By Catherine Shin
English for the Children, or English-only programs, was a new curriculum set up where, as the name suggests, only English became taught in classrooms instead of bilingual programs. The integration of these new ways of teaching, called Proposition 227 and Proposition 203, showed the beginnings of a new debate containing many voices that either worked in support of or against these programs, which would be a part of the future of public education.
Two different speakers from each side will be presented. On the side that advocates for the English-only programs, the political activist and leader of both propositions, Ron Unz, shares his commentary on what inspired his beliefs. Unz cites how the history of the emerging immigrant population is responsible for creating tensions around the increasing diversity, which led to violent riots. An example he uses is the riot that happened in Los Angeles in 1992, saying, “In fact, the rioters were overwhelmingly black, and their primary targets were immigrant Hispanics and Asians…” (Unz). He calls attention back to his campaign and asserts that ethnic assimilation is the key to a successful society.
Another voice that supports the propositions is Jacques Steinberg, a writer for The New York Times who records the improvements of test scores in different classes. He compares Oceanside, the school district that fully applied the new campaign and Vista, the school district that opted for waivers to continue bilingual teaching. The article also includes perspectives of people who have previously changed from being against the programs to supporting them, as well as faculty between the two school districts.
The third voice – Frank Bruni, who is also a writer for The New York Times – starts off the position against English-only programs. Bruni questions the legitimacy of Ron Unz and critiques his mannerisms throughout his campaign. He also breaks down his own analysis of the strategies that Unz was able to implement towards the voters, which gives the reader speculation on how both propositions were able to win the majority vote.
Player four is Christine Malsbary, who is a professor at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. Malsbary gives the reason for her own study, which provides evidence for how the English-only policy can “substantiate race-language processes and policies that traumatize bilingual communities.” Her study involves student interviews and interaction with faculty while seeing the dynamic between the two in the classroom setting.
As the leader and creator behind both propositions, Ron Unz demonstrates strong appeals in phrasing and word choice to craft his ideology. He begins to paint the picture of the need for Proposition 209 by showing the audience the current state of public education. He says, “The miserable record of bilingual education was evident from official statistics: a full quarter of all children in California public schools were classified as not knowing English, and 95 percent of these children failed to learn English in any given year,” (Unz). This statistic is his way of implementing logic in the campaign, and demonstrating why the current bilingual programs are not enough for school systems right now. Using words such as “miserable” found in the quote, along with labeling the different ethnicities as “Blacks” and “Whites,” has a distancing effect on the populations that are being described which also affects the reader’s perception.
Unz also has unwavering confidence in this knowledge and in the extensive history that is provided. He demonstrates this when he says, “In fact, schools were paid extra for each child who did not know or had not learned English—a clear incentive for retaining them in a native-language program against all logic and against their parents’ wishes,” (Unz). His matter-of-fact tone continues in highlighting the harms. He believes that the Immigration Reform Act along with Affirmative Action will continue “ethnic-grievance” and “contain the seeds of national dissolution” to the country (Unz). Like Malsbary, Unz introduces new terminology defining the reasons that will work toward his beliefs. This invokes a sense of emotion, giving the reader thoughts of worry about the growing chaos that will happen if this form of a new America from the rising immigrant population does not come together under “white nationalism.” This is presented as coming from the extensive history that came from the rising ethnic tensions in said population (Unz).
On the other side, the more prominent voice against the propositions, Christine Malsbary, takes a more direct approach to finding information to support her stance on the English-only programs. When taking quotes from student and teacher interviews, she makes her own analysis of them, saying, “Further, the teacher notion of inclusion/exclusion to reposition immigrant and immigrant-origin perpetrators of exclusion, neglecting to take into consideration the ways in youth are “othered” and made liminal in society and at the school itself,” (Malsbary). This was a direct response to when she wrote to that same teacher mentioning that the EL-designated students would only speak with each other. This shows a sense of ethos, giving the reader a full view of the author’s mind and making definitions of new terminology that support her claims, such as embodied nativism, which is a form of language policing. This is also similar to how Unz phrases his own thoughts with each historical event that he introduces.
Malsbary also invokes pathos, especially by her optimistic tone towards the end when describing the solutions needed to take against the “racial consciousness” and “for others to speak, to be heard, and to act in ways that transform circumstances,” (Malsbary). She mentions the personal stories of specific students she interviewed, emphasizing their struggle to adapt to the language programs with no help from the limiting perspectives of the teachers. She invokes a sense of empowerment by pointing out the fragmented relationships between the students and the teachers, encouraging them to come together in order to build a better educational environment.
When looking at the voices that represent Unz’s and Malsbary’s respective arguments, many strengths reach through the reader’s own biases, as well as weaknesses that poke holes into whichever perspective each author is advocating for. Unz’s biggest strength is that he presents a lot of information on the campaigns behind the prepositions and molds it into a way of pleasing as many different people as possible based on his credibility as the commander of the propositions. His pathos appeal also gives readers even more sympathy and respect when he takes the method of showing that “Every poll or news story highlighting the widespread Latino dislike of bilingual programs helped reassure moderate and liberal whites that our measure was not anti-minority…” (Unz). Unz is saying that not only are the programs not xenophobic, but also actually help the immigrant population that wants to succeed in America. The media also plays a major role in Unz’s campaign. He says that he paid little to no money for extra media coverage for his propositions because of the “anti-Proposition 227 forces” failed advertisements framing the campaign as a giveaway to the immigrant population, which only angered the voters and painted Unz in a better light. As strong as this stance is, Unz’s campaign only ended in a short-term victory, and all of the statistics, as well as his framing of history, are not officially backed in references.
This is seen in Steinberg’s article, which generally maintains objectivity. He brings official results, which state that since Proposition 227, the average reading scores went up by nine percent. The results also say how the test scores in Oceanside proved to be better than Vista when comparing the school districts. Steinberg builds more credibility by providing quotes from Ken Noonan, the founder of the California Association of Bilingual Educators, saying, “The exact reverse occurred, totally unexpected by me. The kids began to learn not to pick up, but learn formal English, oral and written, far more quickly than I ever thought they would,” (Steinberg). This ethos pushes the readers to see the admittance of defeat from the other side, especially with this article serving as further coverage for the voters in Arizona who were about to vote for Proposition 203 later that year. However, Steinberg’s support of the Propositions wavers towards the end. He writes that many variables could have also affected the students’ scores and illustrates the consequences of Proposition 227 on eight-year-old Gabriela Diaz, who now can’t understand her friends when they visit her from Mexico (Steinberg). This shows the reader that the propositions may have posed a short-term solution and that there are still many issues within the education system that may have gotten worse after the campaigns. This directly affects the credibility of Unz’s commentary article.
In their argument against the English-only programs, Malsbary and Bruni offer a different rhetorical strategy. Bruni’s article attacks Unz’s credibility by providing different kinds of descriptions that show his low qualifications while leading the propositions. For instance, he writes, “Mr. Unz did not have a particularly strong personal connection to the issue of bilingual education. He is unmarried and childless and had never been in a bilingual classroom,” (Bruni). He goes on to compare Unz to a child while also providing a breakdown of why the man was so successful. An example is when Bruni writes that Unz frames the campaign in “educational terms” and attacks the media to put racial conflict towards the opposing side, resulting in his win. Bruni is able to show what side he is on by his sarcastic delivery, as every achievement that Unz makes is turned into a mockery. For instance, Bruni writes, “His voice has slightly nasal, cultured tones, and he laughs in open-mouthed gulps: George Plimpton meets Pee-wee Herman.” While this method works in showing the reader what kind of character Unz is and his methodology, it provides less of a perspective towards the framework of how the programs will gear towards the students/schools themselves. It limits the appeal to multiple audiences from fully considering the article, which is different from the neutral approach Malsbary takes.
By contrast, Malsbary is able to take a logical stance by using references from other accredited journals that support her claim of the success of multilingual teachings. For instance, she writes, “Teresa McCarty and colleagues stated that indigenous youth engage in de facto language policy making through hybrid and communicative repertoires,” (Malsbary). As said before, her study interviewing the students and teachers of Faulkner High School gives the reader more insight into the situation going on in the ESL programs, showing the misguided perceptions of both sides and appealing to pathos when emphasizing the struggles of the students that are in these programs. Not only does she talk about both the students and faculty, but the conclusion is able to ethically tie the two together by employing a coalition that supports bilingual education after listing the flaws and lack of English literacy growth from the ESL programs. This is demonstrated when she writes, “Eventually, the teacher gave up and joined in, asking youth to teach her words in Spanish, asking the Amharic speaker to write in Amharic, and displaying pride in her students’ multilingualism. As the vignette beautifully demonstrates, youth engaged in dynamic bilingual policy making that supported their academic engagement,” (Malsbary). With strong appeals pertaining to all three rhetorical strategies of ethos, pathos, and logos, Malsbary poses as one of the strongest players in support of her argument.
Although both propositions were only active in California and Arizona, this debate remains relevant to other states pushing to repeal English-only education. After compiling my research, I do see some valid points from those supporting the English-only programs. English literacy is a crucial skill that is required in order to access basic services and achieve success in America. Unz’s success also teaches people the difference between people from a more conservative spectrum argue compared to a liberal side. While straightforward facts were not completely credible in Unz’s campaign, he treated the audience in a manner that was not infantilizing, which is often how Republicans view Democrats’ rhetoric during discussion. However, learning from much of my own experiences in my public health courses, English-only education can promote the mindset of those exact two words as a mantra within the country, pushing discrimination and, at times, even violence toward the immigrant population. According to the American Psychological Association, “When a person gives up the native language and feels a lack of identity with any group… the result may be the loss of this identity with no real feeling of identity for the host culture to replace it, leading to the undesirable condition of marginality,” (Padilla et al). The future has already begun to reflect the discontinuation of these programs, with the state of Arizona being the last to have English-only education, which is already being cut from four hours a day to two hours (Mitchell).