Steak Wit, por favor?

  Each day Americans use hundreds of words and phrases that originate from other languages and other cultures.  Whether it is “E Pluribus Unum” or sushi, America’s diversity is expressed every day through the words we use to articulate ourselves. Some consider language the glue that binds the people of this nation together while others see it as the barrier that separates classes from each other.

  Experts speculate that as much as 97% of the U.S. population speaks some English.  The complexity and depth of English is constantly being enriched by the influx of varying racial and ethnic backgrounds immigrants provide.  Indeed this newsletter runs a regular segment entitled “The Queens English” in an attempt to clarify how to use the English language to communicate effectively as the language continues to evolve. Of the 1,000 most frequently words used it is estimated that one-third of them are French in origin. This raises the questions about the purity of the English language as it is spoken in the United Sates.  What does that mean for English-only initiatives?  Should English refer to the “Queen’s English” or would English-only laws allow much of the modern vocabulary that has its etymological roots in foreign vernaculars?  Some might argue that the language used by the locals to order food from those windows in South Philadelphia is not English.

  The debate about English-only initiatives has raged in one form or another for much of this country’s history.  In America’s early days, multiple languages often co-existed. The Continental Congress printed many documents, including the Articles of Confederation, in German and English.  An 1837 Pennsylvania law required school instruction in both German and English.  California was officially bilingual for its first 30 years, and printed its first state constitutional proceedings in both Spanish and English.  During the 1870s, however, restrictive language legislation became prevalent.  In the South, native-born, English-speaking African American men had to pass a literacy requirement in order to vote.  An Anti-Chinese Party led California’s second constitutional convention to ratify the state’s first English-only provisions.   During the 1920s, many Midwestern states passed legislation that barred schools from teaching German as a result of anti-German sentiment lingering from WWI.  

  The courts and eventually the United States Congress stepped in and reversed this pattern of language restriction.  In 1923 the U.S. Supreme Court nullified these restrictive laws in the case of Meyer v.  Nebraska.  The Court wrote, “The protection of the Constitution extends to all; to those who speak other languages as well as those born with English on the tongue.” The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, ruled that instruction solely in English deprives students of an understanding of the curriculum and of an equal opportunity in education.  In 1968, Congress, looking for new ways to educate minority youth, enacted the Bilingual Education Act. 

  Apparently no one has been denied a steak at Genos’s for ordering in something other than English, despite several attempts by local radio stations.  But the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations alleges that the policy at Geno’s discourages customers of certain backgrounds from eating there and thus is discriminatory and possibly in violation of a local Fair Practices Ordinance. 

  English-only proponents argue that English-only laws would result in greater national cohesion due to commonality of language, and they point to recent political upheavals over language that have torn apart Canada, Belgium and Sri Lanka as justification for supporting such an initiative. English-only supporters contend that bilingual education slows the process of assimilation among children and creates racial and ethnic enclaves that increase tensions among diverse groups.   Many English-only proponents consider bilingual and multilingual initiatives linguistic welfare, while they seek the passage of official language statutes on both  Posted in General / Opinion  |  Leave a comment