Bilingualism, a human right in times of anxiety: Lessons from California

Abstract

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to the individual’s right of expression without interference, “through any media and regardless of frontiers”. Currently, in some nations across the world, there is decreasing interest in cross-cultural interactions and a new interest in nationalism and assimilation, in communication within frontiers and in a specific medium: the national language. Speech–language pathologists (SLPs) advocate for individuals with communication disorders that interfere with their comprehension and expression. The profession promotes communication as a human right. Unfortunately, many clients and their families continue to report instances in which we, SLPs, limit their human right of expression by ignoring their home languages and recommending the exclusive use of the national language. Real progress requires reflection and action on language policy. In 1998, Californians passed Proposition 227, which eliminated bilingual public education. Then, in 2016, California voters approved Proposition 58 allowing the creation of multilingual and biliteracy programs. A discussion about the presentation of these two propositions to the public may hopefully help bilingual SLPs and advocates protect our multilingual clients’ human right of expression in these times of anxiety.

Keywords:

• Article 19
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• bilingualism
• multilingualism
• speech-language pathology
• United Nations

In 2018, we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 protects the individual’s right of expression without interference, “through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations, 1948). In preparation for the anniversary, the surprising world twists of 2017 prompt us to reconsider what Article 19 means. After decades of increased global trade and migration, some world leaders display a lack of concern for cross-cultural interactions and a renewed interest on nationalism and cultural assimilation. Many nations are rejecting globalism and diversity, to focus on communication within frontiers and border walls and in a specific medium: the national language. The rights of minority groups and multilingual communities are relegated to second place while protectionism and anti-immigration intensify.

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) advocate for individuals with communication disorders, that is, with disorders that interfere with their comprehension and expression. The profession clearly promotes communication as a human right. In fact, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)’s mission is to “make effective communication, a human right, accessible and achievable for all” (ASHA, 2017a). Personally, as an American speech-language pathologist, faculty member, and researcher, I aim to adhere to Article 19. My premise is that every person has the human right to communicate in the language or languages he or she wants, likes, prefers and uses. Regardless of the frontiers people have or have not crossed, language choice is their inviolable right. Moreover, this right is reiterated in Article 29 (3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) asking states to direct children’s education towards the development of respect for each child’s cultural identity, language, and values including those of the country of residence and the country of origin as well as respect for different civilisations.

Unfortunately, many clients and their families in the United States continue to report instances in which we, SLPs, limit their human right of expression by ignoring their home languages and recommending the exclusive use of the national language. Our profession has made noticeable progress in the effort to improve services for multilingual clients. The bilingual research base has grown (Bedore & Peña, 2008; McLeod, Verdon, & International Expert Panel on Multilingual Children’s Speech, 2017; Simon-Cereijido, 2015; Thordardottir, 2010; Williams & McLeod, 2012); professional associations around the world have positions on this topic (e.g. ASHA, 2004; Speech Pathology Australia, 2016), cultural competence is integral to clinical competence (ASHA, 2017b), and there is required coursework on cultural and linguistic diversity in many programs (e.g. Crowley, Guest, & Sudler, 2015). Real and concrete progress in our work settings, however, is slow. In the United States, the percentage of clinicians self-identified as bilingual or as members of racial/ethnic minority groups does not reach 10% (ASHA, 2017c, 2017d). Professionals report lack of confidence in their abilities to work with diverse clients (Gorman, 2015; Hammer, Detwiler, Detwiler, Blood, & Qualls, 2003; McLeod & Verdon, 2014). The quality of bilingual assessments has been inconsistent (Kraemer & Fabiano-Smith, 2017). Families report that professionals do not respect their cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Bailey, Hebbeler, Scarborough, Spiker, & Mallik, 2004). Why is our profession slow at making real changes for multilingual clients when we advocate for communication as a human right? May the current political climate slow down progress for multilingual clients even more? I would like to argue that real progress requires reflection and action on an infrequent topic in our journals: language policy.

Language policy involves three components (Spolsky, 2004). First, communities, large and small, have language practices. For example, many residents of Montreal have the language practice of using both French and English; or at the family level, there are immigrant families in the United States that may choose the language practice of not using their native language in favour of English (Spolsky, 2009). Second, communities have language beliefs or ideologies, that is, ideas and positions about language and its use. In the United States, for example, some individuals believe that English is threatened by immigrants’ home languages although there is no evidence supporting this (Wiley, 2005). Teachers and SLPs may also have language beliefs predisposing them to have a favourable or unfavourable attitude towards speakers of other languages or to recommend language policy that may or may not converge with their client’s policy (Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). The third component is language management, that is, the planning or regulations affecting language practice. State laws regulating the language of instruction in public schools exemplify one type of language management (Spolsky, 2009).

Most institutions such as workplaces, religious organisations, and the health care system have explicit or implicit language policies, and even individual families adhere to a language policy (King, Fogle, & Logan-Terry, 2008; Spolsky, 2009). These institutions and individuals are not always fully aware of their language beliefs and policies, even though those policies have concrete effects. For example, we have extensive and growing evidence on the effect of language use in the home, a language policy, on children’s cognitive and educational development (King et al., 2008). We also have clinical evidence that when a work setting policy clashes with the client’s or the family’s language policy, clinical efficacy diminishes. This discrepancy may explain the lack of satisfaction with services reported by some multilingual families (Bailey et al., 2004).

Language policies became increasingly relevant following globalisation and the migratory movements of the last decades. From 1970 to 2015, immigration to the United States quadrupled, and immigrants, mostly from Latin America and Asia, shared 13.5% of the population in 2015 (Grieco et al., 2012; Zong & Batalova, 2017). Approximately 21% of the population in the United States reported speaking a language other than English at home and about 9% of the residents characterised themselves as having limited English skills (Ryan, 2013; Zong & Batalova, 2017). Civil rights advocates have defended the use of the home language as a human right. They successfully fought for interpretation and translation services in order to diminish discrimination against multilingual citizens and facilitate access to public services (Spolsky, Language Management, 2009). However, as immigration increased in the United States, the attention to language diversity as a human and civil right paralleled the development of a reactive English-Only movement. The English-Only campaign was particularly successful in its fight against bilingual education programs at the state and local level (Spolsky, 2009). For example, in some states (such as California), bilingual children with communication disorders attending public schools ceased to receive support in the home language following changes in the school laws, even though professional organisations and contemporary research recommended bilingual services.

When research data, best practices, clinical practice, state regulations, public opinion, and families’ practices are not aligned, who has the burden of changing language beliefs and policies? In my view, on many occasions, we exclusively put that burden on the clients. We frequently expect multilingual families to unilaterally adopt the local language policy. Moreover, regulations mandating home language services for multilingual clients, such as working with interpreters or completing bilingual assessments, are often perceived as excessive burdens to professionals and institutions. Bilingualism, then, becomes an inconvenience and a source of anxiety in the public opinion.

California provides an interesting language policy example. In a relatively short period – 18 years, California voters moved from aversion to popular support of multilingualism. In 1998, after a period of increased immigration from Latin American and Asia, Californians passed Proposition 227, also called the English Language in Public Schools Statute. It required all public schools to conduct instruction in English and eliminated bilingual programs for students with limited English proficiency (Ballotpedia, n.d.a; California Proposition 227, 1998). Then, in 2016, California voters passed Proposition 58, also called Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education (Ballotpedia, n.d.b; California Proposition 58, 2016). At this time, voters favoured the removal of the barriers put in place by Proposition 227 and the creation of dual language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers (Ballotpedia, n.d.b). The new law makes it easy for parents and schools to implement multilingual and biliteracy programs in public schools. I believe there are lessons to be learned from the campaigns for these propositions. Bilingual SLPs and advocates may find a hopeful message for the current times.

The arguments advanced in the two propositions shed light onto the underlying language beliefs and practices that resonated with public opinion. Proposition 227 advocates presented bilingual education as a costly program designed for only a subset of the California population: children whose home language was not English, particularly Latino children. This position clearly converged with anti-immigration attitudes but it also affected other ethnic minorities such as Native American communities. The underlying message was that maintaining the home language meant rejecting English and being anti-patriotic. Moreover, bilingualism was blamed for the Latino poor educational achievement despite most Latino children attended English-only programs. Although the previous 30 years of bilingual education research showed positive English learning effects, at that time, the press and advocates had difficulties sharing bilingual research due to its complexity (Crawford, 2000).

In my opinion, bilingual research on communication disorders is vulnerable to the same risk: not all science consumers, including clinicians and educators, are aware of the inevitable variability in the bilingual population and the challenges inherent to research on this topic. Consumers may not readily understand the psychometric issues associated with language testing in multiple languages. In addition, they may not be familiar with the linguistic characteristics of languages other than English. Results from bilingual intervention research have been described as counter-intuitive for the public (Crawford, 2000). Dissemination of this research is difficult and the story around Proposition 227 underscores the notion that the public will not easily change attitude just by reading bilingual scientific studies.

In 2016, in turn, advocates of Proposition 58 emphasised parental choice and future opportunities. Multilingualism and biliteracy were presented as valuable assets for the twenty-first century and the global economy. Proponents emphasised bilingual research supporting brain development and cognitive abilities rather than educational research. This allowed voters to think about bilingualism as a tool that could be accessible to all children’s brains, not just the children of ethnic minorities. The campaign for Proposition 58 “did not feature obviously ‘immigrant' children’s faces. That was purposeful. Bilingualism is not just about immigrants learning English; it's for everyone” (Zepeda, 2017). The notion of bilingualism for all American children is relatively new in the United States and contrasts the traditional belief in English monolingualism as part of the American identity (Matsuda & Duran, 2013). Monolingual voters valued the opportunities that multilingual Americans had, the opportunity to learn and use another language. The old Proposition 227 alienated multilingual Americans who rejected the “one size fits all” monolingual language policy.

This change in public opinion was not born in a vacuum. California has a long history of immigration with fluid changing demographics. Zepeda explained that in California “(e)verybody knows an immigrant and sees the value of their contributions.” She also stated that middle class families in California, including second- and third-generation Latino and Asian families, not only understand the value of bilingualism in our global economy but “see the value of bilingualism for their children's development and camp out in front of schools overnight to make sure their children get into dual immersion programs” (Zepeda, 2017).

Proposition 58, then, advocated for family language policy choices. Its message did not present a limited set of two options; it did not oppose monolingual to multilingual families. Voters opted to have the chance, not the obligation or the prohibition, to raise multilingual children. This vote reflected a cultural change, a new understanding of American identity, inclusive of the voices of multilingual American citizens. Once their voices were acknowledged they could be heard in public discourse (Matsuda & Duran, 2013). With this vote, Californians affirmed Article 19: the human right to “seek, receive and impart information through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations, 1948).

The U.S. elections in 2016, paradoxically, resulted in a national outcome that echoed the anxiety and anti-immigrant rhetoric of Proposition 227 and, at the same time, the local approval of Proposition 58 with its embrace of multilingualism. In California, public opinion on multilingualism shifted from aversion to support. The anxiety from 1998 disappeared. It took time but it did happen. In the meantime, we, SLPs, should protect our clients from language policies that disregard their human right of communication.

Declaration of interest

There are no real or potential conflicts of interest related to the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Marlene Zepeda for her expert input on this topic.