Robert D. King's Should English Be The Law?

Should English Be the Law?
Arguing in support of a tolerant linguistic America, Robert D. King’s liberal article Should English Be the Law? explores the political polarities (and numerous grievances) consequential to governmental interception of national language. Concluding with a don’t fix what isn’t broken recommendation, King fails to validate social conflict as greater than communication barriers. Commencing his article by stating language as a “political force” then later noting it as a “convenient surrogate for other national problems” the reader stands hard pressed to solidify language as the root cause of a national identity crisis (King, 1997/2013, p. 483 & 490). King further hints to a “unique otherness” within countries that are
very successful in utilizing multi-language standards, yet fails to expand a definition (King, 1997/2013, p. 488). Notwithstanding that this article dusts the spot light on the long reigning debate of language in America, what it truly unveils is the growing challenge of embracing diversity in a free government.
Illustrating America as a nation not on the brink of fracturing geographical lines or dissolving unity, but one in which freedom and the pursuit of happiness is granted to all, King argues the criticality of allowing citizens to choose which language to utilize. King defines the identification of a nation through language as a modern political debate founded by leaders with a hidden prejudice agenda – namely the controversy of immigration by Spanish-speakers. Selecting extreme examples from the international community, such as the former Soviet Union, American bureaucrats in support of defining a national language cite inevitable ethnic conflicts, protests, and ultimately a loss of power by failing to pass such a law. King balances the dialogue with nations, such as India and Switzerland, who have incorporated multiple languages in their constitution without issue. King argues that it is not the language that holds a nation together inasmuch as a strong national identity.
King, having earned a Ph.D. in German linguistics, serving as the dean of the College of Liberal Arts, and writing several books, is clearly an expert regarding language politics. His article was originally published in April of 1997 to the moderate political science magazine The Atlantic, during a time in which, “the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill that would make English the official language of the United States,” (King, 1997/2013, p. 483). King clearly states his opposition to the bill, and desires to educate others on potential backlash for doing so. With a majority of his career involving academia, King has a propensity to view American culture through rose colored lenses – identifying America as one that respects diversity and stands unique. In contrast, the everyday challenge of business dealings, public security, economic divides, and a growing trend of illegal immigrants exponentially complicates the health of the nation. Ignoring the symptoms of an illness, as King suggests, does not always result in healing, but often (as in the case of politics) metastasizing.
“Language isn’t always part of the problem. But it usually is” (King, 1997/2013, p. 489).
From the origins of British settlers, King describes the history of American culture as one naturally assumed to be English based.
From Benjamin Franklin’s concern over German immigrants failing to learn English to Theodore Roosevelt’s propaganda that with one flag must come one language, King describes the strong feelings of the founding fathers. Transcending further back in history, King identifies the creation of the debate during the 18th century Romanticism movement; the argument gives merit to the importance of language development before politics. There is not truly a means for validating this claim; however, even this argument was a cover for deeper French Revolutionary concepts. During the revolution, many individuals required the use of Italian to communicate propaganda amongst regions. Post war, the nation “became aligned with language” selecting French for the entire country (King, 1997/2013, p. 487). Overall, King’s article poses a soft approach, in favor of diversity, through historic examples of other country’s challenges. King grants subtle hints that cultural beliefs are truly the heart of the issue, but disguised in a roquelaire of language. King further notes the lack of a national identity as the challenge to many modern nations’
viabilities.
Publishing this article through a readily accessible and well-established magazine, his intention stands clear for a general audience interested in political commentary. King’s terminology is carefully selected, being particular to use common language and non-political jargon to get his points across. While his overall article focuses on logos, or logic-based points, King’s personal value of the importance of cultural sovereignty remains clear. Careful not to overwhelm his work with overly supportive views, however, he struggles to spell out his intentions until latter narration. Throughout King’s work the emotion of the article remains neutral, directing the reader to the logic of the argument for persuasion. Instead of masking concepts in rich text and emotional outflow, he allows history to relay the importance of the topic. Challenged with balancing examples against the American nation – which King describes as unique – pose difficult support for thesis conviction. Certainly the criticality of language and identity is understood, yet with a situation where the appearance of diversity is fundamental to American beliefs, there remains unanswered questions about what can be done to solve the rising conflict. Though many leaders have chosen to ignore the discussion, continuing to ignore does not seem a valid response.
Conclusively, Robert King provides great insight on the challenges between opposing parties of the English Only debate. Through his diligence in provisioning numerous examples, the reader is challenged to reflect on the perceived value of implementing such legislation. Ultimately King states it best when he notes, “passing laws about language, in a free society, almost never changes attitudes or behavior,” (King, 1997/2013, p. 491). In order to heal a wound, the cause must be identified not just the symptoms. Furthermore if language is not the issue, it stands best to be left alone.
In closing, tolerance of enjoying the rich American heritage – multi-language and all – should absolutely continue to be a value driver, but not at the expense of the nation’s unity.
With a high likelihood of growing immigrant numbers in the U.S. it stands paramount to have a healthy debate on what is best for the society – to mitigate the formation of deeper fissures on the sensitive topic. “Language, as one linguist has said, is ‘not primarily a means of communication but a means of communion,’” (King, 1997/2013, p. 492). Michael Schwalbe (2008) further expresses the importance of language when he states: “Knowledge itself is the past living in our minds and habits. Our language – each word, each grammatical rule – connects us, not only to each other, but also to a common human past,” (pg. 46). Let us be certain, that when addressing the needs of today, we do not neglect the cultures of those that provisioned
them.