualism and bilingual education. The pedagogical implications of such a trend are dangerous; most serious research supports bilingual instruction as the best means to advance language skills, thus enhancing long-term English acquisition.

This paper is not a pedagogical analysis, although pedagogical issues are an important aspect of my research. Rather, this essay is an attempt to explain why the agenda of the English-only movement emerged on the American political landscape in the 1980s, and why English-only notions garner widespread support among Americans.

The English-only movement has its roots in the historical racism and white supremacy of the United States. This does not mean, however, that it can be understood in the same way as an overtly racist group like the Ku Klux Klan. Those who support the English-only movement do not typically classify themselves as racist. The KKK never achieved widespread legitimacy and could only dream of an 80% approval rating. Many liberals support the English-only movement and obviously do not understand it to be racist. But this does not discount racism as a root of the English-only movement; rather, it demands a more complex analysis of U.S. racism. Such an analysis should account for the racism of American liberalism, historically rooted in Enlightenment ideology, and should also take into account two other Enlightenment legacies¾ colonialism and capitalism¾and their continued roles in American society.

The ideology of the English-only movement is constructed upon a well-worn national mythology. In 1995 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Language of Government Act (later defeated in the Senate), intended to mandate English as the only language of the federal government. During the Senate hearings, American nationalist diatribe was prominently on display. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich decried bilingualism as a "menace to American civilization" and Senator Richard Shelby denounced opponents of English-only legislation as threatening the "sovereignty and integrity of this nation."3 Miroslava Vukelich, an immigrant and proponent of the English-only movement, speaking before the committee, used language similar to conservative columnist George Will, who wrote of "the connection between the English language and American liberty."4 Vukelich said:

I still believe in America and Thomas Jefferson's one government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Like the Statue of Liberty, English is a tool for unification, a symbol of liberty and justice for all. Having an official language policy will not in any way harm the land of the free.5

In the historical formation of nations, the construction of a comm.on language has been one of the essential tricks the elites have played on the masses to forge "commonalities."6 A classic Winston Churchill quote epitomizes the myth of language and its importance in regard to nation: "The gift of a common language is a nation's most priceless inheritance."7 This myth is especially important to those who benefit from an American "nation"-a "nation" lacking the real or perceived common ethnicities that facilitated European nation-building.

The role of language in the formation of the imagined communities now known as nations must not be underestimated. One common element in nationalist ideology, as explained by Benedict Anderson, has been the "primordial fatality of particular languages and their association with particular territorial units."8 While this formula is more aptly applied to the historical nation-building programs of Europe, it is very relevant to current discourse in the U.S. It is assumed that people north of the arbitrary border that divides Mexico and the United States will speak English if they are to be considered members of the arbitrary and imagined community that is the Unites States of America.

For many Americans, the symbolism of the English language has become a form of civic religiosity in much the same vein as the flag. This symbolism is not new; it can be found in the words of Theodore Roosevelt:

We must have but one flag. We must also have but one language. That must be the language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington's farewell address, of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and second inaugural.9

Similarly, US English-the largest and oldest organization supporting the English-only movement-proclaims in its mission statement: "The eloquence [of the English language] shines in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It is the living carrier of our democratic ideals."10

While proponents of the English-only movement commonly invoke the original institutions of the American nation and its surrounding mythology, opponents of the movement have fertile grounds for a historical rebut. The Constitution makes no mention of language. The new American elite of the revolution-self-interested and distrustful of monarchical forces that regularly sought monolingual policies-did not seek a national policy on language. Jefferson viewed language as a pragmatic tool rather than an ideological symbol; the standardization of English became a cultural hegemonic process- comparable to the current global process-rather than a specific political agenda. The new nation welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees from the French Revolution and did not try to force English upon them. An English-only nation was not the original nationalist goal.11

The framers' views on language, however, are less important than their doctrines of freedom. Before a citizenry comes to identify the English language with freedom, it must embrace freedom itself as something more than an abstract myth. A population sold on this myth is one of the primary achievements of the American nationalist program; freedom is assumed as self-evident in the United States. The English-only rhetoric in relation to the immigrant experience underlies these assumptions, for it is assumed that immigrants who learn English and assimilate to American mainstream culture will share in the mythical freedom enjoyed by all U.S. citizens.

There are countless instances of immigrants who discovered that freedom was nothing more than an empty promise. Among the more damning cases was the experience of the Chinese in the nineteenth century. Hundreds of thousands of them, brought in to build the railroads, endured backbreaking labor at gunpoint, pitiful wages, and continuous attacks, including many cases of mob violence. Twenty-eight Chinese were massacred in Rock Springs, Wyoming during the summer of 1885.12 American history is full of horror stories such as this; the life of the immigrant was rife with dangerous conditions, restrictive of their freedom.

During World War I, in a time of increased awareness of the dilemmas posed by immigration, Theodore Roosevelt described his concerns:

We cannot tolerate any attempt to oppose or supplant the language and culture that has come down to us through the builders of the Republic with the language and culture of any European country. The greatness of this country depends on the swift assimilation of the aliens she welcomes to her shores. Any force which attempts to retard that assimilative process is a force hostile to the highest interests of our country.13

Mauro Mujica, president of US English, spoke at the 1995 Senate hearings on the Language of Government Act. Mujica, himself an immigrant, evoked the longstanding traditional notion of English as a tool for climbing the social ladder:

It is only through English fluency that immigrants can achieve the American dream. Only a common language can preserve the tradition of diversity in America. Immigrants come here to build better lives. English opens the door to that new life.14

Linda Chavez, member of the Reagan administration and former president of US English, said, "Hispanics who learn English will be able to avail themselves of opportunities."15 Immigrants receive the following message over and over again: "Talk like us and you will succeed like us." The message of Horatio Alger's Rags to Riches endures, regardless of facts.

Underlying the message of immigrant opportunity following language acquisition is the longstanding myth of the melting pot-a myth cultivated by generations of historians who portrayed the American narrative as the saga of a single people. Although scholars who recognized the distinct, and often conflicting, experiences that constitute American immigrant history have largely discredited this absurd image,16 the English-only movement testifies to its continuing influence. Through the lens of this fraudulent ideology, the downside of the American melting pot (loss of language and culture) is more than made up for by the upside (social mobility). Economist Lowell Galloway, testifying before the Senate, argued for English-only legislation by citing higher poverty rates among those who don't speak English. But his argument does not measure other factors that might account for higher poverty in these populations, including higher poverty rates for all Latinos in the U.S., regardless of what language or languages they speak. In fact, mastery of English is not an accurate predictor of social mobility among the Latino population. Surprisingly, Latinos who speak only English fare economically worse than those who speak no English. Spanish language skills offer Latinos a cultural, social, and economic community. Latinos who lose the benefits of the Spanish-speaking community do not gain reciprocal rewards from the American English-speaking community.17

Immigrant opportunity is an American national myth that, despite a great deal of contrary evidence, is alive and well. Integral to this myth are the assimilative qualities of the English language. But if English acquisition and resulting assimilation do not necessarily produce social mobility, why does this mythology persist? How can it justify the English-only movement? If it is true that English is not threatened in the United States, why does the English-only movement garner huge support and continue to push for legislative change? In order to answer these important questions, it is necessary to delve beyond the rhetoric of the English-only movement and examine its racist roots. Such an examination might reveal a level of complicity most Americans are unwilling to recognize.

Prior to labeling the English-only movement a racist pheno- menon, a working definition of racism is in order. Colonial theorist Albert Memmi's study of racism and his concluding definition will serve this purpose: "Racism is the generalized and final assigning of values to real or imaginary differences, to the accuser's benefit and at his victim's expense, in order to justify the former's own privileges or aggression."18 After further review, it will become obvious that the English-only movement and its organizations match Memmi's criteria and are in fact racist. As noted by Raul Yzaguirre, president of the National Council of La Raza: "US English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks."19

English-only supporters deny the movement is racist. Their claim is that English-only legislation and pedagogy will empower rather than victimize non-English-speakers. If they highlight language differences, it is in a spirit of benevolence. To them, English is a "common bond" that allows people of diverse backgrounds to overcome differences and reach mutual understanding-a theory particularly seductive to liberals. Increased English language acquisition is the movement's stated primary goal. Unfortunately, the English-only movement's non-racist claims are seriously undermined by their systematic attacks on bilingual education. If English acquisition were indeed their mission, the English-only movement would not partake in these attacks.

Ron Unz, the foremost anti-bilingual advocate, chairman of English for the Children, and the bilingual partisans' self-designated "personal Bin Laden,"20 states that bilingual education "destroyed the lives of millions upon millions of students." In an October 2001 debate with bilingual theorist and Harvard professor Catherine Snow, Unz opportunistically continued his attack on bilingual education and bilingual educators:

A few weeks ago, Americans witnessed the enormous devastation that a small handful of fanatically committed individuals can wreak upon society. Perhaps it is now time for ordinary Americans to be willing to take a stand against those similarly tiny groups of educational terrorists in our midst, whose disastrous policies are enforced upon us not by bombs or even knives, but simply by their high-pitched voices. Americans must remain silent no longer.21

Unz and his organization have been instrumental in dismantling bilingual education programs. California's Anti-Bilingual Education Initiative (Proposition 227)-passed by 61% to 39%-placed over 500,000 students lacking English proficiency in mainstream, English-only classrooms to fend for themselves. Unz and other anti-bilingual proponents claim English skills are improving among California's Limited English Proficient (LEP) students thanks to Proposition 227, and use faulty scholarship to justify this claim. Unz argues¾and a New York Times editorial parroted his line of argument¾that the increase in state-mandated standardized test scores among LEPs is due to Proposition 227. Stanford researcher Kenji Hakuta countered Unz and the Times piece by attributing the increase in test scores to other factors. Hakuta reasoned that all groups of students improved their test scores due to the increased standardization of instruction. In other words, more time is spent "teaching to the test." He argued that the test itself is a poor measure of English development because the test is geared to gauge native English speakers, not LEPs.22

Serious pedagogical research supports bilingual education as the best means to learn English. A long-term national study has documented higher student achievement in bilingual classrooms than in transitional English as second language (ESL) classrooms or immersion (English-only) classrooms.23 In her debate with Unz, Snow cited research showing that "learning English faster does not equal learning English better."24 The level of a person's language skills will only be as advanced as the level of his or her first language. According to researcher Stephen Krashen, "The knowledge that children get through their first language helps make the English they hear and read more comprehensible. Literacy developed in the primary language transfers to the second language."25 Abstract thinking skills, such as those ideally practiced in social science classrooms, must first be nurtured in a student's native language. Children who are immersed and mainstreamed in English-only classrooms prior to developing abstract language skills will only learn functional English. Functional English may be all that is required to enable them, as adults, to work the monotonous semi-skilled jobs that the market demands, but it hinders these future citizens from learning how to think abstractly; which in turn limits their ability to address societal problems.

Racist ideology cannot be supported; it is not a theory, but rather, as Memmi pointed out, a pseudo-theory. Much like the "theories" that propelled the so-called scientific classifications of intelligence according to race, the theories behind the English-only movement are virtually free from the constraints of fact, but their social and political consequences are enormous. What are these consequences? Memmi argues that elitism desires a seal of approval. The English-only movement offers just this for English-speakers. With English granted elite status, native speakers of other tongues are assigned both real and imaginary differences-a necessary feature of racist ideology. This is merely the beginning of the aggression that racist ideology justifies-aggression that manifests itself in a variety of ways.26

In order to understand the racism of the elite English speakers, it is helpful to understand the so-called "Ebonics" debate. In December 1996 the Oakland, California school board passed a resolution in order to, as it determined, "change the racist schooling of African-Americans." Teachers in Oakland were being prepared to understand the linguistic differences between themselves and their students, a large portion of whom were African-American. The measure considered African-American patterns of speech to be more than a dialect; it recognized that African-Americans speak differently because of a long history of cultural and political segregation. A national consensus against the measure erupted, a backlash spurred by the mainstream media.27 The New York Times editorialized that "Ebonics" was "black slang," the "patois of many low-income blacks," and denounced the Oakland school board.28 The media dismissed "Ebonics" by assuming that it is nothing more than an accent and also theorizing that the Oakland school board was merely looking to acquire extra federal funding earmarked for bilingual education. Rachel Jones wrote in Newsweek, "Frankly, I'm still longing for a day when more young blacks born in poverty will subscribe to my personal philosophy. my mastery of standard English gave me a power that no one can take away from me."29

Viewing Page: 1 | 2 | 3 Next >>>