Protecting English

WE SAY One language is convenient, but mandating English-only is inefficient.

Do you speak English?

According to a Nashville, Tenn., city councilman, you should if you want to be employed by his city.

The councilman, Eric Crafton, introduced a proposal that would have forced employees of the Nashville city government to communicate in English.

However, before going into effect, Nashville residents had to approve the proposal in a $325,000 special-elections drama that unfolded last week. And they decided against the proposal – a decision the mayor said reaffirmed the city’s reputation as “welcoming and friendly.”

Interestingly enough, English is already the official language of the State of Tennessee, as it is in Indiana. Crafton’s proposed legislation would have merely made stricter restrictions against the use of other languages in his city.

Of course, there’s something to be said for encouraging everyone in any given country to be able to read and write in the same language. As Crafton noted, translation costs and other bureaucratic bothers are less prevalent when governments and their people are able to speak to one another.

But how should we balance the competing interest efficiency with a desire to promote that ideal “welcoming and friendly” environment within our cities, states and nation?

Prohibiting people from communicating in the language of their choice doesn’t seem to be an acceptable solution. But that’s no surprise, since much of the rhetoric of organizations behind English-only laws instead focuses primarily on preserving what they see as the need to “defend” America from those who might speak another language. A great deal of English-only legislation isn’t really concerned with efficiency at all, but is rather based on xenophobic fears of people who live their lives differently.

The desire to “defend English” seems misplaced. The evidence suggests that English is far from endangered both in America and abroad. For every person who learns English as his or her native language, many others learn the language in school or to work in international settings.

What city councils should be trying to promote is effective communication with their constituents. Speaking English can be a useful tool toward achieving that goal, but city workers shouldn’t be banned from communicating in another language if they’re able to effectively administer the city’s business while speaking another language.