|
ACLU of Wisconsin Opposes "Official English" Resolution
May 13, 2002
Mr. Ken Simons
Board Chairman
Brown County Board
100 North Jefferson Street
Green Bay, WI 54305
RE: Resolution Resident Responsibility Act of 2002
Dear Mr. Simons:
The purpose of this letter is to address our concern and opposition
to the above resolution making English the official language of Brown
County.
From its inception, the United States has been a multilingual nation.
At the time of the nation's founding, it was commonplace to hear as many
as twenty languages spoken in daily life, including Dutch, French, German
and numerous Native American languages. As a historical note, the Articles
of Confederation were printed in German, as well as English. In Wisconsin
our legislature in 1848 passed a measure publishing our constitution in
English, German and Norwegian.
Just as languages other than English have always been part of our history
and culture, debate over establishing a national language date back to
the country's beginning. John Adams proposed the Continental Congress
in 1780 that an official academy be created to "purify, develop, and dictate
usage of," English. His proposal was rejected as undemocratic and a threat
to individual liberty.
Nonetheless, restrictive language laws have been enacted periodically
since the late 19th century, usually in response to new waves
of immigration. These laws, in practice if not in intent, have punished
immigrants for their foreignness and violated their rights.
The ACLU opposes proposed Constitutional amendments or legislation which
will characterize English as the official language of the United States
or any state or local jurisdiction therein to the extent that such amendments
or legislation would mandate or encourage the erosion of or have the effect
of eroding the rights of language minority persons. The ACLU believes
English-only laws that make English the "official" language of government
and particularly those which broadly restrict the government's ability
to use languages other than English in communicating and delivering services
to non-English speaking Americans, violate civil rights and liberties.
They do so in three ways.
First, by restricting the government's ability to communicate with and
provide services to non-English speaking Americans, many of whom are children
and elderly citizens, English-only laws deny fair and equal access to
government. These limits, especially as they apply to such rights as voting
assistance, education in a comprehensible language, health services and
information, financial assistance such as social security and police protection,
infringes upon important and fundamental rights. Please see South Carolina
v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974),
U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n.4 (1938), Administrator
of Massachusetts v. Freeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1978).
Second, by prohibiting the government from communicating with its citizens
in any language other than English, English-only laws violate the First
Amendment rights of elected officials and public employees. They also
impair the First Amendment rights of limited English proficient residents
to receive vital information and petition the government for redress of
grievances. Please see Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia
Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 757 (1976). The proposed
English-only resolution also is directed at pure speech. The purpose of
speech is to make oneself understood; imparting a comprehensible message
is the essence of communication. Communication involves a free exchange,
with people both giving and receiving information. By requiring that government
officials communicate only in "a language which is incomprehensible to
non-English speaking persons, the [English-only statutes] effectively
bars communication itself." See Ruiz v. Hall, 957 P.2d at 998.
Because it is expressly directed at pure speech, in the form of meaningful
communication with non-English speakers, the English-only statute "poses
a more immediate threat to First Amendment values than legislation which
regulates conduct and only incidentally impinges upon speech." See
Ruiz, 957 P.2d at 999, citing United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 3657,
375, 382 (1968); Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S.
288, 293 (1984). "Laws 'directed at speech' and communication are
subject to exacting scrutiny and must be 'justified by the substantial
showing of need that the First Amendment requires.'" See Ruiz, 957
P. 2d at 999, citing Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 406 (1989); First
National Bank v. Belotti, 435 U.S. 765, 786 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo,
424 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1976).
Third, English-only laws are based on assumptions predicated on false
and disparaging stereotypes about today's immigrants. Thus, they foster
anti-immigrant bigotry and intolerance and exacerbate ethnic tensions.
Please see Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 412-13 (1991), San
Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28 (1973).
Proponents in favor of English-only laws always look to the assertion
that the English language is "the common bond" or "social glue" that holds
a diverse society together, and that multilingualism jeopardizes the fragile
social cohesion singularly owed to the English language. The proponents
often cite the Quebec secessionist movement and even the conflict in the
Balkans as examples of societal discord and disintegration that occurs
in the absence of a common language. However, we should note that where
social tensions have arisen over language conflicts, language tensions
are the manifestations, not the cause, of underlying social problems.
Historically, language has often been used as a tool of social and political
subjugation. It is the suppression of native and ethnic minority languages
by a dominant group that most often gives rise to ethnic conflicts, be
the "Russification" of Soviet ethnic minorities, Franco's attempt in Spain
to suppress language rights of Basques and Catalans, or South Africa's
attempt to impose the Afrikaner language as the language of instruction
in the schools of Soweto. Racial and ethnic hostilities are fostered not
by language diversity, but by attempts of certain language groups to suppress
the use of other languages in political and social discourse. See Leibowicz,
"The Proposed English Language Amendment; Shield or Sword?", 3 Yale L.
& Pol. Rev. 519, 533-39 (1985); Karst, "Paths to Belonging; The Constitution
and Cultural Identity," 64 N.C.L.Rev. 303, 311-325 (1986) (describing
Americanization and Know Nothing movements and enactment of restrictionist
legislation, such as literacy laws, aimed at "new" immigrants during the
19th and early 20th centuries); Beardmore and Williams, "Comment," 60
Intl. Journal of the Sociology of Language 117, 120-121 (1986)(tensions
in bilingual nations such as Belgium due not to bilingualism per se, but
rather to historical factors and lack of equality afforded to subordinate
language groups).
The ACLU does not question the importance of having a common language;
obviously a common language (or set of languages) is necessary as a practical
matter for government and society to function efficiently. But the predicate
assumption of English-only proponents that English is "the social glue"
that holds our society together is superficial. The common bond that unites
Americans of all backgrounds, origins, and languages is our deeper shared
belief and commitment to freedom, democracy and liberty. That bond runs
deeper than the English language. Domestic tranquility is achieved not
through coerced conformity, but through tolerance and mutual respect.
In this regard, "Official English" laws ignore the central teaching of
the First Amendment. Many of the world's most virulent wars have been
based on religious differences; yet, despite the diversity of religious
faiths within the United States, our nation has avoided the intense heretical
wars and violent theological conflicts experienced elsewhere. Why? Because
the First Amendment guarantees tolerance and teaches mutual respect of
different faiths, rather than allowing the imposition of an official orthodoxy.
In contrast, "Official English" laws impose an official orthodoxy that
breeds intolerance. It is intolerance not diversity which threatens our
nation's unity.
In closing, "Official English" laws are unnecessary. If approved, it
will impose material hardships, violate constitutional rights, and exacerbate
ethnic tensions. An English-only law is contrary to the spirit of tolerance
and diversity embodied in our Constitutions and would transform it from
being a charter of liberties and individual freedom into a charter of
restrictions that limits, rather than protects, individual rights and
language origin. The English-only resolution purposeful singling out of
language minorities is the functional equivalent of national origin discrimination.
We should celebrate, not fear, our diversity. The rich tapestry of ethnicities
and languages that comprise America is one our greatest strengths. "Official
English" laws reflect our worst fears, not our highest ideals.
In closing, we at the ACLU are deeply concerned with this resolution
and would disapprove its approval. We will continue to be vigilant wherever
civil rights are interfered and reserve the right to take appropriate
action where action is needed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Micabil Diaz-Martinez
Attorney at Law
Legal Director
CC: Nancy Nusbaum County Executive, via fax
Related links:
If you agree with the ACLU and want to protect diversity in our schools
and metropolitan areas, please consider joining the hundreds of thousands
of patriotic Americans who are members of the ACLU.
|
