English Only Arguments

Against, of course. Don't think I've changed my tune!

TESOL has a nice write-up dispelling the "myths" behind English-first and English only legislation. I particularly liked this:

Myth 3: English-only will promote efficiency and fairness in government by conducting all official business in a single language. Offering multilingual government services is costly and inefficient, according to proponents of English-only. Supposedly, thousands of dollars spent on multilingual services would be saved if government business were to be conducted only in English. Furthermore, if government services cannot be provided in all languages, they claim that it would be fairer to provide them only in a single language.

Reality: Very little money is spent federally on translation of documents and multilingual services... In the case of the Internal Revenue Service, the primary reason multilingual services are provided is for cost-effectiveness: The amount of taxes collected as a result of such services far exceeds the cost. (TESOL. "Position Paper on English-Only Legislation in the United States." June 2005.)

I had a friend who worked for a division of the New York City education department that translated communication with parents into something like 8 different languages. It would be interesting to do a case study of how much money they spent versus the benefits it provided - basically something like a "cost-benefit analysis." This is why I need to take business classes. This is also why I don't quite fit into the education school.