Nashville Rejects English-Only Law

Not so sure what to say about this~

I am not sure either. It seems they could have used the money to teach with instead of a election.

The USa was founded as an English speaking nation. My relatives all came here then learned & used English. English should be the sole official language of the USA...!

Well good for Nashville. What kind of wimps are so scared that they can't allow any language but English on signs and withing hearing?

Good point, Mary. I'll bet $250,000 could've paid for a lot of English classes.

Well, since Doc Donald asked me to comment... I agree with Larry. Here in Russia, almost EVERY significant national minority has its own autonomy, from Dagestan to Chukotka, and EVERY one of these national autonomies has two or even three official (sic!) languages - Russian and the language(s) of the minority in question. In Kazan', for example, I saw signs in Russian and Tatar, and in Izhevsk, in Russian, Udmurt and Tatar - and nobody made any fuss over it. If we can live with it, why can't you?... :-)

Blessings and best wishes - S.



Blessings and best wishes - S.

I personally think that a visitor or immigrant should learn English within a reasonable period of time...like the first month.

When I was traveling in Russia, I spoke Russian. In Quebec, it is illegal for any shop signs to be in any language other than French (I'm learning).

It is only respectful to communicate in the native language when traveling through (or staying in) another's country.

When did having to speak English become a debatable subject!? This country was founded by English speaking people, English has been the accepted language for hundreds of year. Enough is enough.

I have no problem with immigrants coming in to the country to make a better life for themseves... but adapt to the country that they wanted to come to. If they want to start changing the rules to make this country more like theirs, then why did they bother to come over here... If America is such a great country then adopt some of what made it great to start with... first and foremost the language!

I think EVERYBODY who lives here should learn English. Diverse is NOT always good. Especially when you can't even understand your own President! Ridiculous!

Donald and others..."The USa was founded as an English speaking nation."

No it wasn't. The United States does not have a national "official language". English is, of course, the primary language used here.

The USA was founded as a nation...with the predominate language being used as English.

sharon..."This country was founded by English speaking people..."

This country was formed by people who spoke many different languages...the predominate language was (became to be) English.

The English of the colonists would hardly be understandable in either written or spoken form today. English has changed a lot both in England and in what became the United States.

Also, if the "founded by" argument is used California, Texas, and Florida should have Spanish as their official language and the states just to the west of the Mississippi should have French.

I don't know if they're wimps, Larry. I think they just want everybody to act, speak and think just like they do. Does that make them wimpy? I'm glad they lost the vote.

Thanks for your comment, Svetlana. Many countries have more than one official language, and they manage to get on with life. So can the city of Nashville, and so can America.

I don't know of anyone who does not want to learn English. A Mexico born national was required to write a report of his work activities at the end of the day. He was very self conscious of his English writing, surprise, surprise. His grammar and pros were impeccable.
After reading reports by my Anglo colleagues, I suspect they would suffer greatly under English only laws, heck they could be sentenced to life.


Good photo, says a million English words.

My mother came to Canada from Denmark in 1957, as an 8 year old child. Everyone started to learn English right away. Mom was the first to learn, being so young, and helped everyone else to learn.

When you move to a country that speaks a certain language, you need to speak that language if you want to live in that country.

If I was going to move to Denmark today, I'd really better brush up on my Danish. I coudln't get by over there on swear words alone. LOL

Thank you for all the comments. It's an issue where different people have different views, I guess. I'm still glad the English-only people didn't win in Nashville.

Just ditto Sharon Stevens' comment for me.

I think most people in the US learn as much English as they need to in order to get by, at least in terms of getting through daily life.

For most, that means speaking, reading and understanding English reasonably well. Although there are some who might question that, given the spelling and grammatical errors made by people who claim they are native-born US citizens and that English is their first (and often only) language.

For others, it may mean they need little or no English. Most large American cities (at least the ones I've lived in or visited) have neighborhoods where it's not hard to go all day hearing little or no English.

According to the 2000 census, of over 262 million people in the US over the age of 5, only 3,366,130 don't speak English at all. The vast majority of people in the US speak at least some English. But as you pointed out, Hixto, that doesn't mean they're so fluent that they don't need help when dealing with various government agencies and departments. I think it's great that the city of Nashville will continue to offer them that help.

Yay, Nashville!

"They might have second thoughts after having their nice car totaled (if they live to think about it)."

According to the 2000 Census, there were less than 110,000 people in all of Tennessee that spoke English less than "very well". Based on percentages taken from the national numbers, that would indicate about 17,000 people in Tennessee who don't speak English at all. The same numbers for Florida, where you claim to live, Robert F. Protectionist, are over 1.5 million who speak English less than "very well", and just under a quarter million who don't speak English at all.

If you believe that people in Tennessee face significant danger of being killed by drivers who don't speak English at all, then do you refuse to drive in Florida where the danger would be much greater?

Or does it turn out that there's not really much danger at all, since people don't actually need to be able to speak English to know that a stop sign means stop?

Does it turn out that you're just trying to create a perception of significant danger because you hope that fear might be used as a factor to get people to vote the way you want them to?

I wonder if the English-only crowd in Nashville tried that? If so, it didn't work. And I think that's great. :)

"Just because there's a significant danger, that doesn't mean you can't do it. You just go out, drive carefully, and you know there's a risk. It's not the only risky thing we do, by necessity. Life ain't perfect."

But Robert F. Protectionist, you said the vote was "a great danger" to the people of Central Tennessee. If they're in great danger, then I would've thought people in Florida would've been in extreme danger. And yet you don't seem to be too terrified to leave the house, so I suspect the people of Central Tennessee will somehow manage as well.

"There's a lot of danger not just from reading or non-reading ability, but from driving inability as well. Again, many, if not most, poor illegal aliens have never driven a car before coming to the USA, and they, like many things they do, drive outside the prescribed legal system, which includes training, testing and licensing. A prescription for disaster."

Maybe the people of Tennessee will consider going back to their old system of providing a drivers license to any Tennessee resident that had enough training and experience to pass the tests, regardless of their citizenship status. And if they want to improve driving ability, they might want to consider making the training and testing more intensive. I'm not familiar with the requirements in all US states, but the ones I know of aren't very rigorous.

But this thread is about the ability to speak and understand English, not driving ability.

"We now often see jobs ads stating "Must Be Bilingual" (usually Spanish/English). This is outright discrimination based on national origin, and should be challenged by the EEOC and ACLU. "

How many millions of Americans are discriminated against by not being hired as surgeons simply because they've never been to medical school and can't even carve a ham? How many millions of Americans are discriminated against by not be hired as commercial airline pilots simply because they don't know how to fly an airplane? If an employer wants to hire somebody who is bilingual, it's not discrimination if they won't hire somebody who isn't bilingual.

"Where are these do-gooders when we really need them ?"

Fighting to protect the civil liberties of everybody in America. Including those of ignorant bigots.

"How many American citizens (monolingual in English) are being discriminated against this way. That's a rhetorical question. I'll tell you how many. Tens of millions."

How many American citizens are fluent in English and another language? Tens of millions.

And I would imagine that quite a few of them live in Nashville, Tennessee.

I also suspect that the woman in the picture isn't one of them.

Actually, substantial parts of our original 13 colonies were founded by speakers of French, German, Dutch and Swedish. The Swedes beat Penn to Philadelphia by several decades, and the Dutch were the first in New York. Other parts of our country were founded by Spanish speakers, traight from Spain. I think a greater shame is the number of people born here who are stubbornly monolingual. In other countries, people speak at leat 2-3 languages well. What's wrong with people in the US?

"That is, the ones who don't get broadsided, rear-ended, or head-on collisioned, and killed by non-English speaking immigrants, many, if not most, of whom are illegal, who are extreme dangers on the roads."

How many such incidents have happened in central Tennessee in the last 10 years, Robert F. Protectionist? All they need to do is go out, drive carefully, and be aware that there's risk, just like you do, right?

"I've lived in 4 states in the USA, and all required reading and understanding a driver's manual written in English. i've never heard of a driver's manual or test being in Spanish or any language other than English, which is as it should be."

I was actually talking about the stringency of the requirements themselves, not the language the tests are presented in. For example, I've heard that many European countries have tougher requirements, tougher laws, tougher penalties for breaking those laws, and significantly lower rates of traffic-related fatalities. Incidentally, I've also heard that over half of all citizens of EU member countries speak at least two languages, and that over a quarter can speak at least three.

But anyway, if you want to talk about U.S. states offering driving exams in languages other than English, according to the U.S. English Foundation, most states (link) offer driver's license exams in multiple languages. Including the state of Florida, which offers exams, and handbooks (link), in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole.

And the state of California, which offers a written exam in 32 different languages, and an audio exam in 12 languages (link).

And the state of New York, that offers its driver's manual in English and Spanish only (link), but offers a written test in 13 different languages, or in any language you can get an appropriate interpreter for (link).

What four states did you live in, Robert F. Protectionist?

"It certainly IS discrimination "if they won't hire somebody who isn't bilingual.", because, as I said, bilingualism is related to nationality, the discrimination of which is illegal. "

Yeah, I know you've said it before, Robert F. Protectionist. But just because you've said something, whether you've said it once or dozens of times, that doesn't make it true.

"Wrong. They're NOT fighting to protect the civil liberties of the overwhelming majortiy of Americans who are English monolingual."

Refusing to hire monolingual applicants for jobs where bilingualism is a requirement isn't a violation of their civil rights.

"Got a link to support that ?"

Of course. Got a link to support your comment about the tens of millions of monolingual American citizens who you claim are being illegally discriminated against?

"There is no need or reason to speak any other language here than English, and making other languages part of the society is harmful, and should be banned by law."

That would be unconstitutional, Robert F. Protectionist.

" Refusing to hire monolingual applicants for jobs where bilingualism is a requirement isn't a violation of their civil rights. "

No it isn't a violation of their civil rights..you are correct. However in my opinion, the only jobs that should require bilingualism would be teaching English as a second language. But from what I have seen, some of those jobs don't require bilingualism. I know a guy in Paris, Tn who is teaching English to Chinese, Japanese and Mexican people and he can't speak one word of Mandarin, Japanese or Spanish. So he is teaching these people to pronounce a lot of English words and they have no clue as to the meaning of those words in their native languages. This whole thing is bass ackwards.

"So where is it ?"

In a Word document sitting on my desktop.

"No, not offhand."

Why am I not surprised.

"Correct. It's true because it's true. Do you disagree ?"

Yes, I disagree.

"Yes it is. I just explained why - it's discrimination related to nationality."

Really? Which nationality is exclusively monolingual?

"Can you cite a Supreme Court case whereby bilngual-only hiring was challenged on the basis of nationality discrimination, and the challenge was overruled ?"

Nope. But I can cite Hernandez v New York, where the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to discriminate against a person (specifically, excluding them from a jury) who was bilingual as long as the reason for doing so was related to the fact that they were bilingual, and not because of their ethnicity or national origin.

I'd also cite the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's policies regarding language requirements in the workplace (link. Employers can refuse to hire prospective employees if they don't meet the language requirements necessary to do the job. Those requirements may involve a specific language (for example, English), more than one specific language, and even the way the applicant speaks a particular language (for example, if their accent would make it difficult or impossible to do the job). It all comes down to the requirements necessary to do the job properly.

Robert F. Protectionist, can you cite a Supreme Court case where bilingual-only hiring was challenged on the basis of discrimination due to nationality, and the challenge was upheld?

"No it isn't a violation of their civil rights..you are correct.

Thank you.

However in my opinion, the only jobs that should require bilingualism would be teaching English as a second language."

Really? I can think of lots of other jobs that might require bilingualism or multilingualism, and I suspect there will be many more such jobs in the future.

"But from what I have seen, some of those jobs don't require bilingualism. I know a guy in Paris, Tn who is teaching English to Chinese, Japanese and Mexican people and he can't speak one word of Mandarin, Japanese or Spanish. So he is teaching these people to pronounce a lot of English words and they have no clue as to the meaning of those words in their native languages. This whole thing is bass ackwards."

LOL. I'm not surprised. I've heard similar stories from people I know who teach English in various countries. Their certified to teach English, but there's no requirement that they be able to speak the language of the people they're teaching, and some of them have even been told that not being able to speak the language of the people they're teaching (if their students all happen to speak the same language, which isn't always the case) could be an advantage. I don't know, though, because although I thought about doing it when I was younger, I never have.

"I've lived in 4 states in the USA, and all required reading and understanding a driver's manual written in English. i've never heard of a driver's manual or test being in Spanish or any language other than English, which is as it should be."

What 4 states were those, Robert F. Protectionist?

"Because, as I've told you many times, it isn't always necessary to have a "link"."

Of course it isn't. And yet you were the one asking me to provide a link. I didn't bother asking you first, because I was fairly certain that you were, once again, simply making things up, with no evidence to back up your claim.

"Doesn't matter. Bilingualism relates to nationality, that all that matters, as far as discrimination is concerned."

As I pointed out earlier, the SCOTUS has already said otherwise. If what you say were true, then it would be illegal to discriminate against a person because they were bilingual. And if language in general were found to be related, without exception, to national origin, then it would be illegal to discriminate against anybody who didn't speak English, or who chose not to speak English.

So go ahead and file your suit, Robert F. Protectionist.

"New York, Tennessee, California and Florida."

But New York, California, and Florida all allow people to take their driver's license exams in languages other than English. And according to the U.S English Foundation, the state of Tennessee offers their driving exam in English, Japanese, Korean and Spanish. I haven't been able to verify that, but they do publish their Driver Handbook and various other documents in Spanish, so I would imagine they offer their exam in Spanish (and possibly other foreign languages) as well.

"If there hasn't been, there soon will be."

I'll take that as a "no". And more of your wishful thinking.

I didn't know this was such a hot issue when I wrote about it. Anyway, thanks for all the comments, and the links. I didn't click all of them, but I clicked enough to learn more than I ever wanted to know about speaking English in the U.S.A.

Robert, I don't agree with your opinions but I appreciate your comments. What I don't appreciate is your rudeness. You say you don't tolerate verbal abuse in your threads, so please try to control yourself and don't do it in mine.

If I moved to a place where they spoke a different language, I would expect to try to learn it as fast as I could! But, that's a personal decision. But, making laws that dictate things is another matter.

"The SCOTUS refutes this statement (in Alexander vs. Sandoval, April 2001) wherin they ruled that the state of Alabama was acting legally to discriminate against a woman who expected them to grant her a driver's license in Spanish, and to carry on in English only."

Not true. In Alexander vs. Sandoval, the SCOTUS ruled that there is no private right of action to enforce §602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That's all. It didn't rule on the legality of Alabama's English-only law, or the legality of the DOJ and DOT regulations requiring organizations that receive federal funding to "provide foreign language assistance".

We do not inquire here whether the DOJ regulation was authorized by §602, or whether the courts below were correct to hold that the English-only policy had the effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin. The petition for writ of certiorari raised, and we agreed to review, only the question posed in the first paragraph of this opinion: whether there is a private cause of action to enforce the regulation.

Here's a link to the decision. Read it for yourself.

Also of possible interest is the Appeals Court decision. Especially the part about discrimination based on national origin. The court didn't find that the English-only law was automatically discriminatory based on nationality, but looked at a number of specific points. Like the fact that they let deaf and hearing-impaired people take the test in another language (American Sign Language), and also the fact that they let illiterate people take an oral (in English) test.

The district court found the English-only law to be discriminatory, the appeals court upheld that finding, and the SCOTUS didn't rule on it at all. According to the U.S. English Foundation, the state of Alabama is offering their driving exam in 13 languages. Again, I don't know how accurate their information is, and I haven't been able to verify it elsewhere, but I did notice that the Alabama Department of Public Safety website has links to Spanish, German, Korean, and Japanese translations. Good idea.

"Yes, but..."

What do you mean yes? Didn't you say earlier that you've lived in 4 states (New York, Tennessee, California, and Florida), and that they "all required reading and understanding a driver's manual written in English"? Which is it, Robert F. Protectionist? Do they require reading and understanding a driver's manual written in English, or do they offer driver's manuals and exams in languages other than English?

"... it appears that they are doing so illegally, in clear violation of the SCOTUS (Alexander vs. Sandoval, 2001"

No it doesn't. That's not what Alexander vs Sandoval says, and you might've found that out if you'd actually read the decision, instead of taking Wes Vernon's word for it.

"I'll take his word for it rather than yours."

I don't expect you or anybody else to take my word for it. It's right there in black and white in the ruling itself.

Wes Vernon said:

The charge that denial of such service somehow constitutes discrimination under the "national origin” designation in the Civil Rights Act did not fly with the high court.

The Supreme Court said:

We do not inquire here whether the DOJ regulation was authorized by §602, or whether the courts below were correct to hold that the English-only policy had the effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin.

Clearly, Wes Vernon isn't being truthful.

"In Alexander vs. Sandoval, the SCOTUS ruled against the woman demanding Spanish driver licensing, and in favor of the state of Alabama insisting on English only."

No it didn't. In a nutshell, it ruled that Sandoval couldn't sue the state of Alabama in an effort to enforce DOJ and DOT regulations related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It didn't rule on the regulations themselves. It didn't rule on the legality of Alabama's decision to offer English-only driver's license exams. And it didn't rule on whether or not requiring English-only driver's exams constituted discrimination based on national origin.

From what I can tell (based in part on the 2005 complaint filed by ProEnglish against the Governor of Alabama (link)), Alabama is once again offering the exam in multiple languages, and presumably it is doing so because it doesn't want to lose federal funding.

"I've lived in 4 states in the USA, and all required reading and understanding a driver's manual written in English."

Not true.

"i've never heard of a driver's manual or test being in Spanish or any language other than English..."

Then I guess you haven't been paying attention.

I agree that it should be a personal choice, Heidianna. And if Wil's information is right, 98% or 99% of people make the choice to learn English. There's no point in creating laws to try to punish the 1% or 2% who don't want to.

Robert, I've asked you more than once to stop with the name-calling and the rudeness. I don't want to ban you from this thread but if you can't control yourself, I will.

Thank you for your comments, Wil. It looks like you've done your homework, and I appreciate that.

"Yes it did. (""The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered.") Win for Alexander (representing Alabama, loss for Sandoval)."

It only ruled that she couldn't sue the state. It didn't rule that the state's English-only drivers exams were legal (or illegal -- it didn't rule on the matter at all), and it didn't rule that the DOJ's regulations were legal or illegal (again, it didn't rule either way). It only ruled that individuals couldn't sue the state, even if what the state was doing was illegal due to violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And given that the English-only drivers exam policy was done away with, and that people in Alabama can take that exam in numerous languages, I don't see it as a loss for Sandoval and a win for Alabama. It would be interesting to know if Sandoval ended up getting an Alabama driver's license, and if she did, whether or not she took her exam in Spanish.

Robert, if you think I'm being rude to you by expecting you to act like an adult, then don't comment in my threads. You've said you don't allow rudeness in your own threads but you keep being rude in mine. Stop it.

They let people who speak and understand English, but who are illiterate in English take an oral exam, Robert F. Protectionist. I don't know how it works in all states, but the driver's exams I've taken include questions about various road signs. It seems people manage to pass the exams even if they can't read the signs.

As I said earlier, I think it would be great if they made the training and testing much more rigorous, as is done in many other countries. But they haven't, and aren't likely to do so any time soon.

"I said requirED (past tense). During the times I recalled, not too long ago, it was that way."

And when was "not too long ago"?

"Maybe researchers ought to start calculating how many road accidents are being caused by people's inability to read road signs."

Maybe. Or maybe they already have. I wouldn't have a clue. Maybe they should just get rid of them altogether.

"This might make some of the advocates of multilanguage testing, have second thoughts."

Maybe. And then again, maybe not. Why would it make sense to disallow testing in alternative languages while allowing English-speaking people who are illiterate to take an oral exam? Or allowing illiterate deaf and hearing-impaired people to take the exams in sign language?

"2001, maybe."

You lived in 4 different states, and took driving exams in those 4 different states, all in 2001?

"I'm amazed that this isn't a fundamental principle in granting driver's licenses. What in the world are the DMVs thinking ?"

Maybe they've done the research and found out that people who can't read traffic signs don't drive any worse than those who can. Maybe they've discovered that people know the big red octagonal sign means stop, even if they can't read the word.

"Nope."

So you don't actually know whether or not those states required that all driving exams be taken in English back in 2001?

"How about 1958 ? What do you think?"

I think that when you said "I've lived in 4 states in the USA, and all required reading and understanding a driver's manual written in English", you didn't know what you were talking about and that you just made it up.

"Have a little common sense, please."

If by "common sense" you mean believe whatever you believe, regardless of whether there's any indication that what you believe is true or not, I'll have to pass.

"Common sense" might indicate that road signs (and the ability to read them) help people drive more safely, and yet some towns are removing their road signs (I provided a link earlier) in an effort to improve safety. Go figure.

"Research often doesn't mean crap."

That's true. But often you seem to think research "doesn't mean crap" simply because it doesn't support your point of view. Earlier, you were the one calling for research to be done, remember? You said:

Maybe researchers ought to start calculating how many road accidents are being caused by people's inability to read road signs. This might make some of the advocates of multilanguage testing, have second thoughts.

I suspect that if those researches found out that peoples' inability to read road signs didn't lead to more road accidents, you'd decide that research obviously "doesn't mean crap".

"So therefore you think there never was a time "in the past", like I said, when all US states required reading and understanding a driver's manual written in English" ?"

If there was, I haven't found any evidence of it. And you haven't managed to provide any, either.

"No, that's what you seem to think, I think. I wonder why."

Because usually when you start talking about how research doesn't mean anything, it's either because you don't have any research that backs up your claims, or research has been presented that refutes your claims. And on the rare occasion that you find a bit of research that agrees with your position, you present it as being meaningful.

"That's because of your oversubjectivity regarding what I think, I suspect."

You may suspect whatever you like, Robert F. Protectionist.

Robert, since you don't practice what you preach, I'm not interested in your tips. Have fun in those other threads and stay out of mine if you can't discuss things in a mature and appropriate way.