Most national language policies are not just “hey let’s symbolically say that English is the most commonly taught language and leave it at that.” Most national language policies, part of the immigration debate, are better termed “English-only” policies which stigmatize and could potentially harm minority workers.
And no, America does not currently have a single national language. The Senate has voted for “English as a national language” amendments twice, in 2006 and again in 2007, but the legislation they were attached to (Comprehensive Immigration Reform/CIR) failed to pass.
Another piece of national language legislation that nearly passed was a bill that would have blocked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from suing employers that required workers to speak only English while on the job, even when not justified by a business necessity. So, for example, this “national language” legislation would have allowed an employer to, say, fire a Korean gardener for not being sufficiently English proficient, even though this “proficiency” would have nothing to do with the worker’s ability to perform.
In case you’re not familiar with discrimination law, the “bona fide occupational qualification” part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states the following:
Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibit discrimination because of:
- Race
- Color
- Religion
- Sex
- National origin
- Age
The bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense is available only in cases of discrimination because of:
- Religion
- Sex
- National origin
- Age
A BFOQ is an appropriate legal defense for behavior that would otherwise be considered discrimination. So, for example, it’s legal to impose a certain retirement age on airline pilots. What Title VII stated, however, was that race is never a BFOQ. This “national language legislation,” then, would contradict the original nature of the Civil Rights Act, which states that there is no acceptable reason to discriminate based on race.
Before you say “oh, but discrimination based on language isn’t discrimination based on race” - the two are the same. Let’s be real here, the people who are going to be hurt by this legislation are going to be pretty much exclusively minorities. And yes, that’s still employment discrimination - there are two main kinds of employment discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment is law that straight out discriminates against a protected class (such as a racial minority), whereas disparate impact is law that does not discriminate in its language, but functionally discriminates/has a “disparate impact” on a protected class.
47.5 million people in the United States (17.5% of the population) speak a non-English language in their homes. Most of these people are US citizens or otherwise here legally, work full time, and are tax payers. Many of these adults are also incredibly willing to learn English, but the funds devoted to adult ESL classes are somewhere between paltry and miniscule. So, if we were to pass “national language” legislation like the EEOC bill I mentioned before, we would be created an inescapable trap where non-English speaking adults can’t learn English, but they can be legally discriminated against for their lack of English proficiency.
So sure, I have no problem saying that most people in the US speak English, and that most schools in the US teach in English. To say otherwise would indicate a fundamental disconnect with reality. We don’t need legislation to reaffirm something to basic, just like we don’t need legislation to establish that grass is green, that our flag is red, white, and blue, or that a guitar is a musical instrument. We especially don’t need legislation to decide the matter when there are so many possible negative consequences, Let’s not confuse that, however, with national language legislation.
Sorry for the long explanation, this shit is relevant to my major/interests.
(Comic via xkcd, Title VII summary via Law Memo)
I’ve gotten a couple questions about my take on the national language question tonight, so I’m reblogging my previous explanation.
