| February 13, 2001 Initiative A In November 2000, Utah passed Initiative A, or the “English Only” referendum by a stunning 70% majority. This legislation had failed twice before, but now with the majority of the population behind it, the state government had no choice but to uphold it. The argument in favor of Initiative A contested that “communication between people from different countries is only possible if we have a language in common” (http://www.voteutah.org/ballot/pro_english.html). Therefore everyone in Utah should “vote ‘Yes’ on Initiative A, which would make Utah the 26th state with English as the official language” (ibid). To the general population, this makes a lot of sense. It makes it sound as though Initiative A is simply announcing that most people speak English so English should be the official language, much like the blue bonnet is the official flower in Texas. This is somewhat misleading, though. Among the states that did pass an “English Only” policy, those with the same restrictive language found in Utah’s Initiative A referendum were refuted and fought against until the initiative was found unconstitutional. (These states include Arizona, Colorado, and Alabama.) The argument for Initiative A fails to inform the population that they may be voting for something unconstitutional. The side in favor of Initiative A also argues that “the measure encourages the teaching of foreign languages” (ibid) – perhaps by making it so that if a person desires to speak another language, he is forced to take the official class in school. I personally cannot see any other way that it would encourage the teaching and use of foreign languages. Those against Initiative A jumped at the chance to fight back, disagreeing with the former statement. Bill Eggington, a professor from BYU, said that "it creates the exact opposite of what it intends to do. It isolates cultures” (http://www.elausa.org/news/ut010204.html). Americans, who are already mostly monolingual as well as extremely narrow-minded, certainly don’t need to be isolated any further. Quite logically, those in favor also pointed out that the number of languages spoken in Utah is rather numerous (could many of these be because of returned LDS missionaries, who served in other countries?). Haughty and convinced of our own supremacy, they state that “it should be the responsibility of immigrants to learn English, not the responsibility of the government to learn immigrants' languages” (http://www.voteutah.org/ballot/pro_english.html) – sort of like the French, who so disdain Americans that they won’t speak in English to tourists, even though they have the ability to do so. Moving away from the actual importance of having a common language, the pro-Initiative A group shows some insecurity, as well, about the English language, as even “to provide routine government services in languages other than English sends the wrong signal about the importance of our common language” (ibid). The fear of having aliens who speak other languages coming and assimilating us unto their culture is evident in statements like the preceding, as well as in the miniature motivational speech given to inspire Utahns to vote for Initiative A: “Unless we take a stand to ensure that English remains our state's common language, Utah could find itself on the road to Babel” (ibid). Only a people convinced about the weakness of the English language as well as about their social status as an English-speaker would be so concerned about the myriad of languages spoken in Utah. For, as Eggington points out, “people immigrating to the United States for economic and safety reasons ‘want to acquire English skills. They want the best for their children. They know the English language is the huge language of opportunity’” (http://www.elausa.org/news/ut010204.html). But to make learning English a matter of force instead of a matter of will “imposes a mandate that flies in the face of the principle of individual freedoms in this country. It's the beginning of a slow chipping away at the very principles that make this country such a great democracy” (http://www.jacl.org/current_prs/engonly.html). And as history has shown, when other languages are suppressed or one language is imperatively “encouraged,” the exact opposite of the desired result occurs. Human beings resent oppression and like to make their own decisions, even if the impositions are for their own good. In addition to these arguments against the initiative, some people who were completely objective had to admit the initiative didn’t make any sense. “ ‘I'm having a hard time conceptualizing this,’ Judge Nehring said. […] To be official under the initiative, the judge said, a government meeting must be in English. If that government meeting were conducted in another language, it becomes an unofficial meeting […]. And, as an unofficial meeting, it couldn't violate the initiative” (http://www.elausa.org/news/ut010205.html). The wording is tricky and the definition is vague, creating lots of room for misunderstandings when it comes to actually implementing the law. So on the outside, or at least to citizens who are less informed, Initiative A appears to be completely harmless and all-American. But there is the catch. Being American doesn’t necessarily mean being English-speaking. The initiative is full of holes meant to catch people who don’t speak English as a first language. Under any evaluation, the good of the law is void next to the damage it does. The argument of those in favor is more of extreme nationalism rather than rational understanding of the common good. After all, wasn’t Hitler just trying to unite and strengthen Germany by exterminating the Jews? The people against Initiative A are not trying to destroy America. Instead, they are trying to create an America where all people are welcome; for only by embracing them will they embrace us, and come to love this country with an open fervor – not a jealous fever. |