Is Our Language Policy a Way to Freedom or Oppression?

Some might say that capitalism has been our greatest strength—the free flow of trade based on supply and demand, the allowance of financial markets to balance themselves and the encouragement of entrepreneurs to bring new ideas to market in a constant and free flow. I would argue that capitalism is of course fundamental to our way of life, to our American society. However, I would argue that our greatest strength as a nation is something else entirely: it is our diversity and our tolerance. No other country has the mix of diverse cultures, living together in communities, often under one roof, as we do. And although we have had major bouts of intolerance including segregation, regressive immigration policies, racism, sexism, the United States has had more laws created to counteract breeches. Ours has never been a country of the homogeneous; our identity was born out of tolerance for others—for their religion, primarily. We are and have always been an amalgam of cultures, languages and mixed races. No other country in the world has more children born to families with dual language capabilities. Yet we are among only four countries in the world that adjudicates monolingualism as the “natural” state of being. We now know that we come into this world hard-wired for multiple languages, yet we continue on this path of demanding monolingualism. Language policies in our public schools for the most part in transitioning non-English speakers to English speaking which effectively obliterate their home languages.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…” penned Emma Lazarus in 1883 in her sonnet "The New Colossus." When in 1903, these words were emblazoned upon the Statue of Liberty they were not watchwords of a homogeneous society striving for one language, one culture, one way of operating. Rather, these are the watchwords of diversity. Her name is not the commonly heard moniker “Lady Liberty;” Lazarus called her the “Mother of Exiles.”  Exiles who bring their own special cultures, languages, morals, foods, and world perspectives to our shore have always been fundamental to our culture.  It is what has made the United States the republic it is today. Yet, we have legislatively, linguistically, culturally maintained a suppression of those characteristics in favor of making us fit into an unnatural state of “oneness.” Speaking anything other than English has been seen as divisive, anti-American. Rather than embracing and elevating to the highest esteem our multiple language abilities, our policies and practices have suppressed our capabilities and consequently oppressed our people.

The time has come to recognize our diversity as our greatest strength and legislatively, educational and economically shift our policies and practices. Our world power – and our ability to participate fully in a globally interconnected, digital world – will depend on it. 

If we are to participate fully as leaders in the next few years and on into the coming centuries, we must turn this around. It is a right and a social imperative, to teach and encourage multiple language use in our children. The need for a paradigm shift is staring us in the face. 

A 14 year old peace-prize winning Pakistani girl was shot today by the Taliban. Her younger brother remarked, "Every day I pray for peace to come to Swat [the area in which they live] and if not peace, either the US or China." The Taliban released a statement saying that indeed they wanted her dead for writing an international blog, which the BBC published, against the Taliban but mostly for saying that Obama was her hero and that incited insurgency in her area. They admitted having a plan to kill her over a year ago, but said the "timing" just hadn't been right. A 14 year old school girl. Today she is fighting for her life, along with two other schoolmates caught in the crossfire as they left school.

How many ways is this wrong?

In an effort to tally Western thoughts in relation to Taliban rationale, I would love to hear from anyone who reads this. Write down just ONE way you consider this wrong. Please.

A Queens Project that Does it Right

Building Movement Reflection. Case Study: Queens Community House

I read the case study of the Queens Community House (QCH) published by The Building Movement Project (www.buildingmovement.org).  Values of inclusion and social justice were the building blocks of this organization when it was established in 1975. QCH satisfied the mandate of having a community-wide, “inclusive” element as part of a low-income housing project spearheaded by then-governor Mario Cuomo. Over the years it has grown to reach over 20,000 residents at 21 different sites, and is no longer solely the focal point of the original Forest Hills community where it began.

Reading the case study, I was struck not only by the power of its leader, Irma Rodriguez, but of its flexibility as an organization to change with the times and therefore, succeed.  Despite the cynicism that is often prevalent in discussions about social service organizations, Queens Community House is a shining example of how to do it “right.” By reaching out to other organizations to form coalitions, by offering programs that empower their residents to act on their own behalf and by demanding that their own staffers actively commit to community building, QCH illustrates that human service organizations can make a huge impact on the people they serve. It is a great example of a mission driven organization that evolves from one generation to the next and illustrates the importance of organizing growth in order to sustain the organization itself. When they veered too far from their original core values, they course corrected. It took a great leader—Irma Rodriguez – to recognize that they had gone off kilter and bring them back on track, on numerous occasions.

On a personal note, I have been to the Forest Hills community that first launched QCH and have interviewed residents there as part of various political campaigns I helped. Mario Cuomo, Ed Koch, David Dinkins, even Mike Bloomberg have all taken credit for the good that has come out of these Queens projects. It had been my experience that many of these projects looked great at campaign time, but had little true, sustaining value to the communities they were meant to serve. My initial reaction, as I began reading, was wondering if the “true” political side of the story would be present. It wasn’t; but reading this case study gave me renewed hope.

“We see services as a means, not just as an end,” says Irma Rodriguez, Queens Community House’s executive director. I believe her. They‘ve gone back and forth over the years in terms of what took center stage: social services or tenants’ right s or community building or advocacy for families and children. The bottom line is, since their inception in the 70s, they have faithfully maintained their goal of being a connecting body within the community. They’ve been an active collaborator; flexible enough to change with the times, deepening their relationship to the community and helping the community stay intact. Kudos to Irma Rodriguez! Long live the Queens Community House!