Legislating language in the name of national unity

English-only in context: A brief overview

Contrary to popular belief, at no point throughout American history has the United States had a national language. ¹⁰ Despite legislative attempts in both chambers of Congress to pass measures making English the national language, to date all have failed. In 1907, for instance, President Theodore Roosevelt expressed his thoughts on the matter, noting, “we have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house.” ¹¹ However, despite President Roosevelt’s urging, Congress did not secure any such legislative victory. Whether cloaked under the ambiguous veil of “national unity,” “assimilation,” ¹² “common sense,” or otherwise, efforts to secure the legal “preservation” of the English language continues to capture the imagination of legislators and constituents who believe a unifying language, especially amidst increasing immigration trends, is needed to preserve and enhance our “American” way of life. While efforts at the federal level have produced no favorable results for proponents, attempts at the state level to make English the sole and official language of all “official government interactions” and publications reveal a different story.

Attempts by state legislatures, particularly during World War I and onward, gained considerable ground as the nation’s fear over all things deemed “foreign,” especially German, grew tremendously. ¹³ During the first half of the twentieth century, many states enacted policies restricting the instruction of “foreign languages,” ¹⁴ whereas some even prohibited the teaching of all foreign languages. ¹⁵ Most notably of these cases involved one such Nebraska law that made its way to the Supreme Court, marking the first time that the Supreme Court addressed the topic of bilingualism/official language legislation. The 1923 case of Meyer v. Nebraska involved a Nebraska state law that prohibited the teaching in any school, whether private, public, denominational, or parochial, any language other than English to any child who has not passed the eighth grade. Here, the plaintiff, who taught in a Nebraska parochial school, was charged with unlawfully teaching German to a student who was but 10 years of age and who had not passed the eighth grade. The 1919 Nebraska law that was before the Court argued that to teach German or any other language aside from English infringed upon the student’s liberty as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Those found guilty of violating this law:

Shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25), nor more than one hundred dollars ($100) or be confined in the county jail for any period not exceeding thirty days for each offense. ¹⁶

Here, in what some would refer to as America’s first wave of linguistic hysteria, or nativism, English-only policies and platforms saw great growth and reach. Along with the 14th Amendment, the foundation of this law rests on the state’s argument over effect, that is to allow children, especially children of “foreigners,” to be taught a foreign language inculcates in them “foreign” ideas and beliefs, which may run counter to America’s best interests. Writing on behalf of the Court, Justice James McReynolds questioned the application of the 14th Amendment and conversely argued that, as constructed and applied, Meyer’s 14th Amendment rights were deprived as a result of this state law. In his words, Justice McReynolds argued:

While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contact, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State to effect. ¹⁷

While the Court found it unnecessary to “define with exactness” the liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, the Court did state that “without doubt” the 14th Amendment extended to more than just freedom from bodily restraint. So long as this pursuit of happiness is within the boundaries of the law, all freedoms therein cannot be infringed upon. Furthermore, as McReynolds argued, whether regarding the teaching or learning of “foreign” languages or otherwise, “a desirable end cannot be prompted by prohibited means,” whereas parents had a right to give their children an education, just as Meyer’s right to teach were “within the liberty of the amendment.” While the Meyer decision to some degree set the legal tone regarding bilingualism and official language laws, the belief that one language produces one country continued to dominate much mainstream political thinking, leading to the staggering passages of official language laws across the country. To date, political candidates, armed with campaign slogans about “unifying” the nation, continue to tout the mandating of one language (English) as part of the solution to a rapidly fragmenting country. Tracing the legislative development of official language legislation revisits a history steeped in attempts at defining what it means to be “American.” For instance, Arizona voters backed a 1986 bill that added an English-only amendment to the state constitution, forbidding the use of any language other than English by a public official. However, in the 1998 Supreme Court case, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, ¹⁸ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the Arizona law violates the 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution, ruling that such a law adversely impacts the constitutional rights of non-English speaking persons regarding access to government and free speech. Not to be discouraged by this outcome, Arizona passed another yet less restrictive English-only bill in 2006 that continues to stand today. Since then, Alaska, Idaho and Kansas have all passed official language laws. Concerns over the use of “foreign” languages in the United States, writes Sarah Allen Gershon and Adrian Pantoja, “have been longstanding; however, the push for making English the official language of the United States is a fairly recent phenomenon, becoming nationally prominent in the 1980s when immigration from Latin America began to increase.” ¹⁹ As seen thus far, the perceived need for official language legislation follows in stride with a shifting demographic landscape, whereby suspicion and distrust have become commonplace sentiments within the realm of how we think and speak about immigrants and immigration.

Following the release of her book, Going Rouge, former Republican Governor for Alaska and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin held a book signing at the Mall of America Barnes and Noble store. Prior to her December 7, 2009 arrival, an internal memo between Palin’s staff and Mall of America officials was leaked to the Associated Press. In that memo, three demands were given for her appearance: first, Palin was to be called “governor;” second, “foreign” reporters were banned; and, finally, all conversation was to be in English only. ²⁰ While very little mention of this memo made headline news, it did begin a series of identical occurrences appearing across the country. In April 2010, Alabama GOP gubernatorial candidate Tim James, son of former Alabama Governor Fob James, released an English-only campaign advertisement. Introduced as a “cost-saving measure,” in his “we speak English” advertisement, James vowed to offer the state’s driver’s license exam in English only, adding, “this is Alabama; we speak English. If you want to live here, learn it.” ²¹ Episodes like these are becoming more visible throughout the country as the debate over immigration reform and the paranoia over a Latino majority weigh heavily on the minds of many Republican office holders, seekers, and constituents. Just months after James’ advertisement, then Florida GOP Senate hopeful, Marco Rubio, released his “padres” advertisement, seeking to galvanize Florida’s Latino voters. Although there is nothing new about candidates releasing advertisements in both Spanish and English, this particular advertisement generated much interest. While Rubio does not mind campaigning in two languages, his repeated preference for a single, “unifying” national language bespeaks much hypocrisy, questioning whether or not his advertisement should have been titled “solo Ingles” (English only). ²²

Generally, because campaign season represents an opportune time for candidates to attempt to make their problems ours, campaign season is where we see the most recurring episodes for the advocacy of “closed” borders and increasing pressures for more states to adopt official language laws. The growing fear of an immigrant takeover continues to exist as a rallying cry for both single-issue voters and those who introduce legislation aimed at preserving our “American” way of life. Most frequently citing a lack of federal (Southern) border control, this widespread sentiment continues to give credence to many legislative proposals supposedly aimed at ameliorating homeland security and national unity. Campaigns galvanized around English-only legislation continue to gain momentum at the state level, where GOP office seekers and incumbents insist that efforts toward national unity are obstructed by “divisive” language accommodations that both hamper our attempts at community and discourage the use of the English language. As “warned” before by Samuel Huntington, ²³ Tom Tancredo, ²⁴ Patrick Buchanan, ²⁵ and others, the belief that a growing Latino population, owing to their supposed inability and/or unwillingness to culturally and linguistically assimilate, will be the demise of “American” prosperity and unity is a recurring theme utilized by official language proponents throughout such widespread efforts. ²⁶ The growing fear that a “divided states of America” is forthcoming has led to many conversations and debates over legislation aimed at “strengthening” the enforcement of immigration laws along with exploring other ways to preserve our “American” way of life, leading us to Oklahoma State Ballot Question 751.

An Oklahoma story

In what began as a cost-cutting crusade to save Oklahoma tax dollars, quickly transformed into a prescriptive measure toward achieving linguistic homogeneity, this movement toward supposed fiscal responsibility established the political momentum needed for Oklahoma lawmakers to introduce the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007. Consistent with historical patterns, the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 was touted as a combined cost-cutting and immigration reform measure. In 2007, this was the most punitive immigration law in the United States, whereby Governor Brad Henry promised aggressive enforcement. Speaking on behalf of the state legislature’s convictions over immigration reform, the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 states:

The State of Oklahoma finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged when public agencies within this state provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. The State of Oklahoma further finds that when illegal immigrants have been harbored and sheltered in this state and encouraged to reside in this state through the issuance of identification cards that are issued without verifying immigration status, these practices impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Oklahoma. Therefore, the people of the State of Oklahoma declare that it is a compelling public interest of this state to discourage illegal immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The State of Oklahoma also finds that other measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of various governmental programs and services. ²⁷

Needless to say, the passage and vowed enforcement of this law came with much tension and division. This degree of polarization, Cass Sunstein, writes:

often occurs because of people's failure to adjust their reactions to the skewed compositions of the groups in which they find themselves … this tendency can get us into a lot trouble in many areas, wrapping our judgments not only about politics but also about health, money, and religion. ²⁸

The unsupported claim of lawlessness, as a result of a growing “illegal” immigrant population throughout the state, upheld a political atmosphere steeped in suspicion, making for what Leo Chavez refers to as the “Latino threat.” As a discourse, the Latino threat occupies both a threat and danger to society, given Latinos’ supposed unwillingness to conform to societal norms and expectations. ²⁹ Key to this rhetorical practice of classification, writes Edward Schiappa, “is the ability to identify certain sensations as the same and others as different, thereby allowing for firm differences to be created and defined.” ³⁰ As a result of our supposed threatening differences, limits must be imposed.

In accordance with this Oklahoma law, limits were imposed through four mandates. These include:

The national sentiment leading up to 2007 paved the way for the smooth passage of this legislative vehicle, securing an 88–9 margin in the Oklahoma House and a 41–6 margin in the Oklahoma Senate. Republican State Representative Randy Terrill, the bill’s chief architect, argues:

[T]he states have always been the great laboratories of democracy. Whether it was welfare reform in the mid- to late-1990s or whether it’s immigration in 2007, people shouldn’t be surprised that when the federal government can’t or won’t act, people of the state of Oklahoma will step up to the plate and hit the home run. ³²

Terrill believes the sanctions under this law are a great legislative victory coming amidst times of supposed unprecedented levels of “illegal” immigrant activity and unrest.

This new immigration law paved the way for the unveiling of an official language initiative that had nothing to do with economics. Indeed, Oklahoma’s three-part series to mandate an official language (House Bill 2252, House Joint Resolution 1042 and State Ballot Question 751) represents the latest “remedy” offered to counteract the perceived decline of immigrant assimilation. Fueling much of this debate was the elusive nature of defining and articulating what it means to be an “American.” American identity, according to Leonie Huddy, “does not mean the same thing to all Americans. And it is the meaning of American identity, not its existence that determines its political consequences.” ³³ Leading up to the controversy surrounding State Ballot Question 751, Oklahoma’s ballot proposal for an official language, were two House resolutions, House Bill 2252 and House Joint Resolution 1042, both sponsored by State Republican Representative Randy Terrill. Introduced in February 2009, House Bill 2252 was prompted in part by a federal government investigation of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety over allegations that the agency had violated the civil rights of two Iranian immigrants who were not provided with written driver’s license examinations in Farsi. Troubled by such a request, Oklahoma lawmakers quickly drew up House Bill 2252, a measure that would require driver’s license tests to be provided only in English by repealing the requirement for the Department of Public Safety to provide driver’s license tests in Spanish. In defense of his proposed bill, Representative Terrill noted, “the state has spent about $22,000 to print Spanish-language manuals and has paid nearly $7,000 for translation services. That could increase as more than 20 people last year requested tests in other languages, such as Arabic and Russian, while Rep. Mike Christian, R-Oklahoma City, believed it’s common sense,” arguing that, if “they can’t speak English, they can’t read the signs.” ³⁴

At face value, one is left to believe this is simply a cost-cutting measure aimed at reducing state spending amidst economic downturn; however, that is far from accurate.

Although supporters of this measure ultimately secured its passage, the focus soon moved away from fiscal concerns to immigration and assimilation. Historically, as Van Tran notes:

[I]n 2000, 13 percent of the U.S. population or 35.2 million people self-identified as of Latino descent. To put this into historical perspective, the current level reflects a four-fold increase from 1960 and a two-fold increase from 1980 when it was 3.6 percent and 6.9 percent of the total population, respectively. ³⁵

To illustrate this effect, in a press release issued after the passage of House Bill 2252, its sponsor, Representative Terrill shared his concerns:

[I]n a year of budget cuts, it makes no sense to spend extra money on Spanish-language drivers’ tests that serve no legitimate public policy purpose. Providing this special accommodation to non-English speakers indirectly encourages illegal immigration and prevents assimilation of legal immigrants. ³⁶

Of course Terrill offers no support for this claim, whereas we are to simply assume that language diversity threatens social and political cohesion. In this case, the Spanish language falls victim to the rhetorical efforts of enemy construction. As Gina Petonito explains, “all conflicts have situations where one group casts the other as enemy… draw[ing] from available cultural resources to construct the other as a villainous foe.” ³⁷

For Representative Terrill, the foe that culturally and economically plagues Oklahoma must be eliminated at all political costs.

House Bill 2252 was taken one step further through the introduction of HJR 1042, proposed less than one month later. This proposed measure sought to make English the state’s official language. With the exception of the Native American languages that the state provides accommodations for, HJR 1042 understands English as the “common and unifying language” of the State of Oklahoma, whereas all official actions will be conducted in English expect when required by Federal Law. When taken to vote, Terrill’s measure passed by a 66–32 margin, sending a proposed constitutional amendment to voters in November 2010. Following the bill’s historic passage, Terrill argued, “as our common American language, English and the ‘melting pot’ process it supports has made the United States the most successful multi-ethnic nation in history,” whereas, “unfortunately, the drive to linguistically Balkanize our nation makes it harder for legal immigrants to assimilate while wasting limited taxpayer dollars.” ³⁸ Republican Representative George Faught explained that his support was in direct response to Oklahomans’ frustration with the growing influence of Spanish throughout the state, arguing, “it’s time to give them what they want, and to stop wasting limited taxpayer dollars.” ³⁹ As the portrayed enemies of linguistic unity, Latinos, as Murray Edelman explains, occupy an “identifiable persons or stereotypes of persons to whom evil traits, intentions, or actions can be attributed,” despite lack of supporting details for such sweeping claims. ⁴⁰ Obtrusively constructed in and around cultural and behavioral outliers, enemies are usually defined in opposition to how we view ourselves, denying the existence of resemblance.

The rise in the state’s Latino population has ushered in various fears over a new Latino majority/minority in some areas, possessing the reality of off-setting some congressional safe-seats. Use of the Spanish language, Van Tran posits:

in parts of the country with a heavy Latino concentration has raised concerns over its potential divisive effect on American national identity and social cohesion. However, this debate often assumes that English acquisition occurs at the cost of Spanish abandonment, despite a long tradition of research that points to the potential beneficial and synergistic effects of bilingualism on cognitive development and academic outcomes among Latino students. ⁴¹

With the political maneuvering completed within the halls of the state legislature, the stage was set for the main event. What was once a measure aimed at reducing state spending now evolved into a campaign against the supposed cultural and linguistic shortcomings that Oklahoma’s Latino community continued to supposedly impose upon “our” society.

With a steady stream of unsubstantiated apocalyptic appeals aimed at the state’s Latino community, lawmakers authored Ballot Question 751 to argue the following:

This measure amends the state constitution. It adds a new article to the constitution. That article deals with the state’s official actions. It dictates the language to be used in taking official state action. It requires that official state actions be in English. Native American languages could also be used. When federal law requires, other languages could also be used. These language requirements apply to the state’s “official actions”. The term “official actions” is not defined. The Legislature could pass laws determining the application of the language requirements. The Legislature would also pass laws implementing and enforcing the language requirements. No lawsuit based on state law could be brought on the basis of a state agency’s failure to use a language other than English. Nor could such a lawsuit be brought against political subdivisions of the state. ⁴²

Although the bill’s language was written in an effort to suppress the influence of the Spanish language and the accommodations therein, from the perspective of the voter all that is actually known is that a vote in support of this ballot question will make English the state’s official language. Republican State Representative Harry Coates said that “the bill just makes a statement that we want to conduct business in English.” ⁴³ Despite the bill’s ambiguity, State Question 751 enjoyed a nearly 76% approval in the November 2010 general election. According to Donaldo Macedo:

proponents of English-only initiatives are yet to account for two fundamental problems. First, if English is the most effective educational language, how can we explain why over 60 million Americans are illiterate or functionally illiterate? Second, if English Only education can guarantee linguistic minorities a better future, as educators like William Bennett promise, why do the majority of Black Americans, whose ancestors have been speaking English for over two hundred years, find themselves still relegated to the ghettos? ⁴⁴

It is crucial, argue Gutierrez et al., “to expose these reform movements with current sentiments about civil rights—sentiments that are rooted in ahistorical understandings of privilege and discrimination.” ⁴⁵ As the latest state to secure the passage of such a measure, it should come as no surprise that this is the direction toward which public policy continues to drift in supposed efforts toward “national unity.”