English Only laws: Rob Toonkel, spokeswoman for US English, a group that promotes the use of the English language in government and that has helped several towns draw up ordinances to that effect, said such measures have nothing to do with racism. "Official English legislation as written has nothing to do with criticizing immigrants in any way," Toonkel told AFP. "What it says is 'you can't walk into a government office and demand service in a language other than English."
Many on the ANTI side say they agree with Toonkel and continue to say "English Only" laws will not impact our ability to speak other languages in public. Are they being honest? Or, in reality are these English Only laws actually trying to violate our 1st Ammendment, Freedom of Speech?
Here is the 1st Ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Question: "Do businesses have the right to require their employees to speak English Only when it does not impact the job itself?" Here are three Cases that say otherwise! What do you think? Will these laws, if enacted, limit Freedom of Speech?
Case 1:The Washington Times is reporting: Restaurant returns to English-only battle.
RD's Drive-In Restaurant in Page, Ariz., has reinstated its requirement that employees speak English while on the job, ending a five-year legal tussle, according to ProEnglish. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the drive-in in 2002, saying it was discriminating against its Navajo employees by requiring them to speak English on the job. The interest group ProEnglish stepped in to help the drive-in with legal costs as it fought the suit, but they lost in court in a federal appeals court in September. Now the drive-in has rescinded the original policy and put a new policy in place that includes a revised English policy.
Case 2: Ruben Navarette reports:
The Great Language Debate: Many Hispanics applaud the decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to sue the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required employees to speak only English on the job. The requirement was posted, and yet at least two Hispanic employees defiantly continued to speak Spanish while at work. The EEOC claimed that their firings violated the law. English-only proponents said the EEOC's position violated common sense. The critics are wrong. It's not that a business doesn't have the right to expect its employees to speak English. It does. It just doesn't have the right to prevent workers from speaking languages other than English. That's what this case is about, after all – not a requirement that employees be able to speak English, but a rule that banned the speaking of other languages. Of course, a business has the right to consider one's ability to speak English as a prerequisite for employment. But – once the person is hired – the employer shouldn't discriminate against some employees just to put other employees at ease. For one thing, there's the First Amendment. Courts have ruled that people have the right to converse with one another in whatever language they please as long as it doesn't interfere with how they do their job.
Case 3: Ruben Navarette Reports:
Library books frighten some folks in Lewisburg, Tenn. – library books in Spanish, to be precise. A while back, at the Marshall County Memorial Library, an employee named Nellie Rivera proposed a bilingual story time where children could have books read to them in Spanish. Some townspeople raised a fuss and demanded that all books in the library – whether bought with public funds or donated by private individuals – be in English. The silver lining is that there are good folks in Lewisburg, and around the country, who scoff at such cultural censorship. As word of this bilingual backlash got around, outraged patrons began sending checks to the library that were specifically earmarked for buying Spanish-language books. Perhaps to tweak the opposition, some of the donations were in Rivera's name. That's what I love about story time – in whatever language. There's usually a happy ending.
Here is the 1st Ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Question: "Do businesses have the right to require their employees to speak English Only when it does not impact the job itself?" Here are three Cases that say otherwise! What do you think? Will these laws, if enacted, limit Freedom of Speech?
Case 1:The Washington Times is reporting: Restaurant returns to English-only battle.
RD's Drive-In Restaurant in Page, Ariz., has reinstated its requirement that employees speak English while on the job, ending a five-year legal tussle, according to ProEnglish. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the drive-in in 2002, saying it was discriminating against its Navajo employees by requiring them to speak English on the job. The interest group ProEnglish stepped in to help the drive-in with legal costs as it fought the suit, but they lost in court in a federal appeals court in September. Now the drive-in has rescinded the original policy and put a new policy in place that includes a revised English policy.
Case 2: Ruben Navarette reports:
The Great Language Debate: Many Hispanics applaud the decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to sue the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required employees to speak only English on the job. The requirement was posted, and yet at least two Hispanic employees defiantly continued to speak Spanish while at work. The EEOC claimed that their firings violated the law. English-only proponents said the EEOC's position violated common sense. The critics are wrong. It's not that a business doesn't have the right to expect its employees to speak English. It does. It just doesn't have the right to prevent workers from speaking languages other than English. That's what this case is about, after all – not a requirement that employees be able to speak English, but a rule that banned the speaking of other languages. Of course, a business has the right to consider one's ability to speak English as a prerequisite for employment. But – once the person is hired – the employer shouldn't discriminate against some employees just to put other employees at ease. For one thing, there's the First Amendment. Courts have ruled that people have the right to converse with one another in whatever language they please as long as it doesn't interfere with how they do their job.
Case 3: Ruben Navarette Reports:
Library books frighten some folks in Lewisburg, Tenn. – library books in Spanish, to be precise. A while back, at the Marshall County Memorial Library, an employee named Nellie Rivera proposed a bilingual story time where children could have books read to them in Spanish. Some townspeople raised a fuss and demanded that all books in the library – whether bought with public funds or donated by private individuals – be in English. The silver lining is that there are good folks in Lewisburg, and around the country, who scoff at such cultural censorship. As word of this bilingual backlash got around, outraged patrons began sending checks to the library that were specifically earmarked for buying Spanish-language books. Perhaps to tweak the opposition, some of the donations were in Rivera's name. That's what I love about story time – in whatever language. There's usually a happy ending.
Posts
