Court to Rule on ‘English-Only’

Re “Beware the Language Vigilantes,” editorial, April 1:

As usual, The Times subverts the point of a debate. This is not about a public employee being able to speak multiple languages. That is well and good.

The “English-only” group, as you put it, is about having one language as a vehicle for laws, business and schooling. Make no mistake, we are a diverse culture, but the thread that holds any country together is its people’s ability to communicate with each other.

A look at Canada will show that its French-speaking province has caused considerable fracturing of that country’s unity. In China, where there are many dialects, Mandarin was chosen as the official language of government and trade.

Personally, I am offended to see public documents, ballots for election, motor vehicle tests and other privileges of our country printed in three or four different languages. In other countries, if you become a citizen, you would be required to use that country’s language to vote or transact legal business. Why would we allow any less?

BETTINA DEININGER

Newport Beach

* The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the reversal of Arizona’s law requiring English as the language of its government (March 26). An appellate court declared that law to be in violation of the 1st Amendment right of free speech.

I am not a constitutional scholar. I harbor no malice for people in the United States who cannot speak English. But our Constitution defines us as, “We, the People of the United States.” When I think of the government conducting business in a language other than English, without the ability to understand what we are saying to one another--this is to destroy the “we,” the unification upon which the United States was founded.

English must be the official language of American government. Strident defense of this position by extremists should not blur the imperative. How else can America remain one nation, indivisible?

NORMAN M. ROSENFELD

Los Angeles