Gingrich's Comments on Citizenship and English

In a recent speech, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lambasted bilingual education and the use of non-English languages for printing of government documents, specifically election ballots. His criticisms, however, were WAY off the mark and were, in fact, based on an incorrect understanding of the laws of this country.

His first criticism suggested that bilingual education was teaching the "language of living in the ghetto." I assume that he must be referring to Spanish speakers and the use of Spanish and English in the education of children who only speak Spanish because I know English-speaking children who attend foreign-language immersion school and only learn English for the sake of English (i.e. not learning history in English but in the foreign language). And I don't think he's referring to French as the "language of living in the ghetto". So, already, there appears to be some sort of nationalistic and anti-Spanish streak in his talk.

However, the main problem with his criticism of bilingual education is that he suggests that immersion is better than bilingual education. The pro-bilingual people, however, argue that bilingual education does a better job because the students learn English but don't fall behind in their basic academics. One might think that this is a pedagogical issue worthy of study and informed debate, but Gingrich uses this as a way to blast bilingual eduation as a sort of anti-English force, when nothing could be further from the truth. All immigrants want to learn English and, in particular, want their kids to learn English because they know that English is the key to success (one point Gingrich did get right). To suggest that bilingual education is trying to devalue the place of English in our country is just plain wrong. Interestingly, the immigrants I know are divided on this issue, although, from my days in psychology, I remember reading that studies had suggested that bilingual education works better than immersion for non-English speaking children. So, I assume that it is on the basis of such studies that educators have concluded that bilingual education is the best way to mainstream such students. Of course, it should be noted that schools do not usually intend the students to remain in bilingual education forever -- just until their English is sufficient.

The nationalistic intent of Gingrich's speech is clear from the fact that he also blasts the printing of ballots in languages other than English. To support his argument, he states that citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English (I don't know whether he addressed the issue of immigrants have semi-fluency but not having enough fluency to get through some of the crazy ballot measures that are put on the voting ballots -- frankly, I have trouble sometimes deciphering the meaning, intent, and impact of the measures).

However, he could not be more wrong. I am a citizen and I have never had to take a test in order to achieve citizenship. In fact, I doubt he had to take a citizenship test either. Moreover, I have voted and never had to prove I could read English. How could this be? Oh wait, that's right: Newt doesn't know what he's talking about. There are many ways to become a citizen of this country, only of which (the naturalization process) requires a citizenship test. You could also be born on American soil (which includes American military bases and embassies in foreign countries, as well as the numerous territories and commonwealths, such as Puerto Rico, of the U.S.). Also, you could be born to an American parent. These do not require passing a citizenship test and, therefore, it is entirely possible that you have not learned English. Your American parent could have taken you overseas and never taught you English. Who knows?

In fact, the original reason for the federal laws requiring ballots in languages other than English stems from the Hispanics who lived in the Southwest and the Native Americans in a variety of states who did not speak English (or at least, not well). These were people who lived on land in the U.S. prior to the U.S. owning the land (or, I should say, their ancestors lived on the land). These people were often discriminated against and, generally speaking, were alienated from much of society. However, they were (and are) citizens of our country and, based on our laws, have the right to vote. To disenfranchise such people is simply wrong and against the kind of values we have developed over our country's history. Most important, many of these people, especially Native Americans, may still not have good English.

Gingrich also said that bilingualism poses long-term dangers for our country. Huh? What are you talking about, Newt? Have you talked to the Bush administration about the fact that so few people in this country know foreign languages fluently? Have you asked them how much it hurts our abilities to fight terrorists, fight international organized crime, or simply engage in the world? Have you talked to the county sheriffs in Tennessee who are battling Mexican methamphetamine smugglers but are facing serious hurdles simply because none of them know Spanish (I was just reading about this problem)? Clearly, the man doesn't know what he's talking about.

Again, some of his comments might be interesting were they given in an academic manner, but mostly, Gingrich's goal for his speech seemed to be to throw red meat to his audience and rouse their nationalistic tendencies while engaging in subtle anti-Hispanic racism.