KUER Citizen Panel Debate: Initiative A - English as the Official Language of Utah

MARTA ROSETO: I am very concerned about this initiative. If this law passed how are we going to be guaranteed that certain service won't be denied to non-English speaking people, like in cases of witnesses. I've been reading reports and I particularly remember cases where an officer says "Well, he didn't speak English and I don't speak Spanish, so I didn't take his statement." And I have been reading this report. This is one thing that really concerns me if this bill is passed.

HUNTER: I'll comment on the initiative. I have spent a number of years observing and studying reports of bilingual education which was funded as a result of the Bate Society programs while Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States. The reports indicate very clearly that bilingual education in America has not worked. The California experience has proven that. I think this is an important initiative as I understand it because I think if we want to assimilate people into our society fully, so that they're fully part of our society, culturally and educationally and employment wise, this is a good initiative. The greatest benefit for people who would benefit from this would be people who when learning English will have greater opportunities for employment. They have better paying jobs, becoming more integrated into our society. Greater opportunities for education, moving into the higher education or vocational education programs. By learning English they are going to be better off that way. And I think cultural pride will come, will follow these people wherever they go. I think this initiative is very valuable and would be an asset to Utah. With 25 other states having similar initiatives I think that there's enough experience out there to say it really works and we ought to have it here in Utah.

SNOW: Bill

EGGINGTON: I respect what you said, I don't think anyone is arguing here that English isn't the language of opportunity. English is the world's leading language in international, in business, and in every area. One of the amazing things is when immigrants come here from other countries and they do surveys of immigrants they find that the desire to acquire English is basically through the roof. They do everything possible to learn English. So the issue here and I would hope that we can sort of step aside from the issue of this thing is going to promote English. Because basically it's like saying there's a law that says that we have to drink water. Well you all know that we have to drink water and all immigrants that come here from around the place knows that they have to acquire English and they have a desperate need to acquire it and a desire to do so. What you have to do is go down to any ESL school here in Salt Lake City and they're packed to the rafters, so that's not an issue.

HUNTER: It is an issue. It's a long extension of this that becomes an issue or the issue. The extended part of this will result in that there are benefits.

EGGINGTON: No, no because basically we've been able to show that people have this desire and are requiring English. And so to pass a law that says you have to, that the government will not do any business, other than in English, is implying that you don't want to learn English.

LINDA THORNELL: I guess I'd like to hear from Joe, because I have to say in response to Cat's initial question, I don't see the purpose in the bill. I guess I sort of understand like Bill does, that English is something like air, at least in this area at this time.

HUNTER: Keywords. I would like to respond to a couple of things, in fact going back to Marta's original point, and specifically your question about law enforcement and being able to communicate. It very specifically has some exception for that, which leads to another concern you expressed, which I hear quite frequently. Well, with all these exceptions what does it really do? That's a good question. First of all, I would say that the reason for those exceptions is based on experience. Those of us in Utah have the benefit of learning from those 25 other states and there are Kat, and I'll get into that.

SNOW: For the record 25 states have passed some form of official English recognition. Of those, 12 are brief statements endorsing English and its preservation the same way a state designates an official flower with no statement about what it means for government activity. In other states the language varies, but for example here are some provisions in other state laws that are not included in Utah. One state provides for grants to increase English language classes and help resettle immigrants and requires government agencies to work with community groups to publicize opportunities to learn English. One state specifically grants state agencies and local government the right to print documents in other languages at their discretion. One specifically says the law is not intended to prevent government employees from seeking other languages in the course of their job. One says publications in languages other than English cannot be required, but also cannot be prohibited. Utah's measure prohibits government from conducting business in other languages with some exception. Two states that have approved similar measures have been sued. In Arizona the law was overturned by the state Supreme Court. And in Alaska the state is still fighting the court battle. We return now to our Citizen Town Debate.

HUNTER: And in fact the comment has been made repeatedly that isn't it in fact rather symbolic. First of all I would say, what's wrong with that? The flag is a symbol. The beehive is a symbol. We have symbols, important symbols. It is, however, more than just a symbol. What it does do is that-I don't disagree with anything I just heard about the desire of immigrants. In fact I spent the afternoon with a group of immigrants and all of them said that is not the issue. The issue is what is going to happen in the future. And we in Utah have been very, very fortunate that problems and issues related to trying to operate multi-lingual government have not been manifested here. However, I've got binders full of examples of what can happen. There are 25 states that have some form of recognition of English as an official language, going back as far as Louisiana, for whom it was a requirement for statehood because there were so many folks in Louisiana who didn't speak English. And I'd like to say that we in Utah putting this one to together have learned from all of them and have tried to put one together that will survive constitutional challenge.

TOM PARTRIDGE: While I agree in fact that there are symbols and that symbols have great importance in our society. The Confederate flag is a symbol, a very powerful symbol. My difficulty with this amendment, or the Initiative rather, is that there are device symbols and there are inclusive symbols. To me, the pretense that the government might tell a person what language he might speak is a symbol. I view it that way. The person will continue to speak the language that's best convenient for him or her, but I think that there are often times intended consequences of law. And I think that we're all aware of examples, I can site examples if you'd like laws that resulted in devices in our culture. I viewed this law as a prime example of that. An opportunity to promote racism as was the Confederate flag.

VIC ROBLEZ: I don't agree with Tom, very strongly because I think all you have to do is look at it. They say that this initiative will be divisive. All you have to do is look at Canada, where they have two languages and it became so divisive that just not to long ago that the French speaking people wanted to succeed and become their own nation. Look at Switzerland, they have three.

Inaudible

ROBLEZ: I will speak from my own experience now. I was born and raised in Bigham Canyon, Utah. I'm Mexican, I was raised that Japanese, Italians, Greeks, Germans, Slovak, Scandinavians, and the one fight we all became bilingual because our parents as they were learning English, insisted that we learn English and insisted that we speak our own ethnic language. The one binding thing that bound us to the community, that tied us together, that held us together, one of the things was the English language. Had we not had that we would have been more divisive than you can imagine. For instance, go ahead.

SNOW: But Vic, do you perceive that people in Utah are not learning English? That there's a problem somehow that people are not learning English, or that they don't want to, or?

ROBLEZ: What I'm saying is that had I not been forced to learn English and given the crutch of having documents or books or whatever in Spanish, I really think, seriously doubt, that I would have enjoyed the professional career that I've enjoyed. And probably knowing how lazy I am would have been stuck in some dead end job.

THORNELL: I think the concern is that what compels you to learn English? Is it the community mores and standards and opportunities, or is it laws? I guess what we're saying is why do we need a law? Shouldn't the community mores and standards and opportunities be sufficient to encourage that emphasis on any language?

EGGINGTON: Can I just talk about, Vic's mentioned Canada and Switzerland, can I talk about my country, Australia? One in four Australians, that's a quarter of the population in Australia, comes from a non-English speaking background. And the location where their concentration is the highest is in Sydney and you just saw a marvelous thing come out of Sydney, that if the government were in disarray could not have happened. Now how did the government of Australia do that? In Australia they have an English Plus. Everyone recognizes that English is the language of opportunity. English is the language of education and so on. But they go to great lengths to say, hey we recognize you as coming from another nation, another language, and another culture, and here's the key, they recognize that added language has a natural resource. Not of the ____, but of the resource, so they say let's take advantage of that. Let's not put people down, but let's provide, let's build up this language as a resource. ____ there's a huge portion of the economy in Australia and of Sydney is based on that multi-lingual resource. Having said that, I have to say, "has that diminished being an Australian?" And I wish you all could have been with me, because I just came back from the games. The others about a week ago or two weeks ago in the middle of the games, seems so long ago know. My wife and I were sitting on a train leaving the games, okay, packed full of people. In front of us was a Chinese family, okay; there are Chinese families living in Sydney. The little kids sitting right in front of us, it was 11-12 o'clock at night, he was Chinese, he was talking Chinese to his parents. And when he was looking out the window, do you know what he was singing? Australia's National Anthem in perfect English. And when he turned to some of his brothers he spoke in Ausie English, okay. How did that happen? It happened because we recognized their culture and their language as well as the need to provide English. So, we made them say, "hey, you're part of us". You're not part of us until you become like us, you're part of us now and then you will become closer to us and you will assimilate more. I agree assimilation is a key, but if this is the way to create assimilation, show it to your brother and sister and we welcome them.

PARTRIDGE: Bill could you have the distinction between English Plus and English Only for us, I don't think -?

EGGINGTON: Official English or English Only basically says we will only help you if you speak English. English Plus essentially says, we recognize you, we recognize the importance of English, but we respect your language and we treat it as a resource, as a wonderful resource in this world.

SNOW: Darius, I know you want to jump in...

GRAY: I am a person of color and I strongly believe in diversity, cultural diversity, but I also see the initiative as bringing about unity. I think that sometimes we speak to the subject as though there were only two languages, English and Spanish. On the continent of Africa alone there are over 1,000 major dialects. So, in the case that Marta brought up earlier, are we expecting the police officer or the police force to have someone there who can speak every language known to man? If we try to accommodate all of the languages I think we'll be running ourselves ragged. It's not that we don't value language or differences in culture. Because I certainly do and I think most people do, but what is workable and what isn't and that's part of what it comes down to for me. We have an influx of people into this country and enormous numbers from far reaching places in the world bringing with them their cultures, which I value. And their diversity in language, which I value, but I don't think that we as a state can be expected to accommodate in all of the state form. And all of those employed by the state in various capacities to speak all of those languages.

EGGINGTON: Of course not and that's why you have a language policy or a language plan and this is what happened in Australia and in Switzerland and lots of other places. You have a language plan where you work with your community representative and you say, "Okay, what percent of the population, when we get up to, when will we stop providing certain services?" And I emphasis certain, important services, not every service. At the same time you build a plan for the teaching of English more effectively because everyone recognizes English as being that language. And so you basically work with community groups in language planning, which is my area of specialty, is called "Bottom-up" planning. Rather than "Top-down", where a government presides and says this is what is required of you. You work from the bottom up and the community gets involved, the community owns the plan and that's how it happened in Australia.

PANELIST: But doesn't it work also from the top down, where all of the sudden a group tries to impose the requirement that you include their language. Then if that continues with no guidelines, you're looking at a thousand languages.

EGGINGTON: Yeah that's right, you need guidelines, but the guidelines come from the community and the working and coordination with the government.

ROSETO: May I say something, in the Salt Lake City area there are a lot of immigrants, like me, that we are counting. We want to learn English, but if someone will tell Marta, "Marta you cannot learn in your language, nobody will be able to tell you in your own language health ordinance or a city ordinance." Marta won't understand. What I'm trying to say is we're going to lose a lot of opportunities, we need to learn how to live in this country. We need to learn ordinances. If this bill will pass what will happen is it won't be translated in the languages. So, I agree with the English Plus, but not the English Only. If the government will say slowly that we're going to stop translating, we're going to stop telling you certain ordinances, how will these people learn to adapt how to live in our society?

Inaudible.

BOB VANDEGRIFT: My question is simple, do you know how many significant, different languages there are in Utah for instance?

HUNTER: The word significant makes it difficult. Typically the Census Bureau found 120. Now, I'm not going to say there are thousands of people speaking each of 120 different languages.

VANDEGRIFT: But there are 120 different languages?

HUNTER: Different languages identified as the primary language in a household. That was 10 years ago. First of all I'd like to make a general observation, I'm having a very difficult time hearing anything here with which I disagree. What I'm concerned about is that the initiative doesn't do the horrible things that many, and not many in this room, but out there in the larger scheme of things are saying it does. We talked about language planning and language policy. We don't have one, we don't have one and that's a problem. In the United States language policy is created by people filing lawsuits. And unfortunately those are people who are showing up at the state government and saying, "Look, the Hispanic folks", of whom there may be thousands if not millions in some states, "they get all of their stuff printed in Spanish, how come I don't get my Code of Regulations printed in Farsi? What's the difference?" Now, I'm not saying that the person that speaks Farsi should not have the opportunity to read the statutes. I'm saying that we don't have a policy. And I'm going to tell you my own personal little story. My little girl and this is about 5 years ago, came home from kindergarten in tears one day and I asked her what was wrong. She was extraordinarily frustrated because her teacher had spent so much of the day trying to help the Hispanic kids who could not speak or read English. And fortunately, through volunteers, including myself and my wife, we have been able to create a pretty good ESL program.

EGGINGTON: Can you explain how this official English law or initiative fits that particular situation?

HUNTER: I'm attempting to do so.

EGGINGTON: There's an exception with education.

HUNTER: Right and that's the point. The exception proves the point. What I'm saying is-and Linda earlier I trying to get back to your original question about why are we doing this. I've been in government almost my entire career and I can tell you that if I want to get programs to provide quality language instruction in our schools, English for non-English speaking kids or adults, or foreign languages for the rest of us. One of the most helpful tools I can have is a statute that says, not only is English the official language of Utah, but it also says very specifically, I'm paraphrasing it, but it says we need to do a better job of providing those services, including community programs. Now, does it provide billions of dollars? No, it doesn't and I'm not going to try to tell you that right now the state of Utah is spending billions translating because we're not.

ROSETO: I'm sorry sir I have a question. I don't see from this initiative any plan on how you will help the people to learn that it's a plan when we have waiting lists on ESL classes that is planned. I don't see any plan that is specific. The only thing that I see is you're going to have to learn. So, if you will provide me a plan to me so I can go through this, I really want to believe that this will work. But once I see in this initiative I don't think it would work. I just believe that it will be extremely negative, just pure discrimination against immigrants, aliens.

HUNTER: The only thing, I'll try to make this quite, and Tom earlier talked about and used words such as divisiveness and racist and you're talking about discrimination. I've go to take you back to the roots of official English and I've got to say, "We're opposed to English Only", that is the term used by those who opposed this to describe. It is not English Only, it was never intended to be English Only, and the immigrants who founded certainly didn't intend for it to be English Only, it doesn't say that.

EGGINGTON: You want to promote multiple languages.

Inaudible.

EGGINGTON: It promotes the teaching of other languages.

HUNTER: I challenge anyone here, and I've issued this challenge numerous times to numerous groups and I have yet to hear from someone, to identify for me a critical service today provided to immigrants that they would lose because of this. At the same time I assure you that if I were going to go to Legislature, and in fact the same folks who are promoting this would be willing to do so. I state that right now for the record, to lobby for the resources we need to help our children and adults learn English more efficiently.

SNOW: Let me raise a couple actually. In a story that we ran on KUER, one of the officials in the Workman's Comp Division said that it didn't appear to him that Workman's Comp was included in this. And they didn't think they'd be able to continue printing their brochures in Spanish to explain the Workman's Comp program to Spanish speaking people who are employed and paying taxes. I don't see anywhere in here employment. One of the things I've wondered about, if somebody comes here and doesn't speak English, one of the best places to learn English is on the job. But how are they going to get a job if they can't go to the employment office and have someone who speaks Spanish or whatever language they speak help them get a job. I don't see jobs on here, the Driver's License Bureau is not sure whether they'll be able to continue helping people learn some instruction and that sort of thing. That's one other area that they identified. And there's some question about certain aspects of Child and Family Services, although most of the attorney's in Health and Human Services haven't really spent the time, apparently, to find out how they would be affected. But there are a number of types of things that have fallen into question in my mind and I'm not sure that anybody really knows what any of these things means. No attorney that we've contacted in the state of Utah has been able to tell us-I mean attorneys for the state agency-what these exemptions cover.

HUNTER: Right. To talk about the ones you specifically mentioned, Child and Family Services, I have talked to our counsel about that, if that doesn't fit within the exceptions written into there I don't know what does. As far as Workman's Comp and some of those other types of kind of commercial transactions with the government. First of all, I heard that a state employee who can speak Spanish will no longer be allowed to talk to someone across the counter in Spanish. Well, the First Amendment has something to say about that.

SNOW: Initiative A bars government employees from using foreign languages in documents and transactions. The Utah Attorney General's office has not been asked to render a decision about whether this mean employees can or can't speak other languages in the conduct of official business. The office said today they have no opinion and cannot speculate about what impacts state and federal free speech provisions would have on this question.

HUNTER: Now let me ask the group this, I want to turn that around, if we, arrogant, ugly Americans, if I went to another country and decided to start a small business and I did not speak the predominant language of that country. Would it be reasonable for me to go to the local city hall and expect them to provide me all the paperwork I need in English? Just because that's my language and I don't know how to speak the one that's native. We're talking about obligations here and what obligation would I have to do that?

PARTRIDGE: Which nation America has ever used as a standard of comparison for our statutes and our behavior. Certainly it's easy to find other countries that for example discriminated on a number of different basis, but I don't see that useful.

HUNTER: I'm not talking about discriminating, I'm talking about if you or I went to another country where English was not the predominant language and we did not speak the predominant language. We hadn't learned it yet, as much as we might like to. Does the city hall in that town have an obligation, a legal obligation, to provide the materials to me, Workman's Comp materials or whatever they are, in English.

PARTRIDGE: I'm not arguing what legal obligation they might have, but rather what moral obligation it might have.

HUNTER: I'm talking about the moral obligation, I'm not talking about the legal obligation. I think that's a debatable point.

SNOW: What do you think the obligation is Tom.

PARTRIDGE: What do I think that obligation is? First decide that we need to be inclusive of the people rather than exclusive.

SNOW: What do you all think the obligation is of government to assist people who are coming to this country to make it their home? What obligations government has to assist them with what sorts of things in their language or what things do they not have an obligation to assist them with. Laura.

LAURA HOFFMAN: My question is, is that these people are coming here and from what I'm seeing with my kids going through the public education system is I see these kids come in and they learn English, but the parents aren't. What is going to be done to help these parents to be integrated into our society, into our language, to where they can go to Workman's Comp or wherever, be able to fill out the paperwork. What is going to there?

EGGINGTON: Can I respond to that?

HOFFMAN: Yes.

EGGINGTON: Because this is my area, I mean I hate using the word expert, but I get paid a fair amount of money to do a lot of research. First of all we have to realize that for adults it's a very difficult thing to learn another language, very, very difficult. Especially if you've immigrated and you've got to work hard all day and you're in a location where you can't get a lot of language. It's a very difficult thing. So, what does the research tell us? The research tells us for adults in that type of situation it can take up to 7 or 8 or 12 years before they reach a level of language proficiency that enables them to be able to survive in a Workman's Compensation environment with the language. The other interesting thing that the research tells us, down in Los Angeles, this guy's name is John Shue and did an excellent piece of research. He wanted to find out exactly that question, why do we have so many people from different places here in LA, some of them are able to learn English really quickly and some of them can't, why do hey have so much trouble? And you know he did all of this research, put in educational background, put in all of these different factors, he also put in environmental factors. "What was the environment that the person was living in?" as a factor. And that environmental factor turned out to be the main predictor; it really shocked people. And yet it shouldn't shock people because it makes sense. Basically, if people live in an environment of rejection that you're a stranger, I mistrust you, then they're not going to acquire the language that quickly. But when they live in an environment of acceptance, I really like you and I'm know you're trying to learn English and I'm going to try to accommodate you and help you assimilate, then they learn the language very, very quickly. Guess who has control over that situation? It's the dominant culture and the dominant community. And I see official English as, you said Tom there's a lot of symbolism here, I see Official English as waving a flag that says environment of rejection.

ROBLEZ: I think the opposite, it's an incentive to learn the language, so you can function better in our society.

Inaudible

EGGINGTON: Then all of those people down in Los Angeles would have acquired English or 2 or 3 or 4 years.

WARNER: Look at Florida, look at Miami. They don't even want to speak English.

EGGINGTON: Yes they do. We have the demographic data to prove it.

Inaudible

EGGINGTON: Let me tell you what the demographic data shows because we get a little confused you see. There's these communities, rural like in Miami, where all of the people come who don't speak English. And we think oh look at them there not learning English. But what is happening is people who are learning English are leaving that community and are being replaced by people who don't speak English. But we're from the outside and we think they're not learning English.

WARNER: They are not.

EGGINGTON: I can easily say, it shows that they're acquiring English at an incredible rate.

ROBLEZ: Bill I hate to say the old word, well it's a little phrase, "been there, done that".

SNOW: Citizen panelist Vic Roblez responding to Linguistics Professor, Bill Eggington in the KUER Citizen Panel Debate of the official English ballot measure. We'll continue the debate after this.

SNOW: We return to the Citizen Panel Debate on the Official English ballot measure with guest, Joe Hunter, head of Utahns for official English, and Bill Eggington, a Professor of Linguistics at Brigham Young University, representing the opponents of the measure. We begin with panelist Vic Roblez.

ROBLEZ: My folks came from Mexico and they deemed us not only a responsibility, but a mandate to help assimilate themselves into this society by learning English and without government help, without government help. Because we are a nation that have prided ourselves and holding ourselves up by our boot straps and that's what's made this such a wonderful nation, is that we have helped ourselves. And I've stated before and I believe strongly that had I not, had I relied on that Spanish crutch, crutch I would not have had the successful career professionally that I've had.

SNOW: Well we haven't-have we established that having a particular service in another language in government is a crutch?

ROBLEZ: Can I tell you what I think I'm hearing and you all? Anybody feel free to correct me. I'm hearing that we value hard work. I'm hearing that we value initiative. I'm hearing that we value cooperation and helping and assisting, and all the things we've talked about. I don't see where any of us could disagree. My question is, I don't understand how the law helps or hinders that. I don't know why-I feel like from what you said that the law is preempted, that is, we're putting the law here to prevent people from not allowing assimilation into English. But it's preempted and I don't understand the value of a preempted law, it concerns me that we're doing something to prevent people from filing a lawsuit. I don't understand-we're arguing about something that I don't understand how the law addresses or even if it does address it.

EGGINGTON: There is a direct one-to-one correlation. And this is a research project, once again, that I look at all the research. This is a research project conducted by the World Bank in Atlanta, an independent body. And is very interesting, they looked at the states that had Official English, and Georgia is one of them, and the states that didn't have Official English. And they looked at income and they tried to take out all of the other variables. And what they found is that in those states that have Official English laws, employer's feel that the people who don't speak English aren't valued as much as people who do. And so, guess what? They pay them less. And they paid them less and they have to work harder to get the same amount and therefore they're not going to have time to learn English. I'm not saying that. Would you like to because you're in a job that doesn't require English or any other language would you like to be paid less than he does because there's a law in the state that says you're a second-class citizen?

ROBLEZ: If the situation was such that I would have to learn English to make more money, I would darn well learn English.

EGGINGTON: And every person in Utah agrees with you, whether they speak English or Spanish?

HUNTER: Now, I've heard words about rejection, I've heard racism, I've heard divisiveness, I've heard all these words. They are not bound in Initiative A. They are bound in the rhetoric of those who don't want Initiative A to pass. If it in fact it is divisive, which it apparently is, that is the fault of it's proponents, my being the lead proponents. That is our failure to communicate because it is not the intent, it was not the intent of people who started this idea of Official English 20 years ago or even longer. That is an error of communication, the Initiative doesn't do that. It's intent is to unite and to give people the opportunity and the official encouragement to be able to unite with a common language. That is its intent pure and simple. One more quick point, earlier I was interrupted as I was trying to talk about obligations. I was only allowed to get out the first half of the obligation. That is, the obligation that if one person or a family chooses or wishes to join another country and it's culture that there is something of an obligation to learn the predominant language. And I believe that the vast majority of immigrants do indeed want to learn English, no one's disputing that. However, as Senator Hyakawa, in California said, "If we make it too easy for people to function in this country or any other without learning the prominent language we are lying to them." Those were his words; "we are lying to them". Because they can't, it doesn't matter what the government does. So, yes does this law proposes laws that have the intent of encouraging people to learn the language, yes it does. The other obligation is we're going to create that obligation is that we help them do so.

PANELIST: Does this initiative address that issue?

HUNTER: It addresses it to a greater extent than any statute that I've found in the state of Utah. Yes, I will read it to you if I have time.

DARIUS GRAY: Gentlemen, what I see as the problem here, there is a void, there's a vacuum and you have tried to sell that and you don't have the studies, Bill you do. You're the expert. But you haven't provided a proposal. But what I'm really sensing is that I might be mutually interested in English Plus, but I don't see it on the ballot. I don't see anyone promoting that. And I don't know if Bill and Joe are that far apart, really if they could get together and come to a common point.

EGGINGTON: Let me give a little history on that. One of the reasons why we don't have a policy here in Utah right now, from the point of view of those people having difficulty with Initiative A, is that 5 years ago Official English came here to Utah and they tried to put it through the Legislature. Three times it failed because people have a lot of difficulty with it. We spent a lot of energy opposing Official English, because we think it's come before, we've had a time to sit down, kick back, and say, let's get into the community and let's have a statewide discussion about language and about language planning. Let's have a commission, let's talk about these cross-over communities and then in about two-years, because they're not in a big rush, in about two-years let's put up a proposal and then get everyone to agree on it. Now, if after two-years everyone did that and we had representatives from everywhere and what they came up with was something like Initiative A, I'd probably support it reluctantly. But I would say "yeah let's do it; please let's do it" and I'd like you as English representatives to say, "yeah, let's work towards a policy" in what we call community-based policy. Now, then it's top-down because these guys never change. They came with the ballot initiative and they never compromised, bang, bang, bang, no compromise, it's English, it's English, it's English, and they didn't listen. But the state Legislatures listened and that's why they rejected them, because they listen to community representatives.

GRAY: Is there a way to indemnify the state so that it as an institution is not subject to suit? Could there be legislation passed that would indemnify the state? Now would that take away the emphasis for doing this too quickly?

HUNTER: No, and that's a very good question and I don't mean to kind of jump on it. But the fact of the matter is most of the statutes upon which lawsuits are filed, involving linguistic rights, are federal ones and there's nothing the state of Utah can do about that.

THORNELL: Bill is community-based policy planning language, planning like you're talking about a law? Is it in the same category as a law?

EGGINGTON: It can become, it can become an objective of government.

THORNELL: Is there a way to accomplish all of the very positive things that people are talking about here without creating a law that is already being very divisive? When you said the Family Services should be in here, it's in here. Laura and I were over here saying where is this, we thought by law enforcement or for public health or safety needs. I think that's where it would be. But see, then I could see people saying "no I'm not covered", "yes I am covered". Is there a way we could create the right condition without making it a statute that people would then sue you know, and then we're into the mode.

HUNTER: Excuse me, let me-first of all, again I don't disagree with anything that's being said as far as what we ought to be doing. And I don't have any problem with English Plus or those sorts of things. I do have to correct the record of this. First of all, this proposal existed and was introduced and flailing around in the Legislature literally for US English, who by the way has 11,000 plus members in Utah, even knew about it. And they became aware of it and then they all came in with offers of the systems. Your point about why couldn't we do all of that, you know I love to hear all of this talk about gee, I wish we could step back for a couple of years and kind of improve this and do it better. Again, you know if the political system worked that way you know I think it would be great. You know if our government were populated by people like you, you know life would be really great, everywhere. But it's not that way. And you know that the fact of the matter is 74,000 people said they wanted this Initiative on the ballot. Surveys have shown in Utah and elsewhere, including very recently, that upwards of 80 percent of the people in this country, including immigrants, people of color, etc. put forth the concept and most importantly I haven't heard any suggestion that this Initiative would preclude. It wouldn't stop us from doing any of those things. But it would make as a matter of ____, the fact that we should. You know that non-English speaking children and adults should become able to read, write, and understand English as quickly as possible. Formal and informal programs in English as a second language should be an issue and continue to expand it.

WARNER: What I like about your initiative, I like the language you used right here. And I think what the topics reserves recording the legislation it says "it requires the State Board of Education responsibility for education in this state to one: help non-English speaking persons to read and write the language. And also to encourage foreign language instruction and to also expand programs for English as a second language." That the state Board will take from this or go from this language and make an effort to help perpetuate or do a better a job of teaching English and helping non-English speaking people in the state. In adult education, and higher education and in public education that will happen.

THORNELL: I don't understand again, I'm sorry I'm being dense, I don't understand why a law is required to do what either should be common sense and for the community. I don't understand why the law will rectify problems here. I don't understand that?

HUNTER: A law is not required to do it, but it certainly won't hurt and we would submit that it will halt. And why haven't we done it yet, why is my little girl coming home from kindergarten in tears? And why are we having to patch together voluntary ESL programs around this state.

SNOW: Because the Legislature doesn't fund ESL, but no let me go back to Linda's question. Because she's raised it three times or four times, or whatever and I think she asked you quite directly whether or not this was simply preventative or whether that was the bulk of the value of this or the bulk of the importance of it. And I have heard you and Jordan Tanner, State Representative, and Tammy Rowan, State Representative, and almost everybody who's for it say the main reason to do it is prophylactic, the main reason to do this is to stop future lawsuits which may come about.

GRAY: Following up on Kat, if I may, because I'm switching sides in this argument. I have been pro-the Initiative, but I had been pro-the Initiative because I saw it as preventative. But Joe what you were saying was that there is no law that could be passed to indemnify the state or we to take time to do this in a different way. And pointed out that the laws that have been used to bring suit are federal, then if that's the case, then the passage of Initiative A would do nothing to state government. Can Initiative A or any state statute override or protect anyone from a federal lawsuit now?

HUNTER: No. Now, there is one thing, I want to take a step back. I want to take a step back though.

PANELIST: Then it isn't preventative.

HUNTER: I want to take a step back, the simply act of preventing lawsuits is not why we're doing this, and if I've given you that impression, I'm sorry. Lawsuits are the symptom of the problem that we're trying to head off. And is it preventative? Yes. Boy, I wish more laws were preventative in this country.

ROSETO: Tell me how, how, I mean I heard you explaining a lot of things like we say them in Spanish, "_____". He spoke and spoke and you were listening and in reality he's said nothing. How? I just want to know how? Explain it to me. This proposition-what is going to happen is it's going to bring more lawsuits. Explain it to me, please.

HUNTER: I will try to do so. Preventative, in the sense that I could take you on a tour of other states and show you that what has happened is that's become very difficult to draw a line and say where do we stop in providing state services, documents, etc. in different languages. And by doing so we make it easier for folks to function and to postpone integration and assimilation. You don't have to go far, in fact you can go where I was today, and you can find driver's license tests administered in 33 languages and counting. You can find a government that essentially has said that if someone shows up and knocks on the door and says I want, you know I keep picking on people that speak Farce just because it's a neat word, what's to stop it. In about 15 years 25 percent if the Governor's numbers are right, it won't be very long before 25 percent of us will be from somewhere else.

ROSETO: I'm sorry, but those people that are going to get the test in their own language, driver license test. I just have a question; they're not a taxpayer? They're all taxpayers and I'm sorry, I feel sorry for your little girl, but maybe you will tell your little girl that there are other children, who speak maybe Farce, those children they also go home crying. You know why they go home crying? Well, maybe you can teach your little girl my point, the go home crying because when they go to school or when their parents try to go to the school to talk to the teachers they can't, they don't feel welcome. What Mr. Bill says, yeah I agree with you, it will take us from 6 to 7 years to learn English. And I will talk in a place where I feel welcome, if I go to a place and I don't feel welcome, I'm a very shy person and I just sit there and I don't speak.

SNOW: Let me ask you all one question, do you feel after listening to each other and talking with the each other tonight, what do you think about the measure? Is the measure uniting Utahans or dividing Utahans? Do you think this measure is uniting you or dividing you.

WARNER: It can unite us, because a language does unite people. Language, common language unites us. Now, if you want to make it divisive.

SNOW: But without measure, is this ballot measure uniting and dividing you.

WARNER: If you think about the long-term effects of the Initiative, it's going to unite people. Not today maybe, it might have some disagreement today, but down the road we'll be united.

PARTRIDGE: I can't agree with that. The truth of it is that there are a lot of people who have come into this country, or I might add given the Native American population of this state, we do have some people who were actually born here, who don't necessarily speak English or speak it well. Beyond a certain age the probability of their ever learning English is remote. I have friends who will never learn English. My question is do we want to exclude them from active participation in the state of Utah? And to not call that divisive I don't know what other word you might use that would be polite.

WARNER: The state has the authority; has the right to conduct adult education program for adults, anyone who wants to learn to language may learn it through adult education programs. And the public schools teach language, teach English, that's the major thing they teach is English.

PARTRIDGE: Okay, we're not critical of the American's with Disabilities Act, we recognize that there are people with difference that preclude full participation without some sort of help. Again, if a person is unable to learn English, then with this law that person is essentially disenfranchised from for example, obtaining a driver's license. We have a current case in front of the Supreme Court right now that is questioning Alabama's English Only law. Do we really want to become involved in that type of litigation? Or do we really want to exclude people of the Navajo Reservation or the Ute Reservation from full participation in the state of Utah.

ROBLEZ: They're learning English, that's the good thing about Initiative A. Just remember that we print all traffic instructions in every language. If they can't read English you say they're....

EGGINGTON: I think most people understand that when they see a 30 up there that, that means 30, although

SNOW: We're out of time and I'll just throw one last thing out and maybe people can make a few last comments if you want to. Do you believe this ballot measure will accomplish what it's intended to accomplish preventative, unite people, help people to learn English, will it do that?

THORNELL: I think it will be counter-productive. And I don't know that I had an idea before I came in. It's just that from looking at the information that taking this approach maybe backfiring and cause the very things we're trying to unite. I don't see it happening.

VANDEGRIFT: I don't see why it has to become divisive unless people make it divisive.

ROSETO: We are divisive already here, now. So, if this initiative passed and I'm afraid that it might be passed, it will be divisive because we are already divisive. It will be excluding and divisive.

WARNER: The common language has made America the one united nation that it is. That's the most important thing in America is the common language.

EGGINGTON: You know what? That's true and the common language made America a United States within the realm of freedom of choice. It's on the realm of freedom because up until 20 years ago there was not even this notion, there weren't any, I mean there were attempts on various things. By the way, you mentioned this Louisiana law, that's a multi-lingual law when you read the law. It verifies English, but it also justifies and verifies French and multi-lingual because it needed to do that. But anyway, the United States has become an English speaking nation that's in the realm of freedom and inclusiveness.

WARNER: Bill, you've talked about all the languages in America. All people all around the world come here. And they have come together because of the language. That is one of the primary incentives to make America, America.

EGGINGTON: And they have learned English, they have been learning English, all these years.

PANELIST: ...and not because they were compelled or restricted. I think that was the key.

WARNER: They were compelled because they had to do it to function effectively in the economy, in jobs, in education, and society.

THORNELL: But they choose to do that

PARTRIDGE: If in fact, they have been historically compelled and that's been successful then what is the added magical ingredient that comes out of this initiative? If in fact every goal that you have of bringing about a United America has been accomplished by having a central language, then the initiative is unnecessary.

ROBLEZ: The reason the initiative is required is because when I was a kid our parents would take the responsibility to teach us English. That's not here now, now everybody wants help to do what the parents should have done and should do. That's why the initiative is required because we will not take the responsibility to do it ourselves.

HUNTER: There are two quick things I've got to say. First of all, we've talked about how in the past how well it's worked and how people have come in and learned English and we've succeeded etc. and that's absolutely true. Maybe 40 or 50 years ago we didn't need this law, but there is a very definite trend in this country, starting at the very top of the federal government toward multi-lingalism. Which you know essentially says, okay, we will provide services from the government in whatever language you desire them in. And our concern, very deep concern, is that there is a very real step toward losing that unified influence of a common language. The other points I have to make and Tom you've mentioned a couple of things, including the American's with Disabilities Act, and folks who are unable to learn English. I can't let that comparison stand. I don't know very many people who qualify under the ADA. I've spent a lot of time with it, who can learn to not be handicapped and I don't know how we can do that.

PARTRIDGE: That might be true, but you're making the inference that those who don't speak English can't and that the task of learning English somehow is equally spread across everyone. There are people who really aren't going to be able to learn English and who will not be able to learn a foreign language. My point is that there are people who are going to have severe difficulty, if it will be possible at all, to learn a foreign language and those people are effectively disenfranchised.

SNOW: The KUER citizen panel is a production of KUER News. I'm Kat Snow.

To hear this news story, listen to this short Quicktime audio clip. Listen to this news story by downloading a free version of Quicktime.