In 1998, despite having one of the largest bilingual speaking populations in the United States at that time, California voters passed Proposition 227, also known to voters as the “English for our Children” initiative,... [ view full abstract ]
In 1998, despite having one of the largest bilingual speaking populations in the United States at that time, California voters passed Proposition 227, also known to voters as the “English for our Children” initiative, which requires California’s public school teachers to instruct all students in English only. Such approval of initiative gives rise to concerns in regards to how and why Californian schools would not only exterminate bilingual programs, but also shun and discriminate (covertly and overtly) against students who spoke Spanish. Since it is beyond counterintuitive that a state with so many bilingual speakers would get rid of a program that would ultimately benefit its students and perhaps smoothen educational experiences, this paper proposes important underlying, yet not often acknowledged reasons why an English-only initiative passed in a predominantly bilingual speaking state. In particular, this paper addresses the following questions: Why were English-only initiatives sought out in the first place? In other words, what is the relationship between colonialism/white supremacy and English-only initiatives? Do English-only initiatives in schools lead bilingual students to devalue (often times dismiss) their culture, which results in internalized racism? Lastly, how do bilingual students’ ability to speak two languages allow for them to contribute to their family, community, and more importantly themselves? That is, what non-material benefits come along with being bilingual?
This paper uses the works of: Mills (2003) who provides an insightful perspective on the dominance of white supremacy, which he asserts should be seen as “a multidimensional system of domination not merely encompassing the realm of ‘formally’ political that is limited to the political realm of official governing bodies and laws but, …extending to white domination in economic, cultural, cognitive-evaluative, somatic, and in a sense even ‘metaphysical’ spheres” (p. 42); Williams and Williams-Morris (2000) and Speight (2006), who provide an extensive definition of internalized racism, which they refer to as the acceptance, by marginalized racial populations, of the negative societal beliefs and stereotypes about themselves; and Yosso (2006), Delgado Bernal (2001), Orellana, (2003; 2001) who provide a plethora of examples that exemplify the importance of being bicultural and bilingual.
My main arguments are that English-only initiatives embody “white superiority” or even “cultural superiority” help explain why banning non-English languages in Californian schools was sought out in the first place and that prohibiting bilingual students from speaking their home language in school has devalued and undermined the advantages and importance of being able to speak two languages. Furthermore, prohibiting bilingual students from speaking their native language does not only strip them from their culture, but could also lead to self-hatred towards their own culture. Thus, results in an attempt to keep Latina/os ‘in line.’ Additionally, I argue bilingualism is an invaluable talent that must be acknowledged and preserved. I emphasize the importance of being bilingual and the various assets that come along with it and shed light on the many ways bilingual students contribute to, their families, communities, and themselves.
Cultural Studies , Education , Social Science--Quantitative , Central American , Chicano/a -- Mexican
