Like other Official English measures that have been introduced throughout the United States, HB 1152 appears quite innocent at first glance -─ simply a way to reaffirm the need for all U.S. residents to speak, read, and write English in order to participate fully in American life. Who could disagree with that goal? Yet the bill's chosen means are not so benign; they are coercive and punitive. Rather than celebrating English, HB 1152 would limit the freedom of Marylanders to use other languages in direct contradiction to the linguistic requirements associated with the increasing globalization of the economy. Rather than expanding opportunities for immigrants to learn English, it would make life much more difficult for those who are trying to do so. Rather than bringing people together, it would encourage ethnic conflicts, as similar measures have done elsewhere.

Although proponents persist in denying it, the core principle of Official English is English Only. Everything else is window-dressing. Why  is  it necessary, in the words of HB 1152, to legislate "a uniform means of access to public documents and communications in the State"? Do certain members insist on addressing the House of Delegates in French? Are county court briefs suddenly being filed in Vietnamese? Where is the evidence of any threat to the "common language [that] is essential to the democratic processes" of Maryland? I submit to you that the real purpose of designating English as the sole language of government─a language already used by government 99.9% of the time─is to outlaw a handful of programs that offer assistance to non‑English speakers in their native language.

HB 1152 would break with Maryland's long tradition of tolerance and accommodation of language‑minority groups. German Americans have been a significant presence here since the early 1700s, when they began to settle in Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick, and Washington counties. So it was only natural for Maryland to send German‑speaking units to fight for the American Revolution. In those days, there was no pressure to pass English Only laws out of some misplaced sense of patriotism. Instead, throughout much of the 19th century, numerous official documents─including Governor's messages and acts of the Legislature─were printed in German at state expense. Meanwhile, the city of Baltimore was renowned for its public bilingual education programs, in which German was used for one-third of the school day. In the year 1900, 16 percent of the city's elementary and secondary students were enrolled in such classrooms. As late as 1940, Baltimore had 40,000 German‑speaking residents. Yet throughout its diverse history, the State of Maryland got along fine without any official language laws. In fact, today it is very common to hear German last names such as Ehrlich, Schaeffer, Bush and others in this legislature.

What would be the practical impact of HB 1152? Notwithstanding a few narrow exceptions, its English Only mandate would jeopardize a wide range of rights and services that are enjoyed (or, in some cases, needed) by today's language‑minority residents. For example:

# A violation of voting rights.

# Rights to a court interpreter in civil lawsuits and administrative proceedings involving property, divorce, child custody, welfare, and workers compensation.

# Dual‑language programs in public schools that promote fluent bilingualism. While English‑speaking children might be allowed to participate (under the "teach a foreign language" exception), language‑minority children would not (because these classrooms would not be perceived as providing “as rapidly as possible a transition to the English language.” Passage of HB 1152 could thereby imperil current efforts by Montgomery and Prince George's counties  to win federal funding for such programs.

# State or locally funded instruction in American Sign Language for deaf students, teachers, and interpreters (not covered by the "foreign language" or "transition to English" exceptions).

# Drivers' license exams in languages other than English (not clearly covered by the "public safety" exemption, although curtailing such exams could increase the number of unlicensed drivers on the roads).

# Bilingual information and assistance for non‑English speakers in paying state and county taxes.

    I served as an assistant chief judge in Silver Spring during the last elections, in which voters had the chance to choose English or Spanish for casting their votes. It was clear to me that the fact that voters, especially Hispanic/Latino seniors, were able to vote in their own language, really facilitated and encouraged them to participate in their civil right to vote, and I did not hear a single complaint about that service.

What's ironic about all this is that HB 1152 is entirely unnecessary to further its sponsors' stated goals. If the point is really to promote English acquisition, why not provide sufficient funding to alleviate the shortage of seats in adult English classes? Education officials report a waiting list for English Education.  In fact, when bills were introduced in the past to increase funding for English as Second Language Programs, it has been the English Only proponents who have opposed those bills. It appears to me that they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

Clearly, as the adult ESL waiting lists demonstrate, immigrants do not need lectures from English Only supporters about the importance of learning the language. Nor do limited‑English speakers need the Legislature to create additional hardships in their lives to hammer home a message they already receive on a daily basis. What they do need is some practical help and some human understanding.

In 2003, there were an estimated 652,545 persons in Maryland who reported speaking a language other than English at home (and notably, most were bilingual). This represents a 65 percent increase from 1990. Of these individuals, 246,849 said they had some difficulty with English-i.e. they  spoke English  less than “very well” – the population that may need bilingual services from state or local governments in their own language. This figure comes from the U.S Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which now asks this question every year instead of only once every 10 years on the census “long form”. No wonder we often observe children acting as translators for their parents during doctor’s appointments and other everyday transactions, creating a clear problem of privacy for their parents. Hence the importance not only of language classes, but also of transitional bilingual help while these people are learning English. Such services are especially needed in Spanish, Korean, and Chinese (language groups that together account for two‑thirds of Marylanders who speak English poorly).

At the same time, it is important to correct a popular misconception─often exploited by English Only proponents─that our "new immigrants" (especially Hispanics) are failing to learn English as rapidly as the immigrants of earlier generations. No doubt this impression is reinforced by the fact that the number of newcomers, and thus of minority language speakers, has increased dramatically since federal immigration laws were liberalized in the late 1960s. But so has the number who speak English as their usual language. Today's immigrants are approaching a two‑generation rate of "Anglicization" ─ that is, the children of immigrants are abandoning their parents' language in favor of English ─ as compared with the classic three‑generation pattern at the turn of the twentieth century. In other words, immigrants to this country appear to be learning English faster than ever before. Yet the unfair stereotype persists.

I think this history provides some clues for understanding why the English Only movement has flourished in the last decade. Bilingualism is less a practical issue than a symbol: a lightning rod for a range of social frustrations, racial and ethnic tensions, and fears about demographic and cultural change. For many who feel threatened today by the impact of immigration, English Only measures provide an easy way to strike back, to declare: "We will draw the line here in Maryland. If foreigners want to come here, they must speak English or face serious consequences. Other languages will be officially unwelcome here." This is an emotional reaction, perhaps an understandable one, but hardly a well‑thought‑out response to the real‑world problems created by a rapid influx of newcomers.

As I stated earlier, in my role as a member of the Maryland Parents Advisory Council, we advise the Maryland Advisory Council about the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. English Language Learners (ELLs) are one of the subgroups for which the law requires demonstration of real progress. Research demonstrates that in order to acquire a new language it takes between five to seven years, and that the best approach is to use the first language as a foundation for acquiring the second language. The implementation of HB 1152 would take us in the opposite direction from what  is needed in order to serve our goals for ELLs in Maryland.

Finally, I do not believe that English Only is a message that, on reflection, the House of Delegates would choose to send. Of course, all residents of this state and this country need high levels of English skills. But English alone is no longer enough. We need citizens who are proficient both in English as well as in other languages. In an increasingly global economy, for Americans to remain largely monolingual─while our competitors turn out high school graduates speaking two, three, or more languages─is to put this country at a major disadvantage. Fortuitously, the skills that this country desperately needs today are being imported, free of charge, by the new immigrants. All we need to do is recognize these languages for what they are─not as obstacles to be overcome, but as resources to be developed and shared with English‑speaking Americans, for example, through the dual language programs that have been implemented in Montgomery and Prince George's counties. The first step is to reject the fear and intolerance of English Only, as embodied in legislation like HB 1152.

Notes

1. James Crawford, Hold Your Tongue: Bilingualism and the Politics of "English Only" (Addison‑Wesley, 1992, 1993); Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy (University of Chicago Press, 1992); and Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice (Bilingual Educational Services, 1989, 1991).
2. Yñiguez v. Mofford, 730 F.Supp. 309 (D.Ariz 1990).
3. According to an 1844 law, all new state laws were to be published in a German‑language newspaper. In 1874, Baltimore's city council voted to do the same with city ordinances; Heinz Kloss, The American Bilingual Tradition (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1977), pp. 189‑91.
4. This included 8,450 students enrolled in public and 7,250 in private German‑English schools; Kloss, ibid.
5. See Lisa Leff, "Where Bilingual Education Is a Two‑Way Street," Washington Post, March 13, 1994, p. B1, B5.
6. U.S. English, a leading proponent of English-only legislation, has protested the use of Spanish‑language forms and Spanish‑speaking operators by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in its program to facilitate voluntary compliance with federal tax laws; Hispanic Link Weekly Report, Jan. 10, 1994, p. 1.
7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Language Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English for United States, Regions, and States: 1990" (1990 CPH‑L‑133), April 1993.
8. Calvin Veltman, Language Shift in the United States (Berlin: Mouton, 1983). After 15 years in this country, 75 percent of Spanish‑speaking immigrants are speaking English on a regular daily basis, and 70 percent of their children become dominant or monolingual in English; Veltman, The Future of the Spanish Language in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Hispanic Policy Development Project, 1988).
9. See, e.g., Reports of the Immigration Commission, Vol. I, pp. 14, 42. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1911).