To Speak or Not to Speak

21 September 2009

To Speak or Not to Speak

            In his essay, “Aria:  Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood,” Richard Rodriguez makes a compelling argument against bilingual education.  Bilingual education was introduced in the late 1960’s by Hispanic-American social activists.  This program, which was later endorsed by a congressional vote, allows non-English speaking children to use their native tongue as the language of school.  This program fails in today’s society because schools can not employ enough educators who speak one or more of the numerous languages used by today’s immigrants.  Globalization is the reality of our current society.  It is an injustice to discourage children from learning the global language of English.  One intended purpose of bilingual education is maintaining the intimacy between parent and child.  Supporters of this program fail to see that language is not the sole ingredient in family cohesiveness.  Education using the public language of English helps immigrants assimilate to their new country.

            Bilingual education was born of a time and in a place where most of the foreign students were of Spanish descent.  At that time, this program might have been feasible if you had bilingual teachers.  In order for bilingual education to work today, school districts would need an arsenal of multilingual teachers.  It is impractical for a school district to employ enough teachers that speak any or all the languages used by today’s immigrants.  How many teachers, or average citizens, know two languages let alone three or more?  The lack of multilingual teachers is enough reason to render bilingual education impossible. 

            Technology and economic trade is forcing countries to work together.  This makes it necessary for one language to stand out as the common language used in business.  English is that language.  The only way to prepare our children for success in this globalized world is to teach them the global language of English.

            Maintaining the intimacy between the foreign parent and the Americanized child is one of the intended purposes of bilingual education.  Language is vital to family cohesiveness; the ability to communicate is important.  However, it is not vital that a child’s education be in the native tongue of the family to maintain intimacy.  I grew up in a bilingual home.  My step-father is Micronesian.  He spoke English in addition to his native tongue to my half-brothers.  While my step-father wanted his sons to know and appreciate their Micronesian heritage, he also understood the importance of speaking English.    Robert Rodriguez states in his essay, “Intimacy is not trapped within words.”  Family intimacy comes from shared histories.  It is the memories made and shared that create intimate family bonds, not the language we speak.

As an immigrant to this country, my step-father quickly learned English to assimilate to his new country.  I vehemently feel that if an immigrant wants to better his or her life by moving to America, then he or she ought to learn the English language.  In the early twentieth century, my Swedish ancestors had to learn the English language when they homesteaded in Washington.  It was necessary for them to learn English in order to assimilate and succeed in their new country.  Rodriguez best sums it up when he writes; “Supporters of bilingual education today imply that students like me miss a great deal by not being taught in their family’s language…What I needed to learn in school was that I had the right—and the obligation—to speak the public language of los gringos.”

Not only is bilingual education impractical in today’s America, it is an injustice to these young children as they try to navigate their new country.  There are not enough multilingual teachers to ensure the program’s success.  Even if there were enough multilingual teachers, it is important for us to acknowledge that family intimacy is not formed on language alone, but rather shared memories.  Most importantly, we are doing an injustice to these children by discouraging them from learning in English, the language of globalization.