Crawford, James. (2000). At War with Diversity: US Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety

	Crawford, James. (2000). At War with Diversity: US Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Pp. 144 $15.95     ISBN 1-85359-505-5 Reviewed by Daniel Choi Arizona State University December 13, 2002 Appropriately titled At War With Diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety, Crawford's book uses a war metaphor to describe the “us against them” rhetoric often repeated by government, public schools, the media, and minorities themselves. The book first provides a brief history of the English-only movement and examines the movement's activity in working towards a "Babel in reverse,"i.e., a country as diverse as the U.S. working towards acculturation, especially be allowing for English only (Crawford, p. 3). The consequences of these goals on minority groups are observed not only with respect to immigrant groups, but also indigenous groups. The final chapters are what Crawford calls the “political paradox of bilingual education,” which includes an analysis of the political campaign for Proposition 227 in California and what was soon to follow in Arizona. A Brief History of Language Wars in the U.S. James Crawford’s contribution continues to thoroughly inform the public of the history of language policies in the U.S., but he also updates and tracks the progress (or lack of it) being made. He points to the strides being made in finding the empirical evidence to support the social and the academic benefits of bilingualism, but he tempers the optimism with the unfortunate reality of the direction that language policies are heading in this country. He cites the most recent controversy over Proposition 227 in California as an example. Opponents to bilingual education were generally unsatisfied with Title VII. To those opposed to bilingual education, Title VII represented another compensatory program that was resistant to the melting pot analogy of linguistic acculturation or assimilation. This orientation spread, making bilingual education susceptible to criticism which was supposedly substantiated by questionable research-based claims for the ineffectiveness of bilingual education. Regardless of the validity of the research, the skepticism was loud enough to gather the momentum needed to conclude the following: that experts are “divided” and thus the scientific evidence on bilingual education remains too “inconclusive” to support Title VII policy. The “inconclusiveness” cast doubt on the program’s effectiveness and raised concerns about placing English Learners in a situation that separated them from their English-speaking peers and the core curriculum. This doubt eventually led to lawsuits, none more famous though than the monumental Lau v. Nichols case. This case marked bilingual education a civil rights issue, declaring that the placement of non-English speaking students in mainstream classrooms was a violation of their civil rights. More specifically, the Court stated that there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum— especially when English proficiency is what is lacking. For students who do not speak English, they are practically excluded from any meaningful education. Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. After much deliberation in the Supreme Court, the decision stopped short of mandating bilingual education, leaving the door open to other pedagogical treatments for students’ “language deficiency.” In retrospect, the Lau decision exposed the country to some of the most promising instructional models for LEP students; at the same time however, federal and state mandates for bilingual education provoked a backlash and a fierce debate over the program’s effectiveness. Unfortunately, the debates left a residue of doubt, which ultimately led to a clash in California over Proposition 227. Crawford’s account of language policies also exposes a paradigm shift from accommodation to assimilation with regard to language and culture. So far, language rights have existed in the U.S. only as a component of other rights, in particular, the Fourteenth Amendment of “equal protection” under law without regard to race or national origin. Lau v. Nichols was decided based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and in Meyers v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on foreign language instruction as an unconstitutional violation of “due process” guarantees. To some, this may appear as progress. To the more critical observer, however, this pattern begs an important distinction: both decisions may have reaped benefits for the quality of instruction they receive, yet it is virtually silent over an ethnic group’s rights to perpetuate its language via native language development as part of the curriculum. In other words, language rights are not valued in themselves; they are an appendage to other “rights.” Crawford warns also that a weak sense of language rights, combined with a lack of common goals and leadership to provide much needed political support, “parent’s passivity may be mistaken for acquiescence to anti-bilingual policies—as it was in California’s passage of Prop. 227. An Unfamiliar Casualty of the U.S. Language Wars Crawford deals with three main questions in responding to the crisis of endangered Native American languages as a casualty of the language wars. They are: 1) what causes the language decline and extinction?; 2) can the process be reversed?; and 3) why should we concern ourselves with this problem? Kraus estimates that in 1995, 175 indigenous languages were still spoken in the United States and classifies 155 or 89% of the total as moribund (i.e., they are spoken only by adults who no longer teach them to the next generation). Rapid shift to English is evident even among speakers of the healthiest indigenous languages like Navajo. Crawford reports that though the population number was steady, 7,000 reported speaking only English, a rough 17% increase among kids 5-17; similar, though not as significant increases showed up in those 18 and above. This rapid erosion can be summed up according to Crawford as follows: “unless current trends are reversed, and soon, the number of extinctions seems certain to increase.” Crawford estimates that one-third of the total number of indigenous languages are on the verge of disappearing along with their last elderly speakers. Even the most vigorous 10% of these languages have a weakening hold upon the young. But to put it more directly, Native American languages are becoming an endangered species. Crawford addresses the question of what causes language death. Often, language death is the “pinnacle of language shift, resulting from a complex internal and external pressure that induces a speech community to adopt a language spoken by others.” The most interesting scenario concerns the Irish, with respect to which Crawford questions what some call "language suicide." According to the "language suicide" interpretation, a language community opts to abandon its native tongue out of self-interest—to enjoy the superior opportunities open to English speakers—rather than in response to coercion. So is there a cure for language loss? Among the many answers offered, Crawford believes that the efficacy of a proposed cure is bound up primarily in a community or tribe’s initiative and control over revitalizing their languages. Without this local control, communities are likely to perpetuate political and economic dependence on the uncertain temperament of the government. The Battle at California Crawford uses the last chapter to scrutinize the success of Ron Unz’s “English for the Children” campaign and the failure of the “No on 227” campaign to win voters. According to Crawford, Unz took on a new form of neo-conservative strategy: he decided to enlist, rather than alienate, Spanish-speaking minorities and openly denounced nativism within his own political party. He publicly lauded the work ethic of Latinos and Asians and deemed them “natural constituencies” for Republicans. Unz effectively blurred the traditional political lines that many common middle and working-class minorities were accustomed to observing. While loudly opposing anti-immigrant initiatives like Proposition 187, he actively supported Proposition 209, the state’s ban on affirmative action. In this cloud of mixed messages, Unz advertised Proposition 227 as “pro-immigrant” representing a ticket to the American dream of economic and social enhancement (Crawford, p. 116). In addition, Unz was able to handle the arguments of educators and researchers on the issues by proactively setting the ground-rules of the discussion on his terms and putting his opponents on the defensive, no matter how incredible his own arguments were. He also beat the “no on 227” campaign to the punch in reaching the media. The media have always had a penchant for framing important political issues in a point/counterpoint manner; in this case, though there are several levels of discussion in the bilingual debate, the media were more than satisfied to reduce the issue to a yes/no discussion where voters simply need to decide which side to be on. Whereas this reductionist tactic is common among the media that want to attract attention (on either side), the anti-bilingual supporters have been more sinister in their attempts to spread this oversimplified yes/no rhetoric, all the while using perceived neutral core values that have been identified to cut across all cultures (e.g., high achievement, success) and pitting these values against core values such as promoting heritage languages and cultures in the schools), which sets up the false dichotomies like that of bilingual education versus English learning and achievement. Enlisting for New Wars to Come At War with Diversity was written not only with the intention to inform, but to also enlist educators, researchers, and community leaders in and outside of education. Even with commonsense lessons learned from resources such as Crawford's book, there appears to be a chasm between what researchers and advocates know and what practitioners, parents and the general public know about language policies in education. Perhaps the chasm can be spanned by promoting community and communication. Every person involved in education is involved in a web of communities and therefore, should take time to identify their sphere of influence (no matter how big or small). Communities need to know that cultural and linguistic maintenance are compatible with academic achievement and future and academic success. There is no question, as Crawford affirms, that researchers will continue to play an important role in the debates especially, as we continue to navigate the waters of more testing and more accountability; but researchers and professors of education may need to spend time on the public relations aspect of their work (i.e., working to penetrate the formidable partisan and media filters that distort the real message) and interacting and forming relationships with the communities that they advocate for. The bedrock of all communities is a sense of trust; and to gain trust, all interested individuals must move away from adversarial, dichotomous discourse, and move towards a sense of shared responsibility between communities in order for all communities (whether ethno-linguistic, professional, majority/minority, class or otherwise) to share in the core value of diversity and to reflect that value democratically in the society in which we live. Reference Cummins, J., (2000) Beyond Adversarial Discourse, in McLaren, P. and Ovando, C. J. (Eds.) The Politics of Multiculturalism and Bilingual Education: Students and teachers caught in the crossfire. McGraw-Hill, Higher Education: Madison, WI. About the Reviewer Daniel Choi is currently a graduate research assistant in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies program at Arizona State University. His research interests include language policy and policy studies in and around education of the homeless children and youth.