Write a synthesis essay from the source crawford and auth
In this activity you’ll examine five sources that explore the need for an official language in America, and then write a synthesis essay. Your essay should be at least one page, single-spaced.
Even though the U.S. Congress has never passed legislation mandating English as the nation’s official language, twenty-eight states have passed legislation stating that English is their official language.
However, none of these states bans publication of government documents in other languages when such publication is deemed “in the public interest.” Would a constitutional amendment making English the official language of America defend American values, or would such an amendment challenge such values?
Read the following sources (including any introductory information) carefully. Then, in an essay that synthesizes at least three of the sources for support, take a position that defends, challenges, or qualifies the claim that America needs an official language.
You may refer to the sources by their titles (Source A, Source B, etc.), or by the descriptions in parenthesis.
Source A (Crawford)
Source B (Lewelling)
Source C (Auth)
Source D (Chavez)
Source E (Roosevelt)
Remember to use the sources to support your position. Do not focus your essay on paraphrasing or summarizing the sources. Your position is the focus; the sources are the support.
Source A:-
Crawford, James. Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 2.
The following is an excerpt from a book in which the author explores the position of the Official English movement, the English Only movement, and the English Plus movement.
For supporters, the case is obvious: English has always been our common language, a means of resolving conflicts in a nation of diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups. Reaffirming the preeminence of English means reaffirming a unifying force in American life. Moreover, English is an essential tool of social mobility and economic advancement. The English Language Amendment would “send a message” to immigrants, encouraging them to join in rather than remain apart, and to government, cautioning against policies which could retard English acquisition.
Source B:-
Lewelling, Vickie W. “Official English and English Plus: An Update.” ERIC L & L Digest. (May 1997), www.cal.org/resources/digest/lewell01.html.
The following is from an online scholarly article:
English Plus is based on the belief that all U. S. citizens should have the opportunity to become proficient in English PLUS one or more other languages. For nonnative speakers of English, this means the opportunity to acquire proficiency in English as well as maintain proficiency in their native language. For native English speakers, this means the chance to become proficient in a language other than English, while continuing to develop English proficiency.
Proponents of English Plus view cultural diversity as a national strength and believe that it provides the United States with a “unique reservoir of understanding and talent” (EPIC, 1992, p. 152). They support access to bilingual services and education to provide a bridge for language minority individuals who are not yet proficient in English. They point to evidence that suggests immigrant groups are, in fact, very motivated to learn English. Such evidence includes results of a survey of 2,817 Americans of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban descent, which showed that more than 90% of the respondents believe U. S. citizens and residents should learn English (Duke, 1992). English Plus proponents see lack of opportunity, not lack of motivation, as the primary barrier to acquiring English. In their view, this is confirmed by the thousands of prospective ESL students who are regularly turned away because there are not enough classes to accommodate them.
Source C:-
Auth, Tony. “Immigration Issues,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 15th, 2006. Re-run by “Today’s Cartoons,” SLATE, 2006. http://cartoonbox.slate.com/ hottopic/?image=8&topicid=86
The following political cartoon is from a nationally distributed newspaper reprinted online:
Source D:-
Linda Chavez, Chairman for the Center for Equal Opportunity and President of One Nation Indivisible, speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Continuing need for section’s 203 provisions for limited English proficient voters. 109th Cong., 2d sess., June 13, 2006, 2-4, 6.
The following is an excerpt from testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, regarding the bilingual ballot provisions of the Voting Rights Act on June 13, 2006.
There are basically three policy problems with Section 203 that I would like to discuss today. First, it encourages the balkanization of our country. Second, it facilitates voter fraud. And, third, it wastes the taxpayers’ money.
Section 203 balkanizes our county. American is a multiethnic, multiracial nation. It always has been, and this is a source of national pride and strength. But our motto E pluribus unum-out of many, one-and this means that, while we come from all over the globe, we are also united as Americans. This unity means that we hold certain things in common. We celebrate the same democratic values, for instance share the American dream of success through hard work, cherish our many freedoms, and champion political equality. Our common bonds must also include an ability to communicate with one another. Our political order and our economic health demand it. Accordingly, the government should be encouraging our citizens to be fluent in English, which, as a practical matter, is our national language. And, in any event, the government certainly should not discourage people from mastering English, and should not send any signals that mastering English is unimportant. Inevitably, however, that is what the federal government does when it demands that ballots be printed in foreign languages. It also devalues citizenship for those who have mastered English as part of the naturalization process. As Boston University president John Silber noted in his 1996 congressional testimony, bilingual ballots “impose an unacceptable cost by degrading the very concept of the citizen to that of someone lost in a country whose public discourse is incomprehensible to him.”
Section 203 facilitates voter fraud. Most Americans are baffled by the bilingual ballot law. They know that, with few exceptions, only citizens can vote. And they know that, again, with only few exceptions, only those who speak English can become citizens. So why is it necessary to have ballots printed in foreign languages? . . .
Section 203 wastes the taxpayers’ money. There are few citizens who need ballots and other election materials printed for them in languages other than English. The requirement that, nonetheless, such materials must be printed is therefore wasteful. . . . In sum, as a simple matter of dollars and sense, bilingual ballots are just not worth it. The money would be better spent on improving election equipment and combating voter fraud.
Source E:-
Roosevelt, Theodore. Personal letter read January 6, 1919 at the meeting of the American Defense Society. January 1919. (Available from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, linked through www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/troosevelt.asp.) http://67.19 .222.106/politics/graphics/troosevelt.pdf.
The following is an excerpt from a letter written by Theodore Roosevelt shortly before his death in 1919.
We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one [sole] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.
