Surviving the English Only Assault:
Public Attitudes and the Future of
Language Education

by James Crawford

Right now, there's considerable uncertainty about how this issue will play out politically. But one thing I can say without going too far out on a limb: English Only will be back in the 105th Congress. That's not a very daring prediction; similar legislation has been introduced in every Congress since 1981. But its prospects have never been more favorable, now that House Speaker Newt Gingrich has become a powerful supporter. Over the past two years, he has repeatedly attacked bilingualism as a menace to "American civilization." Thanks to his efforts, last summer the House passed H.R. 123, a bill declaring English the official language and outlawing most uses of other languages by the federal government.

This was unprecedented in two ways. It was the first time Congress had ever voted on English Only legislation, and it was the first time it had become an intensely partisan issue. Recently, Republican leaders have come to see language as a "wedge issue" they can exploit – a way to divide Democratic constituencies – and I'm afraid they may be right.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole jumped on the bandwagon in 1995, following an opinion poll showing nearly 90 percent of Americans in favor of Official English. Public attitudes are clearly driving this campaign, prompting politicians to stir the pot, generating sensational headlines attacking bilingualism and stimulating more English Only fervor among the electorate.

Fortunately, the Senate failed to act on H.R. 123 in its final rush to adjournment. So the bill died in the 104th Congress. Meanwhile, the White House issued a statement threatening that President Clinton would veto the measure. Still, it's important to note that back in 1987, as governor of Arkansas, he signed a similar English Only bill into law. So his promise is not considered as rock-solid as it might be.

A further wild card is the U.S. Supreme Court, which is now considering a case involving Arizona's English Only amendment. This 1988 voter initiative, which passed by only 1 percent, is the most restrictive English Only measure ever passed at the state level. With very few exceptions, it bans any use of other languages by public employees – including, for example, a teacher using Spanish to communicate with parents or a state legislator speaking in Navajo to constituents. So far, this law has been ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts, as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. It's anybody's guess what the final outcome will be, but the Supreme Court's current direction on civil rights and civil liberties makes many of us very nervous. There is also a good chance that the justices will throw out the lower court rulings on procedural grounds – which could have the effect of reinstating the Arizona amendment. Whichever way it goes, the political impact of this decision should be substantial, since it will likely come at a time when Congress is considering another English Only bill.

But enough prognosticating. Today I want to discuss what's at stake in the English Only controversy:

• What the attack on bilingualism represents – its social and ideological sources;
• what it hopes to accomplish – its hidden agenda; and
• what we can and should be doing about it – the issue of political advocacy.

I'll begin by posing an obvious, but often neglected, question: Why should ESL teachers care about this question? TESOL, as you know, has been on record in opposition to English Only legislation since 1987. Since that time the organization has worked actively against these bills at the federal and state levels. This has surprised lots of people outside the profession, who had assumed that English Only is about promoting English acquisition and that ESL teachers would favor it on that basis.

This is, of course, a very naive view of the issue. Contrary to appearances, the English Only movement is not about promoting English. It's about restricting the use of other languages. It's about scapegoating immigrants for many of this country's social problems. It's about limiting the rights of language minority groups. And it's about manipulating ethnic fears and animosities for partisan advantage. So, for anyone who believes in the principles of democracy, tolerance, and equality, there are plenty of reasons to oppose English Only laws.

Still, the question remains: What is the particular interest of ESL professionals in this debate? Why is it important for this field to oppose English Only legislation?

I think there are several answers. First, there are specific pedagogical reasons, which I'll mention briefly, and second, a group of broader policy reasons, which I'll discuss in depth.

The pedagogical considerations involve bilingual education – a program that the English Only movement seeks to restrict or abolish, in the misguided view that native-language instruction diverts children from learning English. As you know, research shows that precisely the opposite is true. Knowledge and skills acquired in the first language not only transfer to the second language; they also support English acquisition. So, at the classroom level, restrictions on the use of native-language instruction, especially in the early grades, are likely to make the ESL teacher's job more difficult.

But I am sure this research (by Cummins, Krashen, and others) is quite familiar to you. So I won't belabor the point. Instead, today I want to focus on the larger implications of English Only legislation, which involve basic choices about immigration, pluralism, and civil rights. These are contentious matters in the 1990s, and they opened some bitter divisions in the last Congress.

There are several ways to frame these choices. I would frame them as follows:

• Should we encourage newcomers to integrate voluntarily into our society by offering them the necessary tools – such as education, job training, and English classes – and by guaranteeing them basic rights, including the right to maintain their ethnic heritage?
• Or should we treat immigrants as a financial burden, a cultural threat, and a potential source of division – by adopting policies that discriminate against noncitizens, deny them a social safety net, and coerce them to conform to the dominant culture?

These choices have a major impact on public support for programs serving immigrants, including language education. Thus they will have a major impact on the well-being of your students: whether they are going to be included or excluded from government services, whether they are going to be enabled to learn English or punished for speaking their native language, and whether they are going to be respected or demonized in the public discourse.

I'm sorry to say that, over the past couple of years, policymakers have increasingly favored the second set of alternatives. First, we had Proposition 187 in California, where in 1994 voters approved the termination of virtually all government services to undocumented immigrants, including prenatal care, disaster relief, and of course, education.

Soon the backlash extended to the federal level and to legal immigrants. Last spring the House voted to deport any noncitizen who received federally funded benefits for more than 12 months -- not only welfare, but student loans, job training, Medicaid, and even ESL classes. Ultimately this provision was dropped, along with an amendment that would have encouraged states to throw undocumented children out of school. But similar proposals are expected to be fought out again soon. The 104th Congress did approve – and President Clinton signed – a bill that makes legal, taxpaying immigrants and their children ineligible for food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income for the aged and disabled, and most other safety-net programs. The savings from terminating these benefits are intended to pay for the overall costs of so-called "welfare reform."

In rallying opposition to these policies, there is a basic political problem. Not only are immigrants a minority of the population. Not only are they less likely to be citizens eligible to vote. Not only are they less organized to fight for their interests. But in addition, they tend to be concentrated in a minority of states and localities – which shoulder a disproportionate share of adjustment costs, even though it's the federal government that is responsible for immigration policy. This inequity can create real economic strains and encourage the kind of backlash we've seen in California, which spends an estimated $3 billion each year to educate the children of undocumented immigrants.

Back in the early 1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that states are responsible for educating these children. They can't simply kick kids out of school and create, in Justice Brennan's words, "a permanent subclass of illiterates." In the aftermath of that ruling, Congress created the Emergency Immigrant Education Program, which was supposed to share some of the financial burden for schooling newcomers, whether legal or illegal. But again, because a majority of jurisdictions were not feeling the pain, the political constituency for this program has been weak. As of 1994, it reimbursed school districts about $39 for each immigrant child per year. Thanks to some late-session victories for education advocates, Congress recently doubled that amount. Still, this appropriation falls far short of the cost of educating these children (which averages more than $6000 a year nationwide, not counting supplementary services like ESL). A great deal more attention needs to be focused on this problem, or I'm afraid we'll see more anti-immigrant reactions in areas where costs are not being shared.

So ESL professionals have an obvious stake in these choices about how this nation treats immigrants. Do we address their real needs or do we put the entire burden of adjustment on the newcomers themselves? English Only legislation is a perfect example of the latter approach.

H.R. 123, passed by the House last August on a largely partisan vote of 259 to 169, declares English the official language of the federal government and outlaws most operations in other languages – from Social Security publications to consumer information services to bilingual voting. Had the Senate followed suit, this legislation would have, forbidden members of Congress to communicate with constituents in Polish; the National Park Service would no longer be able to print brochures in Japanese; and the IRS would have to stop providing Spanish-language tax forms – just to cite a few examples. It's important to note that, while immigrants are the main political target of this legislation, it would affect many others, including Native Americans – whose languages are already severely endangered – and even foreign visitors who sometimes need bilingual assistance.

The sponsors of H.R. 123 claimed that one of their major motivations was to save money. Yet they rejected an amendment that would have allowed federal agencies to use other languages when deemed necessary for purposes of government efficiency.

Perhaps the most cynical feature of this legislation is its name: "The English Language Empowerment Act of 1996" – an Orwellian assault on the English language itself. Newt Gingrich wants to "empower" limited English speakers by taking away their rights and access to government, just as he wants to "liberate" the poor from dependency by terminating their welfare checks, food stamps, and medical care. It was no coincidence that the day-long debate over the English Only bill featured numerous references to ending so-called "linguistic welfare" – the provision of language assistance – as a way to encourage "self-reliance."

As it happens, virtually all the House Republicans who backed this bill had recently voted to cut the Clinton administration's modest budget for adult education programs that teach English. Meanwhile, across the United States there are hundreds of thousands of immigrants are on waiting lists to get into ESL classes because they are not adequately funded. Of course, the "English empowerment" bill does nothing to remedy this situation – it includes no funding for English instruction whatsoever.

At the last minute, a loophole was added that appears to exempt bilingual education from the English Only mandate (although Congress has already eliminated funding for bilingual teacher-training, research, and support services). But the indirect, political fallout of H.R. 123 is probably more dangerous than its direct, legal restrictions.

This is a key point where ESL teachers are concerned: in a political sense, English Only legislation functions as a substitute for supporting language education. If immigrants can be blamed for not learning English – for seeking to preserve their native languages out of ethnic pride – then the taxpayers can wash their hands of any responsibility to provide educational opportunities and let somebody else fund ESL classes.

This has been a consistent pattern with English Only advocates ever since I started covering this movement a decade ago. Back in 1987, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus came up with the idea for a federal program whose sole purpose would be to address the shortage of opportunities for adult immigrants to learn English. I was amazed when the director of U.S. English, the leading English Only group, opposed the idea, arguing that this was a job for the private sector. (In particular, she said, the costs should be borne by Spanish-language broadcasters, who had a "moral obligation" to teach their viewers English.) The hypocrisy was amazing even to me, a rather cynical Washington journalist.

This English Literacy Grants Program did become law. But unfortunately, Congress never saw fit to fund it – the yearly appropriation rarely exceeded $1 million for the entire United States – and the program expired in 1994. So the federal contribution to immigrant English classes must compete with numerous other priorities in the adult education program.

I believe this is why TESOL and its affiliates have such a strong interest in opposing English Only. And ESL teachers have a special role to play: you are both well-qualified professionally and well-situated politically to make these arguments. Potentially, you have great credibility in this debate.

The first step toward getting involved is analyzing what the other side says. So let's take a look at the case for English Only. What's the rationale for this legislation? To present this, I think it's appropriate to call upon an ally of Newt Gingrich, who happens to represent Michigan's 11th Congressional District not far from where we're meeting today – Rep. Joe Knollenberg. During floor debate on English Only legislation, here's how the Congressman explained his support for the bill:

"For more than 200 years our Nation has been a melting pot of cultures and nationalities united by one common bond – our English language. When our ancestors came to America, they came to this country knowing they had to learn English to survive.

"Today, our melting pot has become a patchwork quilt of cultures, isolated because they cannot speak English. They aren't assimilating into our society like our ancestors did.

"Our current bilingual policies are shredding the common bond that has made our Nation great. Today you can get a drivers license if you don't speak English. You can get forms to vote. You can apply for Social Security and welfare, all in scores of different languages. And bilingual education classes allow immigrant children to never learn English.

"By making it easy for those who come to America, we have ripped the heart out of our national unity. We have shredded our common bond, leaving behind the legacy of our ancestors – new and old – who worked so hard to learn English."

This is a classic statement of misinformation on language diversity and how this nation has dealt with it. I cite it not to single out Rep. Knollenberg for rebuke – I'll leave that job to his constituents – but because it so well illustrates the basic myths supporting English Only. Currently, these myths are accepted by a substantial majority of the public, according to opinion polls. If we're going to make any headway against the language-restrictionist movement, we need to educate the public on these issues.

So I want to briefly review and respond to the Congressman's arguments one by one:

• First, that English has been the major force uniting Americans as a nation;
• Second, that the "good old" immigrants of yesteryear were quick to learn English and make America great – unlike today's ungrateful newcomers;
• Third, that bilingual services make life "too easy" for non-English-speakers, providing a disincentive to learning the language; and
• Finally, that language diversity is inherently divisive and will inevitably lead to ethnic conflict.

The first claim – that English was a major element of American identity – would have come as news to the Founders of this country, who saw no reason to adopt an official language or any other measure to restrict the use of other tongues. In fact, the Continental Congress printed numerous official documents in German and French, to accommodate these politically significant minorities.

That's because language diversity is hardly a new phenomenon in this country. At the time of the first census, in 1790, German Americans made up 8.6 percent of the population of the original 13 states – a proportion comparable to that of Hispanic Americans in the 1990 census – 9.0 percent. And, although reliable statistics are lacking, I'd wager that fewer German Americans spoke good English two hundred years ago than Hispanic Americans do today.

Our lack of an official language was not an oversight. The Founders believed the United States should be different: this would be a nation based on democratic principles, not ethnic homogeneity. And among those principles was a strong commitment to the freedom of speech. There was a libertarian opposition to government's telling the people how to talk, which explains why the Continental Congress rejected a proposal by John Adams to establish an official language academy to regulate American English. Historically speaking (that is, until the last decade or so), Americans have been reluctant to pass language legislation of any kind, especially at the federal level. For example, English-speaking ability was not required for naturalization until 1906 – a time not unlike our own in terms of growing fears about immigration and ethnic diversity.

Rep. Knollenberg's historical ignorance also extends to his home state, which has always been linguistically diverse. The earliest white settlers in Michigan were French speakers, who outnumbered English speakers by about seven to one in 1790, and they remained a majority until the 1820s. According to the linguistic historian Heinz Kloss, these francophones were vociferous in demanding their rights, including the right to native-language instruction for their children. An 1827 law governing public schools in the Territory of Michigan read as follows:

"Every township within this territory containing 50 families or householders shall be provided with a good schoolmaster or schoolmasters, of good morals, to teach children to read and write, to instruct them in the English or French languages as well as in arithmetic, orthography, and decent behavior [emphasis added]."

Another significant minority here, the Dutch, organized a campaign for public instruction in their language in the 1870s and they were successful in at least seven school districts. A Michigan Supreme Court decision in 1874 involving the Kalamazoo schools upheld the legality of non-English-language instruction in rural areas, where immigrants tended to settle and where, as a practical matter, it was often difficult to find English-speaking teachers.

Throughout the Midwest, there were large non-English-speaking enclaves that persisted well into the 20th century. The most common of these were German American communities, which, because of their numbers and political clout, were most successful in winning the right to vernacular instruction. In the year 1900, there were at least 600,000 children, in public and parochial schools, receiving part or all of their instruction in the German language – about 4 percent of the nation's elementary school population at the time. This is probably a larger percentage of students than are enrolled in fully bilingual classrooms today ( unfortunately, good numbers about current enrollments are lacking).

On the question of whether today's immigrants are learning English less rapidly than those who came a few generations earlier, it's interesting to note that the same charge was made about their predecessors in the early 1900s. (That was the official verdict of a federal immigration commission in 1911– although, like today's immigrant-bashers, it had no data to support this conclusion.) This remains a popular misconception today: that English seems to be losing ground to other languages.

When you think about it, it's not too surprising that many Anglo-Americans have this impression. Minority languages are clearly more noticeable now than, say, a generation ago. After nearly half a century of restrictive immigration quotas, suddenly the number of minority language speakers began to increase dramatically, following the elimination of restrictive immigration quotas in 1965.

But there is also a countervailing trend. All the available evidence shows that Anglicization rates are accelerating – that is, current immigrants are learning English more rapidly than ever before. According to the demographer Calvin Veltman, they are approaching a two-generation model of linguistic assimilation, as compared with the classic three-generation model at the turn of this century. The English Only advocates can point to no hard evidence – only stereotypes and subjective impressions – to support their charge that English is threatened as the nation's common language.

Next there's the question of bilingual education and similar accommodations: do they discourage English acquisition? Again, there are no research findings offered – only prejudices: the attitude that we have to take a stern, coercive policy toward newcomers, or they will never learn English. In fact, the vast majority of bilingual services are temporary and transitional – designed to help people adjust while they're acquiring the language – not permanent entitlements.

Unfortunately, the way many bilingual education programs have been implemented in this country, their impact tends to be subtractive. They often encourage children to lose native languages that would benefit them personally and would benefit a country that's short on critical language skills.

When you come right down to it, there are precious few public accommodations currently offered for limited English speakers. This question arose during the debate over H.R. 123 – Exactly how much does the federal government spend on bilingual services? – and so proponents commissioned a study of the Government Printing Office to see how many documents it was producing in other languages. Lo and behold, the survey turned up 265 federal publications over the previous five years – out of more than 400,000. In other words, 99.94 percent were printed in English. Nevertheless, English Only sponsors continued to condemn what they called outrageous expenditures to provide "multilingual government."

Finally, there's the claim that bilingualism is a recipe for ethnic strife: that people can't get along unless they all speak the same language. No doubt language can become a factor in ethnic conflict, especially when it's used to discriminate – when a minority is treated like second-class citizens, as happened in Canada for many years. This can lead to resentment and retaliation, such as the unfortunate French Only policies adopted in Quebec.

But language differences per se are hardly the source of conflict. For example, the Swiss speak four different languages, yet they are notorious for getting along very harmoniously. In response, English Only advocates have cited the former Yugoslavia as an example of how "bilingualism" can lead to genocide. No claim could be more ludicrous. It's true that several major languages are spoken there, but the virtually all the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims involved in the recent troubles speak dialects of the same language: Serbo-Croatian. Only a zealous English Only ideologue, with no concern for the facts, would argue that this conflict has its source in language differences. Unfortunately, lots of those ideologues have been re-elected to the 105th Congress, including the Representative from Michigan's 11th District.

In summary, the English Only movement has marshaled little or no factual evidence for its case. Yet apparently it doesn't have to. It remains enormously popular with the public, which seems eager to embrace its message. Meanwhile, its myths have been circulated by a largely uncritical press, which has made few attempts to investigate the factual basis of English Only claims.

What's going on here? Why is Congress wasting its time on this kind of nonsense – legislation that is unnecessary, threatening to government efficiency, and probably unconstitutional, not to mention poisonous to relations among ethnic groups?

This brings us to the question I raised earlier: Why is the English Only movement prospering today? The issue has suddenly become partisan, first, because it's thematically compatible with Newt Gingrich's radical agenda for the Republican Party.

Second, it's no accident that the English Only movement has flourished in an era of rising immigration, which has transformed many American communities. In researching my book Hold Your Tongue, I visited a number of places where newcomers have brought major cultural changes and where, by no coincidence, the English Only issue has been bitterly fought out.

To cite one example, Monterey Park, California, a sleepy bedroom community of Los Angeles, became a magnet for affluent immigrants from Taiwan and Hong Kong – "the Chinese Beverly Hills," as one real-estate developer promoted it. In a short time it was transformed into a majority Asian American city and financial center, home to a dozen Chinese-owned banks. Property values have soared, and many Anglo-Americans can no longer afford to live there. Worse, some say, they feel like strangers in their own community. In language, this resentment has found a convenient symbol for all the unsettling demographic changes. It's especially visible in the local business district, where commerce is conducted largely in Mandarin and Cantonese, and Chinese characters are prominent on storefronts.

Longtime residents of Monterey Park feel, understandably, that they have been dispossessed. Unfortunately, the English Only reaction has made matters worse, dividing the community along ethnic lines. At one point, the mayor even tried to keep Chinese books off the shelves of the public library. Finally, about five years ago, the Asians' political power caught up with their numbers. Along with Anglo and Hispanic residents who had tired of the conflict, they voted out the most demagogic members of the city council, repealed the English Only ordinance, and – I'm happy to report – restored a measure of ethnic harmony.

This example suggests a third key factor underlying English Only campaigns: race. Immigrants are not only coming in large numbers; they are coming from different places. Up until the 1950s, 85 percent of voluntary immigrants to this county had arrived from Europe; in the 1980s, 85 percent arrived from the Third World, especially from Asia and Latin America. This change in immigrants' racial makeup has had a decisive influence on how many Americans think about language.

I used to live in Boston back in the 1970s. And I worked in an Italian neighborhood called the North End, which looked and sounded just like Sicily or Naples, with old men in undershirts playing dominoes outside on the cobblestone streets and talking in Italian. Nobody objected. Nobody accosted them to say, "This is America. Speak English!" Nobody worried that the country would be divided along ethnic lines. These Italians were considered white people – quaint and nonthreatening.

Similar behavior patterns among Hispanic and Asian newcomers today are viewed very differently. The fact that their numbers are increasing rapidly makes them menacing to some Anglo-Americans, creating a movement to restrict and even halt immigration – which is, not surprisingly, allied with the new movement to restrict immigrant languages.

U.S. English, the organization that launched the English Only movement, was founded in 1983 as a spinoff from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Washington lobby that's leading the charge for a moratorium on all immigration to this country. The connection has naturally raised questions about the sincerity of U.S. English in trying to help newcomers assimilate. Soon after its founding, it started holding internal workshops on "How to Respond to the Charge of Racism."

In 1987, hoping to clean up its image, U.S. English recruited Linda Chávez – the prominent conservative and opponent of bilingual education – to serve as its president. She later told me that, soon after taking the job, she received numerous racist letters from members of the organization to protest that a Hispanic had been hired to lead them. To find out how common this sentiment was, Chávez hired an opinion research firm to survey the membership and find out who they were, what they thought, and why they were giving money to U.S. English. Among numerous questions was one asking why they had been inspired to send in donations. In response, 42 percent agreed with the statement: "I think America needs to stand strong and not cave in to Hispanics who should not be here." This is the kind of candid admission you normally don't get from the leaders of such organizations.

But in this case, the hidden agenda was outlined quite explicitly in an internal memo by Dr. John Tanton, an ophthalmologist from Petoskey, Michigan, who is the founder of the modern English Only movement. In fact, he headed both U.S. English and the Federation for American Immigration Reform for most of the last decade, and set the ideological tone for both organizations.

Back in 1988, an internal memo by Dr. Tanton was leaked to the press in which he warned of a Hispanic political takeover of the United States through immigration and high birthrates. "Perhaps this is the first instance," he wrote, "in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!" Among all the anti-Hispanic stereotypes he cited – Catholicism, with its threat to "pitch out the separation of church and state"; failure to use birth control; lack of concern for the environment; low "educability"; and limited English skills – only the last of these was possible to raise in polite debate. Hence the role of U.S. English: to ride language as a stalking horse for a larger nativist agenda.

This disclosure confirmed for many people that English Only is a racist movement, pure and simple. I don't agree. Anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian bigotry clearly motivates a hard core of leaders and supporters. But, in my view, these sentiments do not characterize a majority of those who support English as the official language. As I've explained, in investigating this conflict, I've found its social and ideological sources to be anything but pure and simple.

A final factor in the political rise of English Only, which should not be underestimated, is public ignorance about language issues. We don't have much recent experience with language politics in this country. So most Americans are unsophisticated about the issues: how we've dealt with language historically, how bilingual education programs work, how second languages are acquired (the vast majority of Anglo-Americans being monolingual, after all), and what's at stake for those affected by language discrimination.

In a poll conducted not too long ago, 64 percent of respondents believed erroneously that English already was the official language of the United States. When informed otherwise, most of them expressed the attitude: "Why not?" Other surveys, however, have shown that when people are informed about the consequences of English Only – for example, applying for a driver's license or a Social Security check becomes a literacy test, disenfranchising people who would otherwise qualify – a substantial portion are no longer in favor. It's too bad that most people remain unaware of these consequences.

That's a quick sketch of some of the factors that lead so many people to support English Only measures. Which raises the final question I want to address today: how can this appeal be countered? This is where you come in.

Political advocacy is important – including the direct lobbying of legislators and other policymakers. But it has become increasingly clear that, on ideologically driven issues like English Only, appeals to tolerance and common sense are not always effective with politicians. They pay enormous attention to public opinion polls and when a position seems very popular, many politicians don't want to be distracted by the facts – especially during an election year. This became evident during the House debate on English Only this summer.

So influencing public attitudes is crucial. Ultimately they determine the responses of politicians. In particular, the widespread perception that language diversity is harmful to the country has given momentum to English Only legislation. It is this mentality that must be changed.

Attitudes on such questions, however, do not change overnight. In this case I believe they are unlikely to budge without a sustained educational effort, one that will challenge the way Americans think about bilingualism, about immigrants, and about programs that serve them – bilingual and ESL instruction in particular. This is going to require a good deal more activism by language educators than we have seen thus far.

Bear in mind that the English Only groups raise and spend well over $10 million each year to promote their message. And they do it in a conscious, professional, and organized way.

Advocates for language minority students are far outgunned in the propaganda war. We have coalition meetings in Washington, we lobby members of Congress, and we alert constituents in times of crisis. But we do little or no public outreach – a very short-sighted set of priorities, in my view. And it's a missed opportunity, because our side has a much stronger case to make on the merits: for policies that respect language diversity, safeguard language rights, and develop Americans' skills in multiple languages.

To reiterate once more: teachers of English could have enormous credibility in this debate, for example, to explain that:

• Bilingualism is as American as apple pie – and has been ever since this nation's beginnings.
• Yet, for more than two centuries, we've gotten by quite well without an official language and – for the most part – without trying to stamp out language diversity.
• English is in no way threatened as this nation's common language.
• Today's immigrants are highly motivated to learn it; they don't need to be coerced.
• If anything, they are assimilating faster than immigrants of previous generations and – unfortunately – tending to lose their native tongues.
• From an educational point of view, there is no need to give up one's first language in order to learn a second.
• In fact, subtractive bilingualism has been shown to be harmful to children's cognitive and academic growth.
• Of course, there's no question that all U.S. residents need to know English to participate fully in this society.
• But in a global economy and in a world of many cultures, English alone is not enough.
• We need English, Plus other languages.

These are the kinds of messages that need to get out. But how can this be done in practice, without a $10 million media budget? There are lots of ways for you to participate in this work, informally, and through your TESOL affiliate. For example:

• At the level of your school – Engage colleagues in discussion about these issues. Organize forums on language policy at staff and PTA meetings.
• At the level of your community – Write letters to the editor to refute the claims of English Only advocates like Rep. Knollenberg. Work with local media to raise public awareness of your professional work, giving special attention to publicizing success stories.
• At the state level – Promote English Plus resolutions in your legislature; whether or not they pass, they can provide a focus for public education. Form statewide alliances with other education and civil rights groups, learning from successful models in states like Massachusetts and Hawaii.
• At the national level – Keep the pressure on your members of Congress. Work closely with TESOL's Sociopolitical Concerns Committee, which has lots more suggestions on how to get involved in political advocacy.

The important theme in all these activities is the goal of changing minds. To do that we need to be proactive – not simply reacting to issues already framed by the English Only side. We also need to be better organized to carry out this strategy. Finally, we need the personal contributions of professionals like you: language educators who recognize the need to become activists.