Here's
a story about that bastion of tolerance --
Virginia:
A dispute over language at a Wendy's last Thursday comes as the latest reminder that multiculturalism has its limits. Alexandria police say the restaurant's Pakistani manager and cashier attacked a customer with a rake and a pair of hedge trimmers they grabbed from the victims landscaping truck after the man suggested they learn Spanish, in deference to their Spanish-speaking employees and customers.
The comment apparently pushed the wrong cultural buttons for the Pakistanis, said to have been deeply offended by the remark. Now, the pair face felony assault charges for using gardening tools as their reply.
It's easy to sympathize with their frustration, if not their violence. Are native Urdu speakers now expected to learn Spanish, Korean, Farsi, Vietnamese, Hindi and all the other 300 tongues now spoken in the United States just to sell burgers and fries? Couldn't this ugly scene have been avoided if everybody at the Wendy's just spoke English?
I'm surprised that I don't see more in libertarian circles about whether English should be the official language of the United States and whether it is appropriate for government to function multilingually.
I'm all for the English-first movement, for several reasons:
(1) I've seen it in action -- my mother was a German immigrant who spoke not a word of English when she arrived here at the age of 19. Today she doesn't even have an accent.
(2) It is bureaucratically efficient -- a multilingual government is an expensive government.
(3) It's "tough love" -- efforts to "coddle" and cater to non-English speakers in this country, especially children -- are the political equivalent of what psychologists call
enabling, and it doesn't work.
(4) It's fair -- you simply cannot have multilingualism policies without encountering the politics of pull. Stated differently, some foreign languages will receive preference over others.
Here are some more anecdotes, courtesy of
U.S. English.
--"[B]oth the U.S. Department of Education and the Labor Department found that the average English-speaking immigrant earned $40,741, but those stuck with their homeland's language earned just $16,345. The 1999 study eliminated other factors such as education -- meaning
the $24,000 difference is based on language skills alone."
--"Some U.S. highway exit signs near the Canadian border include the French translation (sortie), the Social Security Web site already provides directions in 16 different languages and California offers drivers license forms in 32."
--"In 2002, 36,625 people were served by language interpreters in Virginia criminal cases, at
a cost of $2.7 million to taxpayers. These numbers have almost doubled since 2000 and are expected to keep rising."
--"From 1980 to 1990, Canada's dual-language requirement cost a minimum of $6.7 billion. Canada is one-tenth the population of the United States and spent that amount accommodating only two languages. A similar dual-language policy would cost the United States more than $60 billion over 10 years. Depending on the exact number of languages accommodated of the total 329, these Canadian calculations take the price tag of official multilingualism in the United States up to $10 billion per year, $100 billion over 10 years."
--"In 1994, the IRS printed and distributed 500,000 copies of 1040 forms and instruction booklets in Spanish and manned an 800-number hotline with Spanish-speakers.
Of the half-million forms distributed, only 718 were returned. The total cost of the Spanish forms was $113,000, bringing the cost of each completed form to $157. The IRS is considering expanding this service to other languages."
--"In July 1993, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) conducted
a U.S. citizenship swearing-in ceremony almost entirely in Spanish."
There are many more examples at the
U.S. English website.
Of course, there are undoubtedly many people who use the English-first movement as a cloak to vent anti-Hispanic bigotry. That's unfortunate. And there is a difference between English-
first and English-
only. The latter makes no sense. If Univision or Telemundo can make a profit, then good for them. If a store merchant in an ethnic neighborhood wants to display his signage in a foreign language, he of course has every right to do so.
And yes, there might be some
sui generis examples where even public facilities should be multilingual,
but only because it is economically efficient to do so (e.g., airports).
But if you want to vote, or drive a car, or attend a public school, or sue in a court (i.e., if you want to function
as a citizen or future citizen), then you should have to play by the rules -- and the rulebook is printed in English.
UPDATE: Here's
a related (sad) story regarding bilingual education in California, courtesy of
Pathetic Eathlings --
[Netflix CEO] Reed Hastings lost his seat on the state Board of Education on Wednesday when the Senate Rules Committee refused to forward his name to the full Senate for reappointment.
...
Hastings, a Democrat who speaks English and Spanish, lost his bid for confirmation when the three Democrats on the panel voted against him or abstained, purportedly over bilingual education. ...Those opposed to his reappointment represented several groups supporting classroom instruction in a student's native language, a practice that has dwindled since California voters approved Proposition 227 in 1998 requiring instruction in English unless a school wins a waiver. Hastings, who opposed Prop. 227, later became an ardent supporter when test scores of English learners soared in California.
Neither money, nor résumé, nor common sense, nor loyalty to the Democratic Party will spare you the wrath of the bilingualists if you dare suggest that students in American schools actually be taught in English. Where's Schwarzenegger when you need him?
Related Posts:"I Would Whip Them Hard for That"Lingua Arabica?