Post-Gazette Editorial – 5/24/06

This page was last updated on May 27, 2006.

Language barrier / Americans should not be divided by how they speak; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; May 24, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Congress is considering legislation to declare English as America’s national language, an issue that returned when the debate over U.S. immigration policy produced the idea among some that the national anthem should be sung in Spanish as well.”

[RWC] The editorial conveniently forgot to mention the Spanish version of The Star-Spangled Banner was more than a translation; it was a rewrite.

“Members of Congress, desperately seeking a topic on which to focus the public’s attention and distract it from corrupt incumbents and the Iraq war, spotted the national language issue. The Senate thus passed two measures last week that declare English as the nation’s dominant language -- a matter that would have to be negotiated with the House.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note neither of these amendments to S.B. 2611 had any effect in law. They were simply “feel good” amendments.

“English as a national language is a complex matter, however, which is another reason to resist codifying it in law.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. We shouldn’t tackle “complex matters?” Besides, it’s not complex.

To show how ridiculous this position is, consider the following. What’s more complex than founding a country? Yet, our founders did so in a concise document we call the U.S. Constitution.

“For one thing, the United States needs to embrace, rather than shun, foreign languages. Americans’ record on speaking other languages is appalling, despite the foreign challenges posed by trade, security and the nation’s role as a superpower. Foreign Policy magazine reports that 92 percent of American college students don’t even study a foreign language. A Roper poll showed that 60 percent of Americans between 18 and 24 couldn’t find Iraq on the map; three-quarters of them couldn’t locate Israel.”

[RWC] What does having an official national language have to do with Americans not learning foreign languages?

Of course, the editorial never addresses the use of a foreign language. Lest we forget, English is the international language of air travel, business, engineering, and science. There’s a reason foreigners learn English at a higher rate than Americans learn other languages. It’s because if you want to get anywhere, you’re way ahead of the game if you understand English regardless of your native country.

What does an inability to speak a foreign language have to do with geography ignorance? In my day, you could “find Iraq on a map” and “locate Israel” at least by the time you graduated eighth grade. Unless my memory is mistaken, at that time I couldn’t speak any foreign languages, especially Hebrew or any of the native languages spoken in Iraq. My experience was in a Catholic grade school. Perhaps things are different in government-run schools.

“While the desire to legislate English as America’s national language is a blind and unthinking chauvinism that can lurch into racism, some advocates make a financial argument. It’s true that if a significant portion of American residents knows a language other than English, accommodations must be made in schools, human services and other government agencies -- and that costs money. Whether the efforts are made in Washington, D.C., to integrate numbers of Vietnamese or in the Pittsburgh Public Schools to accommodate Somalis resettled here, it requires public resources.”

[RWC] A desire to have a single official national language “is a blind and unthinking chauvinism that can lurch into racism?” Sounds like the author has been listening to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). This is a standard liberal tactic. When you can’t argue an issue on merits, accuse your opponents of racism, bigotry, et cetera.

If you want to see what a mess is caused by two languages, live in Canada for a while, especially Quebec.

“Even so, the legislation is unnecessary. Immigrants to the United States know quite well that not speaking English is a ferocious handicap in trying to obtain higher-paying employment. They also must be able to speak, read and write English to become U.S. citizens. Second, those who advocate such legislation forget a very important part of American history. Although many of our forbears arrived in the United States not speaking English, did it take legislation for their children to learn the language to get ahead?”

[RWC] The requirement to “to speak, read and write English” appears to be BS. I checked the Immigration and Naturalization website and learned the following.

First, the reading test is nothing more than reading a bunch of simple English sentences. There is no requirement that you understand what you read. I can read a bunch of Italian sentences, but that doesn’t mean I understand what I read.

Second, if a working ability to communicate in English were a real requirement, why are the other tests, like the history test, available in Chinese, Spanish, et cetera?

Third, if a working ability to communicate in English were a requirement, why must voting ballots be provided in foreign languages?

Regarding our forbears, they had no choice but to learn English. They didn’t have the crutches provided today by government and businesses. For example, I don’t recall seeing any bilingual ballots and store signs in German, Italian, Polish, et cetera. I don’t recall TV shows being shown foreign languages.

“It is hard to imagine that Congress cannot find a better use of its time, faced with formidable economic and national security issues, than to bother with such a fundamentally trivial issue.”

[RWC] As I noted above, live in Canada for a while and then tell me a single official national language is “a fundamentally trivial issue.”