President Donald Trump signed an executive order mandating English as the official language of the United States. This is the first such order in U.S. history.

The move reverses a policy issued by former President Bill Clinton requiring agencies to offer programs to assist people with limited English proficiency. Trump’s order does permit agencies to voluntarily maintain those support systems.

Related

Donald Trump claims angry constituents screaming at Republicans in town halls are all paid actors
Without any evidence, House speaker Mike Johnson agrees.

“A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language,” Trump’s order stated.

Dive deeper every day

Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

Approximately one in five people living in the United States speak a language other than English, which has nearly tripled since 1980, according to 2022 data from the U.S. Census.

Trump’s order claims it will “promote unity, cultivate a shared American culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement.”

But does this order actually promote unity, or is its purpose to continue Trump and MAGA’s extreme nationalist swing while further demonizing immigrants?

Roman Palomares, the leader of the League of United Latin American Citizens, pointed out that Trump’s order restricts freedom of speech, making it discriminatory and possibly unconstitutional: “Our Founding Fathers enshrined freedom of speech in the First Amendment without limiting it to one language. They envisioned a nation where diversity of thought, culture, and expression would be its greatest strength.”

“Declaring English as the only official language directly contradicts that vision,” he continued. “America thrives when we embrace inclusivity, not when we silence the voices of millions who contribute to its success.”

Combatting linguicism

No person is illegitimate. No person is illegal. No person is an alien.

In 2019, the New York City Commission on Human Rights announced new legal enforcement guidelines banning the term “illegal alien” in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, and law enforcement when intended to demean, humiliate, harass, or discriminate.

The language of the law “prohibits discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived ‘alienage and citizenship status,’ and national origin.”

Employers, housing providers (including hotels), providers of public accommodations, and law enforcement officers can be held liable with punitive damages up to $250,000 per offense.

In 2022, New York State laws were amended to remove “alien” and “illegal alien” and replace them with “noncitizen” and “undocumented noncitizen.”

The law does not apply to areas outside those explicitly stated. It attempts to address an often forgotten but nonetheless harsh form of oppression known as linguicism: prejudice and discrimination based on language, which runs rampant in the United States.  

The rise of the English-only movement

One sunny day while visiting my cousin – a fluent speaker of seven languages – in Antwerp, Belgium, he posed a riddle to me.

“What is it called when someone can speak three languages?” he asked.

“Trilingual?” I guessed.

“Okay,” he said. “Now, what is it called when someone can speak two languages?”

I quipped, “Bilingual!”

He said, “Yes. Now what is it called when someone can speak one language?”

“Monolingual?” I replied tentatively.

“No,” he laughed. “It’s called American!”

His riddle, though intended partly in jest, shot to the very core of our national linguistic abilities, perceptions, and policies.

While people from virtually all nations reside in the United States and contribute to our collective identity and economy, a linguistic isolationist code seems to have taken hold of our national consciousness. A longstanding egocentric and arrogant English-as-the-only-official-language crusade has infused our landscape.

President Theodore Roosevelt clearly and firmly articulated this ethos in 1907:

“We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house.”

In March 2012, Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum asserted that as a condition for U.S. statehood, Puerto Rico, a Spanish-speaking territory, must require English as its primary language.

Though some advocates prefer the term “Official English,” the English-only campaign surfaced as a movement around 1981 to push for a constitutional amendment banning all languages other than English in government proceedings and printed materials emanating from federal, state, and local governments.

Realizing the difficult and tiresome process of ratifying a constitutional amendment, proponents changed tactics by lobbying Congress for a “Language of Government” law mandating official English in the federal government, though such legislation has never passed both houses by a simple majority.

Since that time, English-only activists have succeeded in passing laws mandating English as the “official” language in approximately 31 states, including my former home state of Iowa in 2002.

The Iowa law decrees only English be used in the printing of all government documents and forms, except for driver’s education materials, trade and tourism documents, and documents discussing the rights of victims of crimes, criminal defendants, and constitutional issues.

Backers of the law argue that it not only saves taxpayers the expense of printing materials in multiple languages but also that sharing a single and common language aids overall communications and creates a unified patriotic community.

We don’t need a melting pot. We need an orchestra.

Making English the official language in the United States or any state is about as necessary as establishing popcorn as the official snack at movie theaters.

People will eat popcorn whether or not we codify it as “official,” just as people in the United States understand the necessity of establishing a functional command of English as a prime requisite for success and advancement.

The English-only movement has the effect, however, of marginalizing and demeaning non-native English speakers, decreasing multilingual programs, and giving the false and discriminatory impression that languages besides English are unimportant to learn, even though most other countries promote multilingualism.

My friend, a man of Mexican descent who grew up in San Antonio, Texas, told me how the English-only mandate in his elementary school negatively and unalterably impacted his self-esteem, even though he’s fluent in English.

One afternoon while playing basketball at recess, he alerted his friend and teammate in Spanish to get ready to catch the ball. Upon hearing this, a playground monitor ran up to him, grabbed him tightly by his left ear, and dragged him to the principal’s office, where he was forced to attend “Spanish detention.” The overt and covert messages of this incident became crystal clear: your language and your culture are not welcome here.

A few years ago, I created an online petition directed to the Iowa House of Representatives, the State Senate, and the Governor to abolish our state’s English-only law.

The petition struck a chord with a significant list of co-signers. One wrote, “As a bilingual person, this law sickens me and demonstrates the ignorance of some Americans. Bilingualism and the use of languages other than English only promote our richness as a nation, our heritage, and ultimately help to protect our national security. No true patriot could support or tolerate this hateful law.”

Rather than resist the concept of multilingualism and multiculturalism by viewing it as a challenge to our country’s unity and very existence, we need to embrace our rich diversity.

According to the National Association for Multicultural Education, “Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity as acknowledged in various documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, constitutions of South Africa and the United States, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. It affirms our need to prepare students for their responsibilities in an interdependent world.”

Without a strong emphasis on multilingualism and multiculturalism in our schools and the larger society, we will continue down the shameful path laid by those who have come before us in the United States, a path historian Joel Spring refers to as “cultural genocide,” defined as “the attempt to destroy other cultures” through forced acquiescence and assimilation to majority rule and standards.

This cultural genocide works through the process of “deculturalization,” which Spring describes as “the educational process of destroying a people’s culture and replacing it with a new culture.”

Horace Kallen, a Jewish immigrant and sociologist of Polish and Latvian heritage,  coined the term “cultural pluralism” to challenge the image of the so-called “melting pot,” which he considered inherently undemocratic.

Kallen envisioned the United States in the image of a great symphony orchestra, not sounding in unison, but rather, in harmony. He imagined all the disparate languages and cultures retaining their unique tones and timbres.

Today, the United States stands as one of the most culturally, ethnically, racially, linguistically, and religiously diverse countries in the world. This diversity poses great challenges and great opportunities. The way we meet these challenges will determine whether we can truly achieve our promise of becoming a shining beacon to the world.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.