U.S Workplace Language Discrimination - Assignment Example

Law Review Article Roll No: Teacher: 8th October 2008 Law Review Article The article, America’s Melting Pot:Language Not Included. U.S Workplace Language Discrimination and the European Union Approach as a Model Framework, written by Julie Thorpe-Lopez deals with the employability of English language and legislation attached to it. America is known as a multicultural state because it has accommodated people from multiple nations and races. The nationals of America consider that America enjoys strength and power on the basis of its identity as a melting pot of all cultures. In workplaces, people are restricted to make use of English only as it is the national language but European Union is of the opinion that multilingualism is beneficial for global interaction. In the introduction part of the article, Thorpe-Lopez introduces the content of her article in which, she informs about the current status of America as a melting pot and a multicultural state. She also informs about the legislation that is attached to the usage of language in workplaces. She also informs about how she will proceed towards her information deliverance about the topic, she has kept for her article. After introducing the topic, she moves forward to her argument by defining English-only rule. According to Thorpe-Lopez, English-only rule is implemented the owner of a workplace according to which, all the workers are required to make use of English and no other language. This requirement is not only related to usage of English language during work but also during communication with co-workers, during breaks and while communicating to family members on phone. Due to these restrictions, some workers that are not flexible with speaking English feel problematic. In some places, this restriction is relaxed in free hours. Some employers prefer employees with bilingual speaking ability. Therefore, English-only rule that is employed in various workplaces creates problems for people lacking proficiency in English speaking. They consider this rule as a hindrance for their work. According to 1964 Civil rights law, Title VII, discrimination of any kind is unlawful in any workplace. Thorpe-Lopez quotes the law to describe the contradiction that is prevalent in workplaces that follow civil rights laws. Under this law, the people working in a workplace cannot be restricted to follow English-only rule. According to Thorpe-Lopez, the English-only rule creates many problems for people belonging to other cultures because they do not belong to America by birth and culturally, they are from different parts of the world due to which, there is a greater chance of their breaking of the English-only rule. Of course, they do not do it intentionally but by slip, as they are stronger in speaking their own language that is their first language. Bilingual speakers are more in a chance to break English-only rule than monolingual speakers are. Due to breaking of this rule, the bilingual worker is more in a chance to disrepute himself/herself before the employer. After describing the details concerning, English-only rule, the writer, Thorpe-Lopez moves towards the comparison between United States and the European Union concerning laws related to language. Language plays a major part in national origin, as it is language that reveals the identity of a person. According to the US Supreme Court and other courts, national origin that is mentioned in title VII, only refers to the country from where an individual belongs by birth or by parentage. Language is given no place in national origin by Supreme Court. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines national origin in a different context. According to Thorpe-Lopez, language is given a protective characteristic status in the definition provided by EEOC. EEOC regards the applicability of English-only rule as a discriminatory act as a person who is not a monolingual is disadvantaged because of this rule as it makes him/her feel inferior to other workers with monolingual skill. According to EEOC, the applicability of English-only rule can create bigoted environment in the workplace. EEOC has given guidelines for workplaces for the applicability of English-only rule and asks for justification of the implementation of the rule. Courts in US do not esteem the guidelines provided by EEOC due to which, there is prevalence of problems concerning discrimination and unequal job opportunities. Thorpe-Lopez reports that the guidelines given by EEOC are rejected by Supreme at multiple occasions. Court gave reasons that Congress has not taken the issue of language to describe it as discrimination. English-only rule is not given much importance until now. The definition of national origin by Supreme Court only deals with geographical positioning of an individual but the definition given by EEOC considers language closely attached to national origin. The guidelines presented by EEOC are deferred by courts and other law based institutions. European Union regards language as a crucial part of national origin. It encourages people to learn multiple languages for the professional purposes. According to European Union, multilingualism is beneficial for ending discrimination and for making strong relations on global level. European Union attaches language to national origin and consider it a reason that can cause discrimination in any workplace. Thorpe-Lopez reports about two claims in US concerned to discrimination, which are disparate treatment claims and disparate impact claims. Disparate treatment claims are those, which are intended to discriminate and are open but disparate impact claims are facially neutral but their impacts are negative on a protected group of people. Because of applicability of English-only rule, disparate impact claim is there because facially the employer is neutral but the rule has a negative impact on the bilingual workers. Therefore, English-only rule affects the people with other national origins than American disapprovingly. Thorpe-Lopez informs that proof that is required for discriminatory effect of English-only rule is very difficult to gather. US courts require a statistical report for the effects of discrimination because of English-only rule while European Union requires no statistical proof for discriminatory rules related to language. According to psycholinguistic studies, language of a bilingual speaker is not in his/her control. Sometimes, the employers provide appropriate and suitable needs for the implementation of English-only rule because it is related to their working procedures and tasks. These employers provide valid justifications but on the other hand, there are employers that apply English-only rule for no specific purpose. When the employers implement the English-only rule without any specific justification or need, they are trying to discriminate intentionally. Some employers argue that with English-only rule, they have no problems with their employees and their employees are flexible with it because they are able to speak both languages. However, their employees who are bilingual face problems because there is always a chance of slipping into the second language, which can cause breaking of workplace rules. Therefore, a bilingual speaker is also endangered to break the rules without intention contrasted against monolingual speakers. A decision from Supreme Court is needed on the issue to make it strong and applicable. As far as European Union is concerned, language mutability is not a problem there. It has been reported in the article that bilingual speakers shift from one language to other unconsciously. According to psychoanalysis, it is quite natural for bilingual speakers to slip into their first language without intention. It is an unconscious and out of control act. Therefore, the English-only rule impacts the bilinguals disparately because they always have a chance to violate the English-only rule unconsciously. After fully comparing United States approach and European Union approach to language discrimination, the writer, Thorpe-Lopez moves towards the model framework that can be opted for ending or minimizing language discrimination. According to Thorpe-Lopez, European Union can be considered as role model for nations for existence of languages without domination. Thorpe-Lopez emphasizes that language multiplicity can only become a cause for increasing the strength of America in place of creating a fear of eradication of national language. The race directive that is a development in European Union is for ending racial and ethnic discrimination in workplace level and social level. Thorpe-Lopez describes the race directive of European Union in great detail in which, she identifies that all the aspects related to race and ethnicity are considered and enough supportive measures are taken to eradicate any kind of racial and ethnic discrimination at social and workplace level. According to Thorpe-Lopez, United States should adopt the model framework of European Union in the States to control language discrimination that is prevalent in many workplaces and society as a whole. The problem concerning English-only rule can only be resolved by means of following European Union’s approach towards language. The article by Thorpe-Lopez is a persuasive argument as a whole as the writer moves from one thought to another by justifying all of her points with relevant and sufficient real time examples. In my opinion, she is successful in delivering her opinion concerning the employability of English language and the freedom that should be provided to bilinguals by considering the English-only rule that is a discriminatory rule for bilinguals. In her article, she gave the rules and laws that considered the issue of racial and ethnic identity and discrimination. She also gave convincing quotations from other works. She was quite convincing in suggesting America to consider European Union as a model to follow. Her article seems like writing for equal rights for minorities in America. Language is a major part of culture and identity and by taking language and its problems into consideration, she referred to an issue that is crucial and needs improvement. English-only rule is problematic for bilinguals as they carry of burden of violating the rule because of slippage of tongue. They have a fair chance to violate the rule because of their being bilingual. They violate the rule unconsciously as it is not in their control psychologically. The courts in United States including Supreme Court define national origin only in a geographical sense but European Union and EEOC consider language as an essential and integral part of national origin and consider that discrimination can be there because of language. According to Thorpe-Lopez, America is not going to face any problem by considering the issue of language diversity. She further elaborates that America is going to be benefitted because of diversified languages. In a very convincing manner, she suggests that United States should consider the language discrimination model framework by European Union, which facilitates all languages and gives proper rights to people of all cultures and customs. Works Cited Thorpe-Lopez, Julie. America’s Melting Pot: Language Not Included. U.S Workplace Language Discrimination and the European Union Approach as a Model Framework. California Western International Law Journal 38 (2007): 217-253. Read More