No, this post does not have to do with immigration rules. Rather, this has to do with rules recently imposed by the Arizona Department of Education. This news story has been reported in multiple newspapers and news media.
The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.
State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.
It is this change in the rules that proves that much of the motivation in Arizona is outright xenophobia, bordering on outright racism. Before this change of rules, it could be legitimately argued that Arizona was but trying to ensure that its borders with a foreign country were defended, that its jobs were held only for those with residency rights. This does not mean that I necessarily agree with the law that was passed, but that I grudgingly admit that there could be a legitimate argument for that law.
But, this new regulation is different. You see, my mother (as I) is an immigrant. She is now a citizen of the United States. Here in the USA, she re-validated her Cuban college degree at an university in Ohio. In fact, she holds a teacher’s degree from Ashland University in Ohio. I graduated from Ashland Theological Seminary, one of the departments of Ashland University. Our oldest daughter, born in Ohio, is also a graduate of Ashland University. But, my mother arrived in the United States of America in her late 30’s. A person who learns a new language at that age will always have a thick accent. And, so she does, but she was a good teacher for many years.
But, in modern Arizona, she would be dismissed from her position. What crime would she have committed? She would have committed no crime; she would not have even necessarily taught wrongly. But, there is no doubt she has a strong accent. And, here is her dilemma. Arizona is filled with immigrants, both legal and undocumented. In some parts of southern Arizona, Spanish is the common language, rather than English, and a Spanish spoken by USA born citizens whose families have lived in Arizona from before the time of the first Anglo-Saxon immigrant. I am willing to bet that in almost every grade-level in Arizona there are children who are in the process of learning English. So, there are parts of Arizona where I am willing to bet that she would not be allowed to teach any grade, any subject under the rule quoted above. Please re-read the regulation. It does not specify teachers with an accent Teaching English as a Second Language class (TESL). It simply says any class where there are students who are still in the process of learning English.
My mother fled a Communist country to freedom in this country. She sent us out ahead and then escaped by boat. She deserves better than the xenophobic scum that are now in control of Arizona.
So, here is a final question. Where are the conservative “Religious Right” Christians who should be speaking out strongly against a rule that deprives a legitimate USA citizen of a job on the basis of an accent? Why do I hear the crickets chirping when I ask that question? Why do I suspect that suddenly there will be politically conservative Christians flocking to explain how these matters are not part of what they need to be involved with as Christians?
Dear Fr.;
The scenario you present in your article is surely one of dismay. I understand completely the feelings you must have, and those of your Mother, regarding this action on the part of the Arizona Department of Education. It truly is an action which will cause great difficulty to people in the Education System, especially those who have been holding positions as teachers of English. This being said, perhaps the most unfortunate matter in their action is the timing. One has to ask if this decision was formulated and taken within the past two weeks. I hope not. If so, then your hypothesis has some value.
However, if I may make an observation, which I hope is based on objective experience; I think there is some value in the reason for the decision. I have taught, and am now teaching, English in a foreign country. In both situations there are indigenous and certified teachers teaching English as a second language, some have been doing this for several years. However, one of the greatest handicaps experienced by the students is their inability to perfect their pronunciation and conversation. And yes, in many situations there are also problems with sentence syntax. This situation is inevitable as some of their teachers are disadvantaged by their lack of capabilities as English speakers. The French are notorious for this deficiency. Many students have said to me that they consider themselves fortunate to have had the experience of studying with a teacher who speaks English as a native language.
This situation is, of course, miniscule compared to the situation faced by the Arizona Education Commission. If students are to be well educated in the common language of the United States, there being no “legal language,” then care must be given to its proper presentation and pronunciation. It is awkward enough that students in some parts of the country are taught acquiring accents and forms of expression which are regional. But doing this in a manner and technique of teaching the language with an accent of a another language can minimize the ability of the student to speak in an unaccented manner. Again, may I refer to Francophone teachers of English.
Please know that I mean no disrespect to these teachers. However, some of their studies in Methodology should have assisted them in dealing with this issue. As you can tell by my family name, I also am a child of an immigrant family. French was spoken in my home, and especially in the families of our relatives. Also, my family had many factory working members who spoke even that language in a less than perfect manner. My older cousins were all bi-lingual, more so than me, but not one of us speaks with an accent today, perhaps mostly due to the education we received from teachers who insisted on proper pronunciation and use of English. My English teachers were the best of all who taught me. Surely, there is nothing wrong with speaking a language with an accent in a familial or personal milieu. But teachers of the language must be able to do so in a most efficacious and non-personal manner.
I hope that the action in Arizona is being implemented for this reason and not for racial profiling. If it is the latter, then there are steps that can be taken to deter this.
Fraternally in Christ,
Fr. Gregory-Francis DesMarais
If the Arizona regulation had been limited to those teaching English, I doubt that I would have written the article with this strong a twist. But, because the regulation appears to apply to any subject being taught, it crosses the line from possibly reasonable and defensible to quite unreasonable. This means that if one has a strong accent, then one cannot teach mathematics or science? That is very unreasonable.
Many years ago, my German teacher was German. Her English was heavily accented. But, she taught Hoch Deutsch perfectly. To this day my German pronunciation is considered quite good. So, I can sympathize with the idea that those actually teaching the English language should speak it well.
Nevertheless, the various articles comment that it is not just Spanish-speakers who are complaining, but also native-born English speakers who question how Arizona is going to identify the correct accent. Will any USA accent be acceptable? Would a Harvard graduate with a thick Bostonian accent be acceptable? Would a New Jersey accent be acceptable? What about a South Side Chicago accent? A Georgia Peach accent? A Louisiana accent? Any of the various African-American accents?
And, yes, in light of the current immigration law, there is a deep suspicion in the Latino community that the targeted accent will be English with a Hispanic lilt.
Notice that the regulation ASSUMES that new immigrants are being taught English. Nothing in the regulation says that Spanish will be used. It is an English-language oriented regulation, but one that also appears to be a strike against those who have legally immigrated, speak English, and are now citizens, but who immigrated late enough in life that their English will always be accented.
I would like to point out that sometimes makers of law are not very clear in their intent. The intent may be perfectly innocent (ie those teaching English should have properly gramatical English) but the wording of the law can make it difficult to identify the real intent.
I have been taught over the years by folks with every accent under the sun as a military brat in schools here and abroad. I can mimic any of those accents to this day which has added to my acting skill, I might add. I can also talk in the southern accent of my Georgia relatives, the Boston accent I lived with in Massachusetts for 14 years, etc. In fact, my mother could always identify who I had been hanging around with as a kid–military brats being made up of many with again every accent under the sun–by what accent I had when I got home from school or play. In fact, the play my theatre is putting on is a Southern one and though I am not acting IN the play, my “southern” is coming out.
My grandmother was “Pennsylvania Dutch” and they spoke German at home. She did not learn English until she went to school. She spoke standard gramatical “Midwest” accented English. She learned it at school.
My grandfather’s people came from Sweden. They wanted to be “real” Americans (whatever they thought that was) and did not speak Swedish or carry over Swedish customs. (I feel the loss of that to this day.) My youngest daughter is mixed black and white. She is “bilingual” in “Black English” and standard English. When chided by other black kids in school that she was speaking standard English, her response was that she wanted to be a part of the mainstream of the US and probably work in the business world and ghetto speak was not part of the general business culture of the US. Having seen some friends hampered in the work world by their use of non-standard English, I feel strongly that children who are a part of this country should be taught standard English.
While I realize that there are parts of the US where other languages are common (German in PA Dutch areas, French in some parts of New England, Chinese in some large Chinese communities, Yiddish in some Jewish communities and Spanish in border states), by and large the business world while valuing a bilingual or trilingual employee still demand that standard English be spoken. It is therefore valuable for anyone learning English as a second language learn to speak standard gramatical English. This can be accomplished by making sure that ESL teachers have that ability. Other accents and dialects in the country can be explained. I would not like someone to TEACH any dialect from southern to ghetto to one with lots of yiddish words to you name it. These can be DEMONSTRATED as being a part of the salad bowl or mixing bowl of the USA.
As far as the new law in AZ–I have not read the law myself as yet and I have heard several interpretations of just what the law says. If the law states that anyone arrested or detained for a criminal offense should have their immigration status validated and legal action taken if they are illegal–I have no problem with that. I have personally known more than a few Irish, Swedish, and Eastern Europeans who were not in the country legally–overstaying visas–coming as students and not going home when that legitimate reason for being here was complete, etc. In fact that was the case with many of the 9/11 bombers. They make me just as angry as any other illegal.
My family came here legally–Ellis Island etc–I think folks should do the right thing and come legally. (And Ellis Island would sent you right back home if you had a suspicious cough or rash!!) Folks who come illegally subject themselves to being taken advantage of and that isn’t good.
That being said, I think the folks who hire illegals for slave wages and treat them in ways they could not treat citizens should be drawn and quartered in the public square.
No sale, Padre. My parents were immigrants, and my father’s English was, frankly, awful. Both of them were great partisans of English, and made sure I learned it before their languages. Quaint notion nowadays.
I have met a US native(Hispanic) whose English was horribly accented, and she taught school. I would have been aghast had she been my child’s teacher, because her English would have tainted that of my child. It is also true that the vast majority of people with thick accents also make obvious mistakes in their language. I think of all the Hispanics I know who “drink” their pills (=tomar), or who “go with” (=van con) a certain doctor. Thanks to ethnic segregation, even non-Spanish-speaking Hispanics often have an accent. This is not helpful.
I also know a woman from Ukraine whose English is quite good, but not perfect. She teaches English at a private school, a fact which makes me shudder.
I think we both know that this rule is aimed at ESL students, no matter how it was phrased. I am disappointed at your vituperation. I think the true scum are a tiny minority, and for every such scum, there is a Xicano marching on May Day with a Mexican flag pushing a separatist agenda. And THAT scum has a lot more chance of longterm success than the other kind.
Why is it so hard to call a spade a spade? Undocumented immigrants are really illegal immigrants, they crossed the border illegally.
Well, let me point out that in the first part of this posting, I point out that while I am not happy with the way in which Arizona has chosen to enforce immigration law, nevertheless, Arizona has a legitimate argument in trying to preserve its jobs for “those with residency rights.” I also point out that Arizona has the right to defend its border with a foreign country. I am not arguing that anyone who crosses the border ought to be allowed to remain. In fact, undocumented immigrants are mentioned only once, and that in passing. Nevertheless, I do not feel bound to use the terminology “illegal immigrants” just because one side wishes that used.
The thrust of the post was about “legal” immigrants and USA citizens who were born in another country. And the thrust was not about TESL classes but about other classes. One person said about them, “I would have been aghast had she been my child’s teacher, because her English would have tainted that of my child.” Yet, one of the most successful inner city mathematics teacher was a Bolivian with a thick accent who used tough love on his students. Jaime Escalante (Jaime Alfonso Escalante Gutierrez) was the hero of the film Stand and Deliver yet both one of the posters here and the State of Arizona would have made it impossible for him to teach his high school level advanced placement calculus program.
I’m with Father Ernesto. This is about xenophobia, and the accent law is a cheap trick to harass foreigners, legal or otherwise.
Hey, it’s an election year. Same cheap trick once used against Haitians in the Dominican Republic. If they couldn’t pronounce “perejíl” (parsley), ship ’em back to where they belong (even if they were born on the Dominican side and had never seen Haiti).
But back to xenophobia and accents: One of the best teachers I ever had was my German-born European history professor at Gordon College. Nobody could make modern Europe or the Soviet Union come alive like he could. He had been in Hitler’s Youth Guard as a teenager, and his wife was a Soviet refugee. We used to laugh when he would insist, “I haff alvays prhided myself on my ability to speak English better than Henry Kissinger!”
Accent? No problem.
If you’re looking for comic relief, father, you got it. Just what on earth is “Hitler’s Youth Guard?” No such animal, regardless of how good your teacher thinks he was. I’m an immigrant. I speak educated English, Russian and German, with my English and German being at State Department level 5, and my Russian a level 3. I function as a native in two of the thee. Having met Dr. Kissinger on numerous occasions, I can say that he spoke superb English, and made of point of lapsing into a contrived accent when expediency called for it. I know very few Harvard graduates who speak anything other than high American English. As a matter of fact, I know very few graduates of reputable schools who have much of an accent at all, especially one which impedes instruction. I could go on: After immigation, I grew up in New Orleans. When you spoke of the New Orleans accent, what was that? New Orleans has the same maritime inflection we find all over the coastlines of the United States, or are you stereotyping just like those folks in Arizona. I think I understand a good deal of the Arizona legislation. It’s interesting that there are several Latino communities in the United States where accent is not a problem, and several others where it is. I, for one, do not believe it is necessary to make allowances for language deficit, and I also don’t buy the notion that on cannot learn a new language without an accent after age 30.
That said, I wish you and your family members success in integrating themselves into this wonderful and non-xenophobic country.
In Christ
Vladimir Saemmler-Hindrichs
Immigrant and Orthodox Christian
Retired Major, USAF
Russian Translator for President Ronald Reagan
Academic
There have been quite a few linguistic studies done on accents and developmental stages. I have no foreign accent in either Spanish or English. I arrived soon enough that I have to level 5 languages. My German is of a much lower level than either of those and my reading Greek is awful.
However, more than one study shows that the norm (again, think a bell-shaped curve) is that an adult immigrant will have an accent that will betray his/her original language for the rest of their days. Are there people outside the two standard deviations. Yes, some who will learn as adults to speak like natives, down to the accents, and those who will never be able to learn a second language. Those would be the three standard deviation folk, but certainly not the norm.
However, as to wonderfully non-xenophobic, that was certainly becoming more true, but USA history does not show a wonderfully non-xenophobic country although it does show a country that has made progress in learning to be non-racist, non-xenophobic.
It’s a good law. Maybe a little refinement of language is needed, but it has been so mischaracterized by opponents.
No one will be stopped because of skin color, language, etc. They will be stopped in the act of breaking a law. THEN, if it appears that they could be in the country ILLEGALLY, then further action will be taken.
What else are they supposed to do down there, anyway…for cryin’ out loud!?
Again, this is not about the immigration law. This is about the education ruling by the Arizona Department of Education. The immigration law is not discussed in this posting. It is mentioned only in passing, and only addressed to say that Arizona does have a valid concern with regards to immigration. But, the education ruling is another matter.
I don’t know how the law Father speaks of is worded. I have not read it. I have had wonderful teachers with accents that were not regional US accents. I have never had a teacher who could not be understood despite thick accents in the language they were supposed to be teaching in. That being said, I do believe that people teaching English to folks especially young children whose primary language is not standard English (and I include folks whose primary language is what my mixed race daughter calls (black) ghetto speak) should speak standard English with minimal accent. To be a part of the mainstream of our society, one must know how to speak standard English.
My daughter was talking today about a girl at her job whose “ghetto speak” is almost incomprehensible to people who do not speak that dialect. She is someone who is about to lose her job interacting with the public because she cannot adequately communicate to the public the business serves. If we do not teach children standard English, we are doing them a disservice. I saw what I thought was a horrible example in the DC public schools where some folks thought it was a good thing to teach the children in dialect. The idea was that the kids would gradually learn standard English. It didn’t work. Should we not teach Zora Neale Hurston because many of her characters speak in dialect? That is not what I am saying, but you have to know the rules before you can learn how to break the rules and when it is okay to break the rules.
If THAT is what th law means, but does not say, then it should be rewritten to reflect that. If it in truth means that no teacher of any subject whatsoever should have any accent but that of the US Southwest or that of Arizona–whatever that is–then it is an idiotic and repressive and probably unconstitutional law.
Is OUTRAGE!
I wish you would pen a good piece on the whole Arizona thing. How should Christians view the entire immigration mess, and would any of us see things differently if we lived in AZ etc. Appreciate your ongoing attempts at wisdom.
Xenophobia is a dislike,hatred and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself.
I think there is def. always some of this… But there is also a concern simply to maintain culture and cultural identity.
Some clear thinking seems called for. Schwarznagger in California is hardly the source for this.
There is an interesting article that shows that now even Evangelicals are beginning to react against the Arizona situation. You might wish to read this article. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/10/immigration.evangelicals/index.html