|
Tuesday, 26 December 2006 14:40 |
| John North
Editor & Publisher |
"Thought Police 1, Bar Owner 0."
The aforementioned was the headline on a Web page posting of bizzyblog.com regarding the case of the owner of a bar in Mason, Ohio, who changed the sign in his window after the stateës Civil Rights Commission agreed to dismiss its discrimination complaint.
The controversial sign, which received news coverage nationwide, originally read, "For service, speak English." The sign was placed in the front window of the bar in late spring 2005 ÇƒÓ and removed this past November. (Reportedly, neither of the barës two employees speak any language other than English.)
After
many complaints and the threat of a discrimination suit, owner Tom
Ullum replaced the sign at the Pleasure Inn in early December with one
that states, "Here we speak English."
The action
resolved a year-long standoff between Ullum and the CRC, which declared
the sign discriminatory in October 2005, three months after Housing
Opportunities Made Equal of St. Bernard filed a complaint about the
sign.
"The enforcement
of this (English-only) rule perpetuates an atmosphere of exclusion and
imposes a badge of inferiority upon the limited English proficient
community," the CRC stated in its declaration of discrimination.
In the
aftermath, Ullumës attorney, K.C. McAlpin, said his client rejects the
charge that his actions were discriminatory, but does not want to get
involved in a long, expensive legal process to fight it. Ullum, who is
in his 60s, wants to go and do other things, McAlpin noted.
For years, Ullum
has used his tavern windows to express his opinions on subjects ranging
from football rivalries to the Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas
debate.
However, as HOME
Executive Director Elizabeth Brown told The Cincinnati Enquirer, "There
is a difference between signs that express political opinions and those
who deny service."
A majority of
American voters favor English-only almost every time it gets on the
ballot. Thus, the issue is portrayed among some conservatives as the
"civil rights nannies" against U.S.-born, independent-minded
entrepreneurs.
The innate
hostility of both signs troubles me and, at least from my vantage
point, makes me feel ashamed of Ullum and those of his ilk.
Having been
fortunate enough to have traveled abroad extensively, I found that many
people outside the U.S. can speak at least two languages fluently.
Indeed, many non-Americans, even those who would be judged poorly
educated by U.S. standards, are multilingual.
Of course, the
punchline I heard in many anti-American jokes, especially among
Europeans, repeatedly centered on Americans being able (barely) to
speak one language.
Considering the
standing ÇƒÓ that I find highly questionable ÇƒÓ of the U.S. as the premier
super power with much of its population educated in the worldës best
universities, I find it embarrassing that so many Americans are fluent
only in English. (To do my part, I am working with various tutors on my
Spanish.)
With Americaës
Hispanic population projected to continue its explosive growth and a
global economy ever-tightening its grip, Ullumës "English-only"
attitude strikes me as not only as quaint and provincial, but dangerous.
Assuming that
change is inevitable, I think being multilingual is the best way to go
for those who are far-sighted enough to prepare for tomorrowës
challenges. Besides its usefulness, exposure to another language also
opens one up to another culture and, hopefully, widenës oneës
understanding of human existence.
Ultimately, the
"English-only" sign strikes me as macho grandstanding because those who
donët speak English probably will not be able to read it either and,
therefore, the sign is useless in that regard.
To me, a more
business-savvy move by Ullum would be figure out how to accommodate
these burgeoning masses of prospective non-English-speaking customers.
ï
John North, publisher and editor of the Daily Planet, may be reached at publisher-at-ashevilledailyplanet.com.
|
|
|
