Abstract
This chapter takes the final step in developing the book’s hypothesis. It brings to light multicultural policy developments in the United States that took place from the late 1960s to the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century. It points out the paradox that, with one notable exception, American multiculturalism (i.e. language accommodation for immigrants) persisted from the late 1990s and during the first decade of the twenty-first century, a period of time during which the Republican Party first gained majority control of Congress and subsequently of both the legislative and executive branches of government. In brief, the American case brings to light the importance of critical veto players in determining multicultural outcomes. It also offers preliminary insight into the possible motivations of veto players who may decide to intercede on behalf of multiculturalism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The use of the “melting pot” to describe American society stands in contradistinction to the frequent use of the term “mosaic” to describe Canada’s “multicultural” society. The key difference between these terms relates to minority integration; whereas “mosaic” implies that Canada has eschewed the use of an integrationist model based on the notion “Anglo-conformity”, “melting pot” assumes that the United States still embraces “Anglo-conformity” (see Palmer 1976).
- 2.
The association between Anglophobia and the establishment of an American language dates back to the immediate post-revolutionary period. Noah Webster (1789) argued that Federal English homogenization should be a part of the revolutionary experience, unifying a people under the ambit of a single language and eventually distancing Americans from their English ancestors. Webster saw the establishment of official English as an integral part of the enlightenment process, separating Americans from the “[the nations of the Eastern Continent] whose knowledge and intercourse are embarrassed by differences of language” (Webster 1992, 35).
- 3.
To get a sense of the toxic tone of the debate, one need look no further than Leo Berman’s comments on official English. Representative Berman (R) has been of the most outspoken advocates of English-Only policies which he justified as one of a series of measures to curb illegal, read illegal immigration to the state: “You don’t have to round up 20 million illegal aliens,” Berman said. “Stop the two free benefits you’re giving them -- free health care and a free education -- and they’ll go back across the Rio Grande” (Corpus Christi Caller, April 29, 2008).
- 4.
Public Law 93-112, Section 504, Nondiscrimination Under Federal Grants “No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, as defined in Section 7(6), shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
- 5.
They are: the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Council on Disability, the National Credit Union Association, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Office of Management and Budget, the Public Benefits Guaranty Corporation, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Social Security Administration, the US Commission on Civil Rights, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the US Office of Special Counsel. See “Federal Agency LEP Programs” https://www.lep.gov/guidance/fed_plan_index.html, accessed July 26, 2016.
- 6.
Bob Dole is the only presidential candidate in the last thirty years to promise to make English the official language of the United States if elected (see Caldas 2006, 10).
- 7.
Sandoval v. Hagan (1998, para. 78), “Section 602 of Title VI creates an implied private cause of action to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief under federal regulations prohibiting disparate impact discrimination against statutorily protected groups”.
- 8.
Alexander v. Sandoval (2001, 288), “It is immediately clear that the “rights-creating” language so critical to the Court’s analysis in Cannon of §601, see 441 U.S., at 690, n. 13, is completely absent from §602.”
- 9.
ibid., 289, “Section 602 empowers agencies to enforce their regulations either by terminating funding to the “particular program, or part thereof,” that has violated the regulation or “by any other means authorized by law,” 42 U.S.C. §2000d–1.”
- 10.
Shortly after assuming the Presidency, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson lauded Congress on the steps it had taken during the first session of the 88th congress (January 9–December 30, 1963) to declare an “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment” (Williams 2011, 63). He promised to do even more and, accordingly, proposed an overhaul of a variety of institutions and federal programs in order to enhance the life chances of economically disenfranchised Americans (ibid., 63–64).
- 11.
As The Education Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-380.
- 12.
As The Education Amendments of 1978, Public Law 95-561.
- 13.
As The Education Amendments of 1984, Public Law 98-511.
- 14.
As The Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988, Public Law 100-297.
- 15.
As The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, Public Law 103-382.
- 16.
A speech given by Clinton to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gives a sense of his feelings on bilingual education and multiculturalism: “And I want to just say a word in that context about bilingual education. Of course, English is the language of the United States. Of course it is. That is not the issue. The issue is whether children who come here, while they are learning English, should also be able to learn other things. The issue is whether American citizens who work hard and pay taxes and are older and haven’t mastered English yet should be able to vote like other citizens. The issue, in short, is not whether English is our language; it is. The issue is whether or not we’re going to value the culture, the traditions of everybody and also recognize that we have a solemn obligation every day in every way to let these children live up to the fullest of their God-given capacities. That’s what this is about” (Clinton 1995).
- 17.
As a reminder: In the American Presidential system, a ‘unified’ government refers to a context in which the same political party controls both the executive and legislative branches of government. In contrast a ‘divided’ government exists one control of the executive and legislative branches of government is split between parties.
- 18.
The failure of the official English movement at the federal level to advance laws that would have made English the official language of government and/or that would have rescinded executive order 13166 past the initial stages of the legislative process suggests not only highlights the continued use of informal veto power it points to a possible split in attitudes towards multiculturalism within the Republican Party between the rank and file and chairs of Congressional committees.
References
Aka, Philip C., and Lucinda M. Deason. 2011. Culturally and Linguistically Competent Public Services in an Era of English-Only Laws. International Journal of Public Administration 34 (5): 291–306.
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
Barron, Dennis. 1990. The English-Only Question: An Official Language for Americans? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Barron, Dennis. 1992 (1987). Federal English. In Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy, ed. James Crawford. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Buckley, William F., Jr. 1995. Yes, a National Language. Buffalo News, September 11.
Caldas, Stephen J. 2006. Raising Bilingual-Biliterate Children in Monolingual Cultures. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Carter, Jimmy. 1980. President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped Remarks at the Annual Meeting of the Committee. May 1. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33345.
Carter, Jimmy. 1981. Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws: Statement on Signing Executive Order 12250, November 2, 1980. In Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States.
Clemans-Cope, Lisa, and Genevieve Kenney. 2007. Low Income Parent’s Reports of Communication Problems with Health Care Providers: Effects of Language and Insurance. Public Health Reports 122 (2): 206–216.
Clinton, William J. 1995. Remarks to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. September 27. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=50569.
Congressional Record 104th Congress, House of Representatives, August 1, 1996, pp. H9738–H9767.
Corpus Christi Caller. 2008. Texas Legislators Eye Tough Immigration Laws Some Would Like to Follow Oklahoma and Arizona with Punitive Enforcement Measures. Corpus Christi Caller, April 29.
Democratic Party Platforms: “2008 Democratic Party Platform,” August 25. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283.
Department of Justice. Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons. 67 Federal Register 117 (June 18, 2002), 41457.
Draper, Jamie B., and Martha Jimenez. 1992 (1990). A Chronology of the Official English. In Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy, ed. James Crawford. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gamache, Shawna. 2007. Bilingual Legislator Defends Vote for English-Language Bill. McClatchy-Tribune Business News, March 21.
Govtrack. 2015a. Vote to Pass H.R. 1 (107th Congress) in the House. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/h145.
Govtrack. 2015b. Vote to Pass H.R. 1 (107th Congress) in the Senate. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s192.
Govtrack. 2015c. Cosponsors H.R. 969—To Provide That Executive Order 13166 Shall Have No Force or Effect, and to Prohibit the Use of Funds for Certain Purposes.
Govtrack. 2015d. On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4064 to S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/s131.
Gribbin, Hil Anderson. 2002. Iowa Makes English Official August. Insight on the News: Washington 18 (12) (April 1–8): 29.
Hatch, Orrin. 1992. S. Rep. No. 315, 102nd Congress, 2d Session, 1992 at 134.
Kovac, Marc. 2008. Bill Would Require Public Agencies to Issue Records, Policies, Actions in English. Daily Record, Wooster 108 (321) (April 27).
Lee, Sunghee, Hoang Anh Nguyen, May Jawad, and John Kurata. 2008. Linguistic Minorities in a Health Survey. The Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (3): 470–486.
Lynch, Sarah. 2006. Propositions 100, 102, 103, & 300: Limits on Immigration Reflect Voter Dismay. The Tribune, November. Mesa, AZ.
May, Heather. 2000. English Only: Divisive or Efficient? The Salt Lake Tribune, October 4. Salt Lake City.
New York Times. 1995. Montana Law on English. New York Times, April 3 (Late Edition [East Coast]).
Obama, Barack H. 2011. State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division), January 11, 2002. Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies General Counsels and Civil Rights Directors Regarding Executive Order 13166 (Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency). Washington, DC, Ralph Boyd Jr.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division). August 16, 2010. Language Access Guidance Letter to State Courts. Washington, DC, Thomas E. Perez.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division). October 26, 2001. Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies General Counsels and Civil Rights Directors regarding Executive Order 13166. Washington, DC, Ralph Boyd Jr.
Office of the Attorney General. February 17, 2011. Memorandum to Federal Agencies from Attorney General Eric Holder Reaffirming the Mandates of Executive Order 13166. Washington, DC, Eric Holder.
Palmer, Howard. 1976. Mosaic Versus Melting Pot? Immigration and Ethnicity in Canada and the United States. International Journal 31 (3): 488–528.
Peladino Porter, Rosalie. 2001. Educating English Language Learners in U.S. Schools: Agenda for a New Millennium. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1999: Language in Our Time, ed. James E. Atlas and Ai-Hui Tan, 128–138. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Persily, Nathan. 2007. The Promise and the Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act. Yale Law Journal 117: 174–253.
Ray, Saumyajit. 2007. English Politics over Official Language in the United States: Aspects of Constitutional Silence on the Status of English. International Studies 44 (3): 235–252.
Rosen, Yereth. 1998. In Many Tongues, Alaskans Debate English as Official Language Ballot Measure to Require Government Use of English Stirs Concern That Native Languages Could Be Harmed. The Christian Science Monitor, September 15.
Rossell, Christine H. 2000. The Federal Bilingual Education Program. In Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, ed. Diane Ravitch, 215–264. Washington, DC. Brookings Institution Press.
Sandoval v. Hagan. 1998.
Shields, Thomas F. 1999. Official Language Best for the State. Bangor Daily News, March 12.
Spencer, Mark. 2006. Should English Be an Official Language? Hartford Courant, December 15.
St. John, Sarah. 2007. English Would Be Official with Bill. McClatchy-Tribune Business News, January 18.
Tatalovich, Raymond. 1995. Nativism Reborn? The Official English Language Movement and the American States. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88–352.
Tucker, James Thomas. 2006a. Enfranchising Language Minority Citizens: The Bilingual Elections Provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Legislation and Public Policy 10: 195–260.
Tucker, James Thomas. 2006b. The Politics of Persuasion: Passage of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act of 2006. Journal of Legislation 33 (2): 205–267.
United States Department of Education. 2010. A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
US Federal News Service. 2007. State Rep. Swanger Bill to Make English Pennsylvania’s Official Language. US Federal News Service, September 13.
U.S. Senate 106th Congress S.RES.106. A Resolution to Express the Sense of the Senate Regarding English Plus Other Languages (Introduced May 24, 1999).
Webster, Noah. 1992 (1789). Declaration of Linguistic Independence. In Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy, ed. James Crawford. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wiley, Terence G. 1998. The Imposition of World War I Era English-Only Policies and the Fate of Germans in North America. In Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities, ed. Thomas Ricento and Barbara Burnaby, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wilkerson, Crystal Goodson. 2004. Patriotism or Prejudice: Alabama’s Official English Amendment. Cumberland Law Review 34 (2): 253–288.
Williams, Rhonda Y. 2011. To Challenge the Status Quo by Any Means: Community Action and Representation Politics in 1960s Baltimore. In The War on Poverty: A New Grassroots History, 1964–1980, ed. Annelise Orleck and Lisa Hazirjian. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Zavodny, Madeleine. 2000. The Effects of Official English Laws on Limited-English-Proficient Workers. Journal of Labor Economics 18 (3): 427–452.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tremblay, A. (2019). American Multiculturalism During a Majority Republican Congress and a Unified Republican Government (1995–2007): Unprotected Policies and the Actions of Critical Veto Players. In: Diversity in Decline? . Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02299-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02299-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02298-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02299-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)