Dr. Gary Mounce

EDINBURG, Aug. 8 - BESO needs you - that is, the Bilingual Education Student Organization at the University of Texas-Pan American.

Members of that club lead the way in being bilingual in Texas. The acronym, BESO, may be just too cute for words…oh, wait; it IS a word, a Spanish word for KISS. Why not have fun with languages? It is also part of an international movement, one that we in the U.S. (south Texas an exception for obvious reasons) haven’t fully joined. Too bad; our loss, since we are unofficially the fifth largest Spanish-speaking country in the world.

Bilingualism and bilingual education to support it are not new isms or needs. They are old needs, valuable concepts, but should receive new interest and support. Specifically, we refer mostly to Spanish-English exchanges; Mexico is the U.S.’s third largest trading partner and the U.S. is Mexico’s first largest trading partner. We are envisioning economic recovery and beyond. We must move further and faster toward developing respect for diversity of languages as a tool for promoting the exchange of goods and services—for exchanging ideas, developing solutions to common problems on both sides of the border.

Proponents of bilingual education are persistent but not as strong as in previous times. The National Association for Bilingual Education, NABE--spelling, to my surprise, nothing in Spanish or English--was founded in 1975 and continues to encourage the movement in the U.S. The English First counter-movement leads the fight against any renewal of bilingual efforts. Why not get together? With the exception of the implicit racism of some in their group, the English First types have a point. Who can doubt the national and international value of being proficient in English?

Many nations, quite progressive, perhaps less racist than the U.S., such as Spain or France, have an official language. But Spain also has four co-official languages. Belgium has two official languages, Dutch and French, and a semi-official language, German. Notice the realistic recognition of the need? The proximity of different nations, different languages, necessitates plurilingualism for effective commerce and cultural exchanges. China, with its billions, its diverse ethnic groups, mandates Mandarin but requires regional languages and schools.  Democratic India has two official languages, Hindi and English, but thirteen regional languages thrive, regardless of the difficulties and expense! Even Mexico does its best, offering commitment to indigenous minorities and encouraging the study of English. My students at the University of the Americas in Cholula had to know both languages to graduate.

Mexico, Europe, the world, go one way. Should the U.S. go backwards? Ironically, Arizona was the first state to initiate bilingual education in the 1960s. These were ended in 2000 by Proposition 203 sponsored by Ronald Keeva Unz, wealthy Republican software CEO, who also initiated a law in California requiring English Immersion only. The pattern had spread to the national level. The 1968 and 2001 Bilingual Education Acts, sanctioned by the Supreme Court, were abolished by the cynically named “No Child Left Behind” Act, unfunded but required by President Bush. This nation remains divided along rigid ideological and partisan lines, as do views about language and appropriate methods of teaching.

This division limits our competitiveness in the global economy and disturbs our social peace in domestic politics. There is no magic wand to wave and make it go away. A stubborn monolingual person must reconcile his or her decision to refuse to learn (or, worse, to prevent others learning) a second prominent language. Each bi (or tri?) lingual speaker should continue to improve his or her laudable abilities. Each could join appropriate pressure groups lobbying for the acceptance of the necessity of an expanded policy of bilingual education. This will involve budgetary commitment, more training, more volunteers, more centers of learning, inside and outside the formal school systems.

Oddly, some Mexican Americans, even teachers, oppose bilingual education, often as heatedly as their Anglo brethren. This is disturbing. Academic studies show bilingual children are better at problem identification, problem solving and analytical thinking. Those who oppose bilingual education are, in effect, anti-intellectual, damaging their children’s chances for progress. Why should Mexican Americans oppose? They may have been so thoroughly assimilated into the dominant culture and language (which is natural and, usually, a good thing) they ape the fringe elements of that culture.

Earlier, dissent was due to fear of being labeled disloyal to the U.S.; in many cases the older generation was punished in schools for speaking Spanish. Habits die hard. Now, they may wince when César Chávez or Tejano heroes of the Alamo are taken out of history text books but they think they cannot do much about it. They may not see the long range effects of destruction of a language. Their preoccupation with day to day economic survival obscures impulses to protect their integrity, their linguistic heritage. They should know that language is the main “railroad track” to expressing and maintaining a culture (Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in Anthropology).

The rest of the world, if not the United States, supports and practices bi (or tri or more) lingualism. The Federal government of Canada has been a strong supporter of establishing Canada as a bilingual country—French and English. The necessity is felt in neighboring Mexico even if the lack of adequate resources and the current recession seem to militate against its implementation. Even China soon may have the most people of any country who speak English (Dave McNeely, The Monitor, July 23, 2010). McNeely lauded Senator Lucio for translating for visiting Spanish students at the Capitol recently. He wished that we all—at least our children and grandchildren—could have that ability.

Countries in Europe, of course, are dedicated to fostering a European spirit by teaching their mother tongue as well as at least two other European languages. After you learn a second, the third is easier. Who cares about an “accent?” We all have one and that is part of the fun, the diversity of language. Those in the U.S. who resist the inevitable—the trend toward plurilingualism—are fighting a retrograde battle against the nature of the world, perhaps using their attacks against bilingualism and bilingual education to rally nativist, often racist support for a wider right wing hate agenda.

Once past the ideological divide, most disagreements seem to be over the best methods to teach bilingualism. Objections to methods should not be allowed to overshadow the benefits. Types of bilingual education are varied, each with pros and cons, each with supporters and detractors. For example, some in Japan advocate the use of English for mathematics, Japanese for history. Experiments continue. They may disagree about details but we need to trust the consensus of academic experts.

A fascinating diversity of methods exists. But the system often used in most states in the U.S. is old fashioned. It teaches the minority language in early grades but the goal is to switch students entirely and forever to English (Immersion). Children risk losing the first language and their bonds with parents and grandparents. High schools often require a second language, but taught as a distinct subject. The Onion (July 17, 2010) jokes that Arizona may soon require the teaching of Spanish—but in English!

A better approach, now promoted in some Austin schools (McNeely), is that of Dual-Language schooling; mornings in one language, afternoons in the other. Predominantly English speakers and predominantly Spanish speakers both benefit. Society benefits. Who can deny the advantages—economic, cultural, and personal---of those abilities McNeely envies, which most of our Valley legislators and many of our Valley citizens possess? Most foreign born citizens would agree. We are a conduit, a cultural translator, so to speak, between this region and the rest of the nation and beyond to Mexico, Latin America and Spain.

South Texas could be a model, a place to begin. It would put us where we should be, out front as leaders for the 21st century. Such a progressive attitude and policy would help insure our children and grandchildren a more competitive place in the global economy. It would help bring a great degree of inter-ethnic and international respect, a basis for more durable social peace and economic progress. 

Dr. Gary Mounce is a professor of politics at the University of Texas-Pan American. His columns, often about Latin America, appear regularly in the Guardian. 

Write Dr. Gary Mounce

Printable version