Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 23:12:18 -0400
From: TERRY IRONS t.irons[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]MOREHEAD-ST.EDU
Subject: Re: FOR English Only
On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Tom Uharriet wrote:
particular dialect. That is a different issue altogether. English
Only legislation eliminates states' requirements to provide education
and state materials in any language that is spoken (as a native
language) within those states.
... English Only legislation does not discourage
people from using their own dialects. Nor does it prevent one from
learning a second or third language. It simply says that those
states are able to publish in English without being required to make
multiple language versions. Likewise, they can teach in English
without protecting their students from needing to learn this
be able to freely communicate. English Only legislation has nothing
to do with dialects. What is does have to do with is eliminating our
mandated non-expectation of immigrants to learn to communicate as
freely in Standard American English as we do.
Question: who is the "we" above?
English Only legislation is also a veiled position stating that
monolinguals need not learn to communicate as freely in another language
just as its adherents would have non-native speakers of English lects do.
The Equal Protection Clause of one of them-thar emendationments to that
that-thar constituation thang that them guys writ in Anglish whan they
shud of knowed to use some really good langage likes Latin or Iroquois
(and why they din't use Frenchy is beyond me cuz Jefferson writed lots of
stuff in Frenchy) is the impetus underlying multilingual documents and
bilingual education in the US of A (WAVE THAT FLAG HIGH, GOOD OLE BOYS!)
There was some Supreme Court case to that effect. I do not have my
materials on it at home so I cannot give the exact citation. It involved
the Board of Education of San Francisco and the local Chinese community.
For a public institution to fail to communicate to a citizen constitutes
a violation of equal protection before the law. The burden of
communication rests in the public institution, not the five year old who
has grown hearing only Spanish, which has been spoken continuosly on this
continent longer than English. (Or insert Chinese in the above sentence
to get closer to the original case. For dialects and the burden of
communication there is an appellate (I believe) court decision from Ann
But these are facts that are known and I would presume respected by all
members of this list. If not, I humbly say, get the F*** off. SO much
for my flame this week.
My point in raising these facts is this: can state legislation, as the
posting that I cite above suggests, in fact overturn the Supreme Court
decision of 1974 mentioned above. Can a state pass legislation that
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the US
Constitution? English first maybe, but I question that. English Only?
Terry Lynn Irons t.irons[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]msuacad.morehead-st.edu
Voice Mail: (606) 783-5164
Snail Mail: UPO 604 Morehead, KY 40351