In principle, English-only laws counter the beliefs of freedom that this country was founded upon. A legitimate argument could be made for that.
But in practice, these English-only laws, in some cases, facilitate the advancement of non-English-speaking minorities in this country. To see that though, it’s important to look at things not in terms of English or non-English, but in terms of opportunity.
It’s very easy to fall victim to the assumption that English-only laws are simply exclusionary measures written by politicians with nationalistic motives. By examining the effects of the laws, it is clear that they simply encourage non-English speakers to learn English. It is important to understand that encouraging the use of the English language is not the same as trying to suppress the use of another language. By learning English, immigrants have the ability to become informed, productive citizens who can in turn become sovereign voters, allowing them to fully participate in the democratic process in the U.S.
In order for this to happen, however, there needs to be an effective system in place for non-English speakers to learn English.
As of right now, Arizona’s public schools require students who are not proficient in English to take, on a daily basis, at least four hours of classes that are taught strictly in English. This is known more commonly as the Structured English Immersion system, a result of English-only laws. Before the start of the 2009 fiscal year, the four-hour requirement had not been put in place.
According to a 2007 report by Arizona’s Office of the Auditor General, only 7 percent of the 8,700 students in the state’s language immersion programs had achieved full proficiency by the end of the 2007 fiscal year, “and most of them had been in the program for at least two years. Between fiscal years 2006 and 2007, nearly two-thirds of the students remained at the same proficiency level or regressed.”
These results were achieved using the bilingual system, the technique that preceded the immersion system. In the bilingual system the courses are taught in English, but resources are provided in foreign languages to help students follow along.
Even though in 2009 the Supreme Court ruled in Horne v. Flores that Structured English Immersion was a much more effective system than the outdated bilingual system, opponents of English-only legislation, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, still consider the ruling to be a violation of First Amendment rights on the grounds that this teaching technique is “inconsistent with both the First Amendment right to communicate with or petition the government, and the right to equality,” according to the ACLU Web site.
In principle there may be a case in which English-only laws are unconstitutional, but at the same time, the issue of impracticality must be considered.
It would be a waste of time and resources to make accommodations for every speaker of each of the hundreds of the languages spoken in this country. Since a mastery of the English language is a skill that every American should have anyway, why make it harder for non-English speakers to develop that skill by opposing English-only legislation?
Cullen Wheatley is a journalism junior. He can be reached at cmwheatl@asu.edu
