Is the U.S. Government Out to Undermine English?

Posted on May 2, 2007

Small excerpt from an article by by Newt Gingrich

“Our friend Paul Weyrich at the Free Congress Foundation had a distressing story last week for anyone who is concerned about the future of the English language in our country. It’s a story about a charity whose good works exemplify Christian-based dedication and compassion. It’s a story about an employer who tried to do the right thing — to encourage its employees to learn and speak English. And it’s a story of a misguided federal agency that is using taxpayers’ money to punish those who encourage English, rather than reinforcing English as the language of American success and cultural unity.

Government Lawyers Sue the Salvation Army for Requiring English

The Salvation Army operates thrift stores across the United States. In keeping with its mission to help the less fortunate, these stores both cater to lower income customers and often employ people who might have difficulty finding work elsewhere. The Salvation Army has a policy that requires its employees to speak English on the job. In a 2003 opinion, a federal judge in Boston approved of the policy as a legitimate business practice. The next year, a Salvation Army store in Framingham, Mass., did what I think most of us would agree was the right thing to do: It gave two of its employees who spoke very little English a year to achieve a level of English proficiency required to do the job.

It’s important to note that the Salvation Army didn’t summarily fire these two employees. Quite the opposite. Counting the five years they had already worked there, the employees had a total of six years to learn English. But when they had failed to do so by 2005, they were let go.

That’s when the U.S. government sued. That’s right. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a taxpayer-funded government commission, is suing the Salvation Army, a private, charitable, religious, non-profit group. The government is alleging that the Salvation Army discriminated against the two employees by requiring them to speak English on the job, thus inflicting “emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation and inconvenience.”

Now ask yourself two things: Why is the government undermining the efforts of charities to encourage people to learn English? And doesn’t it have better things to do with our tax dollars?

Source

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under ACLU

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “Is the U.S. Government Out to Undermine English?”

Jeff Molby on May 2nd, 2007 7:35 pm

Ok, let’s experiment a bit and spin this story the other way. These gentleman held their jobs for 6 years at a level of English proficiency below what was required to do the job? SA kept them on the payroll for six years even though they were unable to perform their duties? I suppose that’s possible, but I think it’s much more likely that the men performed well enough to earn their paychecks. If that’s the case, it means that english proficiency wasn’t really a requirement, so the EEOC does have some jurisdiction over the matter.
Brujo Blanco on May 3rd, 2007 12:35 pm

I disagree the EEOC does not have jurisdiction. There are positions in employment now that require one to be able to speak English fluently to even apply. Austic, TX school system require principals to speak Spanish fluently. In fact they gave them a year to become fluent or get fired. Not reduced to teacher status but you don’t have a job you are outa here.

The Salvation Army gave them a chance and they did not perform as required.
Jeff Molby on May 3rd, 2007 1:03 pm

Sure, there are many jobs where language skills are legitimate requirements. There are also many jobs where it’s not. The fact that these men adequately performed the job for six years makes it unlikely that the requested language skills were actually necessary.