JOURNAL OF LATINOS AND EDUCATION, 5(3), 209–231
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Assimilation Versus Multiculturalism:
Bilingual Education
and the Latino Challenge
Julia Burdick-Will
Latin American Studies Program and Department of Sociology
University of Chicago
Christina Gómez
Department of Sociology and Latino and Latin American Studies Program
Northeastern Illinois University
This article analyzes the public rhetoric during the November 2002 vote over bilingual education in Colorado and Massachusetts. We argue that the neoassimilationist
views displayed in both states represent a new step in the evolution of assimilation
theory and ideology—one that has adapted to both the current immigrant environment and to multicultural criticism. In Colorado, where the bill English for the
Children failed to pass, the print media reveals a far greater tendency toward assimilation; in Massachusetts, multicultural values are used far more often as a defense for
bilingual education programs, even though the bill overwhelmingly passed.
Key words: bilingual education, assimilation, multiculturalism, Latinos/Hispanics,
English for the children, immigrants
I’m strongly in favor of people speaking English here. If you come here from
anywhere and you want to participate in the American dream, then you
should become an American. The price of coming here is to become part of
our culture. And the way you learn our culture is to speak our language. And
if you don’t want to, you can just pack up and go home.
Levi Brannam, Delta, CO1
Correspondence should be addressed to Christina Gómez, Department of Sociology–CLS 2092,
Northeastern Illinois University, 5500 North St. Louis, Chicago, IL 60625. E-mail: c-gomez@
neiu.edu
1Meadow, J. B. (2002, October 5). Opinions from the Delta: Town’s residents weigh in on everything from Hussein to methane. Rocky Mountain News, [Denver] p. 32A.
210
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
As an African American woman, I support the right for people to learn the
English language and retain their native tongue. We African Americans have
no sense of our language, and English language immersion strips people of a
conscious relationship to their culture. We’ve been here before, and it’s racist.
Attieno Davis, Boston, MA2
American education policy rarely has an exclusively pedagogical base and is frequently shaped by larger ideologies present in American society. Bilingual education is no exception. The first of the previously cited quotations comes from a sales
manager of a local radio station in rural western Colorado and the second from a
resident of Boston, Massachusetts. Each of these statements was published while
the two states were in the midst of a fiery debate regarding the best way to educate
immigrant children. In November of 2002, residents of each state voted on a bill,
English for the Children, that would replace all forms of bilingual education with
only one year of structured English immersion.
Although neither Levi Brannam nor Attieno Davis was an activist on either side
of the campaign, Denver and Boston newspapers quoted them for their representative opinions on the topic. Views on bilingual education are frequently based on
concerns about immigrants and assimilation (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco,
1995). Brannam evoked the American dream and the need to become an American, and Davis referred to the country’s history of racial prejudice and native language maintenance. In doing so, they base their arguments on two very different
and conflicting theories regarding not only the process of immigrant incorporation
but also the cultural make-up of America: assimilation and multiculturalism, respectively.
The United States of America has always been a country of immigrants, but perceptions about how those immigrants should be integrated into American society
have changed dramatically over time. According to Nathan Glazer in his book We
Are All Multiculturalists Now (1997), the sentiments of Davis are representative of
a cultural pluralism now referred to as multiculturalism that swept the nation in the
1980s. Multicultural ideas revolutionized the way Americans understood their immigrant past, present, and future by claiming that America’s strength lay in its cultural diversity and placing emphasis on ethnic identity rather than a uniform American identity. Multiculturalism came about through the rejection of older, early
twentieth century assimilation and Americanization theories. In contrast to multiculturalism, assimilation theories claimed that an immigrant must give up his or
her cultural heritage and native language as part of the price of becoming an Amer-
2Tench, M. (2002, November 3). Campaign 2002 / Question 2: Heated battle over English immersion intensifies. Boston Globe, p. B6.
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
211
ican and in doing so ethnic minorities would all melt together to form a single, unified American identity.
This article explores the public rhetoric as it relates to assimilation theory and
multiculturalism during the November 2002 vote over bilingual education policy
in two states—Colorado and Massachusetts. Our initial hypothesis was that voter
approval of the antibilingual bill, English for the Children, would correlate with a
sentiment toward an assimilationist perspective of public education. In other
words, the initiative’s failure in Colorado would indicate that Colorado residents
demonstrated less acceptance of assimilationist sentiment and would favor more
multicultural approaches to education; Massachusetts’ acceptance of the bill
would suggest that multicultural theory no longer dominated political debate in
that state. However, our analysis has shown this not to be true; the Colorado print
media revealed a far greater tendency toward assimilation than Massachusetts, and
multicultural values are used far more often in Massachusetts as a defense for bilingual education programs. The very campaign used by anti-initiative advocates
in Colorado intentionally avoided any attempts at multiculturalism and relied
heavily on English speakers’ fears of the state’s growing Latino population. Massachusetts’ opponents of the bill focused more of their attention on the importance
of cultural heritage but found themselves soundly defeated on Election Day. These
campaigns were about the racialization of Latinos and their continued segregation,
masked in the language of assimilation.
The speed at which a student can learn English was not the issue, nor were practical objections, such as the ability to sue teachers or the constitutional nature of
the Colorado amendment. Instead, the language and symbolic imagery that dominated this debate were reflective of much larger trends in the perception of immigrant incorporation in the United States. The neoassimilationist-based views displayed in both Massachusetts and Colorado represented a new step in the evolution
of assimilation theory and ideology—one that has adapted to both the current Latino immigrant environment (and other immigrants) and to the multicultural criticism of traditional assimilation theory. This is similar to what Omi and Winant
(1986) have described as the neoconservative perspective and their redefining of
racial meanings. Despite the differing results of the elections, this analysis shows
that multicultural values no longer dominated, as they would have in the post1960s.
The utter failure of the Latino-based anti-initiative campaign and the acceptance of views that shamed the Latino community for not learning English are a rejection of multiculturalism and mobilization along racial lines. In Colorado,
anti-initiative advocates demonstrating that the defeat of the bill was neither an acceptance of multicultural principles nor a victory for Latino activists in the state
specifically and intentionally avoided multicultural views. The issue of segregation was key in Amendment 31 being rejected; White, middle-class parents were
212
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
frightened by the thought of having brown children in the classroom with their own
children. In Massachusetts, multicultural views were presented far more frequently; however, they were almost always offset by assimilation- and
neoassimilation-based views. In the words of Bonilla-Silva and Foreman (2000):
We believe (1) that there has been a rearticulation of the dominant racial themes (less
overt expression of racial resentment about issues anchored in the Jim Crow era such
as strict racial segregation in schools, neighborhoods, and social life in general, and
more resentment on new issues such as affirmative action, government intervention
and welfare) and (2) that a new way of talking about racial issues in public venues—a
new racetalk—has emerged. Nonetheless, the new racial ideology continues to help
in the reproduction of White supremacy. (p. 52)
These findings have implications that go beyond the future of bilingual education.
The rejection of multiculturalism and the emergence of an adapted form of
neoassimilationist policies could lead not only to major changes in education policy but to changes in the treatment of immigrants, and Latinos in general. Like California’s Proposition 187, which attempted to ban undocumented immigrants from
social services, including schools, the public has become less and less tolerant of
new arrivals. The language of race is not used in the discussion but rather a
color-blind rhetoric that hides a racist history and disempowers minority groups.
TO ASSIMILATE OR NOT
Straight-line assimilation theory that emerged during the early waves of immigration was used to explain the way in which new ethnic and racial groups would react
to life in their new country. Social theory of the time was filled with the social evolution based idea that society was constantly becoming more modern, urban, and
civilized. Over generations, immigrant groups were thought to shed their old traditional folk-society ways in favor of moving irreversibly toward a common American culture (Zhou, 1997). Park (1928), Burgess, and their fellow Chicago School
urban sociologists believed that human migration led to catastrophic change in the
evolutionary process and a breakdown of the social order. Without uniform customs, including a common language, members of society could no longer rely on
traditional practices to govern their actions; the result would be social chaos.
Americanization of immigrant groups was vital to the political and cultural stability of society (Gonzalez, 1997). To Park, every nation at some point in its history
was a melting pot that brought together different races and cultures, either by invasion or mass migration, and with the passage of time sifted these peoples into one
solid nationality; and the same should be true for America.
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
213
The popular understanding of these theories is best illustrated by Israel
Zangwill’s highly successful Broadway play, The Melting Pot, first performed in
1908. The play is the story of a Russian Jewish immigrant who embraces the
Americanization process while repeatedly declaring the virtues of his new country—“America is God’s crucible, the great Melting Pot where all races of Europe
are melting and reforming!” (Glazer, 1963, p. 289). Assimilation was seen not only
as a process of adaptation to a new land but also as a great accomplishment of the
American culture and the cornerstone of American identity.
Despite the dominance of straight-line assimilation theory during the majority
of the 20th century, in recent decades, the terms assimilation and Americanization
have acquired a negative and disreputable connotation post-1960s (Glazer, 1997).
Theorists and the public preferred terms such as acculturation and theories of cultural pluralism or multiculturalism. Multiculturalism provides a new and very different image of America as more accepting of difference. The melting-pot metaphor is seen to be an aggressive imposition of Eurocentric dominant culture. The
salad-bowl metaphor is used instead to emphasize the existence and value of differentiation among ethnic groups (Glazer, 1997). According to this perspective,
American society is made up of the dominant European American majority along
with a collection of racial and ethnic minority groups. These groups actively shape
their own lives and identities instead of passively letting time melt them into a homogeneous group; their differences are an asset to society and a defining characteristic of this country instead of the source of chaos (Zhou, 1997).
Multiculturalism has had its most powerful influence on public education and
has insisted on the representation of all cultural minorities in public school curricula. For example, many school systems now require that students learn more than
just European history but also include lessons that emphasize the role of Blacks,
Latinos, Asians, and women in social movements and scientific discoveries. But
some conservatives maintain that the emphasis on cultural heritage has taken precedent over real and relevant knowledge. They would argue that multicultural support for bilingual education often has less to do with the language of instruction
than the content of the curriculum and the validation of cultural heritage and appreciation of ethnic minorities (Glazer, 1997).
However, does the opposite hold true as well? Is the recent outright ban of bilingual education also an underlying rejection of multicultural values and a surge in a
discourse of neoassimilationist policies?
IMMIGRATION: MASSACHUSETTS AND COLORADO
Massachusetts has a history of immigration that closely mirrors the patterns
throughout the rest of the United States. Colonial Massachusetts residents were
largely Protestant English and Native American. The state did not have a diverse
214
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
immigrant population until the first massive wave of immigration in the mid-19th
century when the Boston area was flooded with Irish immigrants. As on the rest of
the East Coast, non-English speaking immigrants from southern and eastern Europe continued to arrive in Boston in large numbers until the restrictionist policies
of the 1920s drastically limited their numbers. In the 1960s, with the loosening of
immigration policy, the foreign-born population of Massachusetts once again began to rise, this time with largely Latin Americans and Asians and later citizens of
the former Soviet Union.3 By the 1990s, Massachusetts was the seventh most popular destination for refugees and immigrants in the United States. Although Boston
has always been the most popular city of residence for these immigrants, cities
such as Springfield and Worchester in the western part of the state have also become popular destinations in recent decades.4
In Colorado, non-English speakers have a much longer history. Long before
the formation of the state, eastern Colorado passed back and forth between the
Spanish and French Territories until the United States as part of the Louisiana
Purchase obtained it. Until the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848,
southern Colorado was part of Mexico. The gold rush of 1858 brought English-speaking American settlers to join the already present Spanish-speaking residents of the territory, and in 1876 Colorado officially joined the United States.5
At that point there were still enough Spanish-speaking residents of the state to
receive mention in the original version of the state constitution, which provided
for the printing of all future laws and government documents in Spanish as well
as English until at least 1890.6 Considering the limit of less than 15 years for
this clause, it seems to be aimed at the Spanish-speaking population already in
residence and not those who would arrive later on. The founders of the state presumably expected future residents to be English-speaking. It was during this period and slightly thereafter that the harsh Americanization practices against residents of Mexican origin became popular.
The current population in each state reflects the differences in their history. In
Massachusetts, the number of foreign-born residents in the state, as of 2000, was
12.2%, a full percentage point above the national average of 11.1%. Fully 18.7% of
the population does not speak English at home. Despite these high rates of immigration, only 6.8% of Massachusetts’ residents are of Latino origin, approximately
3International Institute of Boston. (2003). Immigration to Boston: A short history. Retrieved from
http://www.iboston.org
4Torres, A. (1998). Latinos in Massachusetts: An update. Boston: Mauricio Gaston Institute, University of Massachusetts, Mass Room 378.32M3 L38.
5How the state of Colorado came to be. (2003). Savert Technologies, Inc. Retrieved March 7, 2004.
from www.coloradohistory.com
61876 Colorado constitution. (2003). Colorado State Department of Personnel and Administration
Division of Information Technologies. Retrieved March 7, 2004, from http://www.colorado.gov/
dpa/doit/archives/history/constitution/1876.pdf
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
215
half of the 13% nationwide.7 Colorado is currently receiving far fewer immigrants,
and the percentage of new foreign-born residents in Colorado is only 8.6%. However, the percentage of residents of Latino origin is much higher at 17.1%.8
BILINGUAL EDUCATION:
ENGLISH FOR THE CHILDREN?
The first state to garner the attention of the English for the Children initiative (Unz
& Tuchman, 1997) was California in 1998. Ron Unz, a physicist from Stanford
University and owner of a small Silicon Valley software company, had read two
Los Angeles Times articles (published in 1996) that detailed parents’ frustration
that their children were not learning English fast enough. What little English their
children did know came from television instead of their school. The articles recounted a strike by students and parents claiming that schools were refusing to allow students to switch out of bilingual programs and demanding English-only
classes.9 Approximately 1.3 million English learners spent an average of 5 to 7
years in transitional bilingual programs.10 After the success of Unz’s campaign in
California and the implementation of English immersion, 7.8% of those California
limited English proficiency (LEP) students were classified as fluent in English
each year.11 Although this is a vast improvement in the transfer rate for California,
there is also research that the rising test scores for limited-English students may
have been caused by other improvements, such as smaller class sizes, and that the
gap between nonnative and native English speakers is in fact widening.12
The state of bilingual education in Massachusetts and Colorado was not nearly as
dire as in California at the time of the elections. In Colorado, there were only 23,000
bilingual students at the time of the elections—just 3% of the state’s population.13 A
full 68% of the state’s 70,000 LEP students were already in English-only ESL pro7Massachusetts MapStats. (2004). FedStats. Retrieved March 7, 2004, from http://www.fedstats.
gov/qf/states/25000.html
8Colorado MapStats. (2004). FedStats. Retrieved March 7, 2004, from http://www.fedstats.
gov/qf/states/08000.html
9Pyle, A. (1996, January 16). Bilingual schooling is failing, parents say. Los Angeles Times, p. B1.
California; Pyle, A. (1996, February 14). 80 students stay out of school in Latino boycott; Protest: Parents seek more English-only classes at Ninth Street Elementary Campus. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
10Stewart, J. (1998, May 28). Krashen burn. Los Angeles Times, p. X. Nanette A. (1998, May 24).
Problems in L.A. schools driving education initiatives. San Francisco Chronicle, p. 7/Z1.
11Hayward, E. (2002, October 25). Special report: Bilingual graduation rate is near equal of California Program. Boston Herald, p. 034.
12Vaishnav, A. (2002, October 1). Bilingual ed advocates marshal forces State House rally sparks
war of words. Boston Globe, p. B2.
13Cada, C. (2002, October 23). “Colorado ponders a ban on bilingual education like Massachusetts
Initiative, November 5 question will substitute immersion. Boston Globe, p. A2.
216
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
grams.14 In Massachusetts, there were approximately 36,000 bilingual education
students enrolled in the public school system. Each year, 7.6% of all bilingual students move into the mainstream classrooms. This is almost identical to the post-1998
results in California. These statistics appeared to show the Massachusetts and Colorado programs as successfully transitioning students to the mainstream at a relatively rapid rate. However, many critics felt that even that was too long.
THE INITIATIVES
Despite the different situations in each of these states, the bills that were proposed
in California, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Colorado are, except for the rare variation in phrasing, identical in content. Each includes a preamble in which English is
declared as the language of the American dream, and the current bilingual education system is referred to as a failure and as the cause of high dropout rates among
immigrant groups. The bill then vaguely defines its proposed solution:
All children in [state] public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English and all children shall be placed in English language classrooms. Children who
are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a
temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one school year … Once
English learners acquire a good working knowledge of English and are able to do
regular school work in English, they shall no longer be classified as English learners
and shall be transferred to English language mainstream classrooms.15
In other words, all non-English proficient children must be placed in at least a year of
structured immersion with other students at their English level. The details of the bill
are vague. There is no section regarding the content of these classes or what should
become of the students once they become proficient in English, such as whether this
program should replace a normal year of schooling or the students should be held
back a year. The proposal only includes details in the sections regarding program
waivers and penalties for noncompliant teachers. Parents who wish their children to
continue in bilingual programs may only obtain waivers if they have their children
certified with special education needs, and any teacher found to be “willfully and repeatedly” using a child’s native language for instruction may be personally sued by
the parent anytime before the child reaches 18 years of age.
14Museum
enjoying a renaissance. (2002, October 14). Rocky Mountain News, [Denver] p. 18D.
R., & Chavez J. (2001). English for the children of Colorado, Amendment 31. Denver,
Colorado. Full text: http://www.onenation.org/cotext.html; Tamayo, L., Porter, R., & Rossell, C.
(2001). English for the children of Massachusetts: Ballot initiative campaign launched to dismantle bilingual education in Massachusetts. Boston. Full text: http://www.onenation.org/0107/pr073101.htm;
Unz, R., & Tuchman, M. (1997). Proposition 227: English language education for children in public
schools. Sacramento, CA. Full text: http://www.onenation.org/fulltext.html
15Montero,
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
217
On November 5, 2002, both Massachusetts and Colorado voters went to the
polls and voted on whether to approve antibilingual education initiatives. In Massachusetts the ballot passed by 63%, with initiative supporters outvoting its opponents nearly two to one. This is approximately the margin by which voters approved the almost identical bills in both California and Arizona. Furthermore,
according to a national poll in May of 1998, 63% of adults nationwide believe that
nonnative English speakers in public schools should be taught through English immersion.16 In Colorado, on the other hand, the ballot was rejected by a vote of 56%
to 44%.
METHODOLOGY AND DATA
Of the four bills that have been brought to vote since 1998, Amendment 31 in Colorado and Question 2 in Massachusetts lend themselves most easily to comparative analysis. First of all, the two elections took place on the same day, thereby controlling for any national political or social trends that might affect public opinion.
Second, both have been greatly affected by the most recent immigrant wave, which
has brought non-English speaking families in great numbers to many areas for the
first time. This boom in young non-English speaking students has raised similar
concerns in both school systems. Third, the differences in the political atmospheres of the two states provide for interesting paradoxes. Massachusetts is in
general considered a liberal state, whereas Colorado is known for its conservatism.
The results of these elections demonstrate the complicated nature of the bilingual
education debates in which the two sides do not fit cleanly into standard liberal–conservative politics.
The relation among public opinion, voting patterns, and the media is still a very
complicated and controversial issue. It is impossible to determine public opinion
or the cause of election results solely from the print media; however, according to
Gamson and Modigliani (1989), the relation between public opinion and the media
is largely based on the creation of frames of cultural interpretation.
On most policy issues, there are competing packages available in this culture. Indeed,
one can view policy issues, in part, as a symbolic contest over which interpretation will
prevail … A [media] package offers a number of different condensing symbols that
suggest core frame and positions in short hand, making it possible to display the package as a whole with a deft metaphor, catch phrase, or other symbolic device. (pp. 2–3)
Although the media may not be directly related to public opinion, it provides
the public with the different cultural lenses and frameworks through which the is16Gallup, CNN, and USA Today Poll. (1998). Bilingual education. Retrieved from
PollingReport.com http://www.pollingreport.com/educatio.htm
218
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
sues are discussed. The metaphors and symbols used repeatedly in the media become part of the public discourse and the basis on which decisions are made. In
this study, we analyze the newspaper accounts to identify and compare the newspaper stories in Massachusetts and Colorado regarding bilingual education. We show
that the anti-initiative framework presented in Massachusetts was largely dominated by multicultural ideas, whereas the proinitiative media was framed in terms
of more traditional assimilation theory. Whereas proinitiative advocates in Colorado framed the issue in a similar manner, the anti-initiative campaign was based
on the continued separation of native English-speaking students from immigrant
children. Using these frames in connection with the election results, we hope to
demonstrate that what has emerged is a type of neoassimilationist rhetoric and the
decline of multiculturalist policies.
The specific data available for this study comes from a Lexis–Nexis news
search of all articles, including letters to the editor, mentioning either bilingual education or the specific amendments by name at least once. In Massachusetts, the
articles come from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Patriot Ledger of Quincy,
Massachusetts, Worchester Telegram, and Associated Press. In Colorado, the
newspapers represented are the Rocky Mountain News from Denver, the Denver
Post, Denver Westward, and Associated Press. Although other newspapers were
published during this period, our access to the articles was limited to the newspapers on file with Lexis–Nexis. Consequently, the majority of our articles come
from Boston- or Denver-based newspapers and may have an urban bias. However,
in examining the geographic locations listed in the letters to the editor of all of the
newspapers, it is clear that the circulation of the major papers, such as the Boston
Globe, Herald, Rocky Mountain News, and Denver Post, far exceed the city limits.
The time frame was limited to the month prior and the month following the elections, October and November 2002, because the month before the election is when
both the public and the campaigners focus on the upcoming decision; the month
following the election has been included to look at the immediate reactions to the
results.
Using the method of content analysis, articles were coded according to a series
of terms and themes that we believed are symbolic of the larger issues at hand. Selection of these coding categories was based both on assimilation and multiculturalism literature and on dominant themes that surfaced while analyzing the data. In
addition, we searched for references to teaching methods to determine the importance of pedagogy in the debate. The terms Latinos, Hispanics, and Spanish were
searched for in comparison to other language minority groups because it was clear
from reading the articles that, despite the existence of bilingual programs in a variety of languages, in the minds of many of the authors the issue of bilingual education was exclusively relevant to the education of Spanish-speaking students. We
analyzed the presence, meanings, and relations of the coding categories. After
carefully coding the data eight categories emerged: teaching methods, two-way or
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
219
dual-immersion bilingual education, America, Spanish and other non-English languages, Latino/Hispanic, dropout rates, if I can—you can, and segregation.
FINDINGS
Throughout the analysis of the different themes in the print media, we show that
Colorado is no more accepting of bilingual education, Latino cultural identity, or
multiculturalism than Massachusetts. In fact, Colorado newspapers show a more
frequent dissatisfaction with two-way programs, overwhelmingly uses an
assimilationist idea of America, and focuses on problematic aspects in the Latino
community such as high dropout rates. These recurring themes suggest that Colorado residents have a very traditional view of immigrant acculturation and that in
theory they should accept the proposal, possibly more so than in Massachusetts.
Despite this apparent contradiction, our analysis of the print media also provides
an explanation for the traditional-minded rejection of the bill. Unlike Massachusetts, where pluralist arguments were used to combat the bill and ultimately rejected by voters, the campaign organizers of the anti-initiative movement, known
as English-Plus in Colorado, specifically targeted English-speaking American’s
fears of linguistic integration to make even the most conservative voters doubt the
proposal’s validity. In the following we discuss the major themes that emerged
from our data.
Teaching Methods
In a debate over education reform, one would assume that the education system
and policies, both current and proposed, would be an integral part of the discussion—that voters would want to know about the theories surrounding bilingual education and details of the program’s efficiency. Few articles focused on the differing methods of education; the majority of the articles mention only the proposed
changes in the initiative by saying that it would replace bilingual education with 1
year of English immersion. These articles do not define the current system or elaborate on what the proposed immersion program would entail. Only 50 articles from
Massachusetts and 27 articles from Colorado go beyond the standard description
of the proposal to even briefly describe the terms they use. These counts include all
articles that discuss bilingual education in a more in-depth manner, whether it is a
simple expansion of the definition of bilingual education or English immersion to
include their goals or the theory behind them. In each state there is one newspaper
that contains over half of the total articles in this category: the Boston Globe had 32
articles and the Rocky Mountain News had 15 articles.
Furthermore, the Rocky Mountain News and the Boston Globe were the only
newspapers to feature articles entirely dedicated to the discussion of the merits of
220
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
each method. Of the 15 Rocky Mountain News articles that discuss pedagogy, 6
discuss the programs in depth, including research on the effectiveness of bilingual
education, the merits of English as a second language and dual-immersion programs, and the results of the English immersion implementation in California and
Arizona. The Boston Globe features only 4 articles that focus on dual-immersion
programs, the difference between colloquial and academic English skills, previous
implementation results, and existing bilingual education research. No other newspaper in either state devotes a full article to pedagogical theory. Given the relatively few number of articles that focus on the actual pedagogy of learning the English language, these bills were masking other concerns of the citizens.
Two-Way Bilingual–Dual Immersion
The teaching method that drew the most attention in both states is that in which the
fewest number of students were actually registered—two-way bilingual, as it is
called in Massachusetts, or dual-immersion in Colorado. Most articles just mention the existence of these programs and warn that they may not be able to function
if the bills were to pass. However, there were three ways in which the destruction of
this program was reported. One argument was that two-way bilingual education is
an extremely successful program that teaches English-speaking and non-English
speaking children both languages without problems. The second argument by
probilingual education advocates uses multicultural claims about the importance
of bilingualism and claims this program is the crown jewel of bilingual education;
dismantling it would be detrimental to both sets of students and society as a whole.
Advocates of the initiatives, on the other hand, viewed the dual-immersion programs as detrimental to Hispanic children: “Unz is not convinced that Hispanic
children get as much out of dual-language schools as Anglo kids. Immigrant parents enroll their children in them because they are told that dual-language schools
will help them learn English, he said. But the parents later regret their decision to
enroll their children, he said.”17 Instead of helping Hispanic children learn English,
advocates of the bill claimed that these programs were just a way for White, upper
middle class students to become bilingual. The probilingual multicultural opinion
shows up strongly in two Massachusetts articles, whereas one article discusses
both views equally. In Colorado, on the other hand, there are two articles that feature the antibilingual stance and one that shows the dual-immersion program in a
slightly more positive light.
17Whaley, M. (2002, November 1). Bilingual debate has racial element amendment backer: Anglos
benefitting. Denver Post, p. B-01.
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
221
America
The term America is frequently utilized in both states. Journalists and residents
writing to the editor on both sides of the debate cite “America,” “American society,” the “American dream,” or some other form of the term a total of 43 times in
Massachusetts and 38 times in Colorado. But what is the “America” that these authors are referring to? Does it always carry with it the same symbolism, or is the
same term used in a variety of ways?
Through a careful examination at the context of each usage, we found there are
three key ways in which the term is used. The first is as a neutral geographical
descriptor meant to identify the set of people or institutions that exist within the
United States of America. Although this may seem to be the most basic usage of
the word, it occurs least frequently, with a total of only 6 occurrences in Massachusetts and 16 in Colorado. The second, referred to as “multicultural America,” consists of a fundamental understanding of this country and its residents’ values as a
place and people tolerant of difference in which each group that makes up the combination of various heritages should be on equal footing and have equal opportunities no matter what language they speak. References are included in this category if
they mention that immigrants should maintain their connection to their heritage, or
if they conclude or imply that the United States would benefit from multi- or bilingualism. For example, in a pre-election letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, a
reader wrote, “[the author of an earlier article] shows a misunderstanding of American culture. He supports the goal of becoming monocultural, an expectation by
the people in power that those outside the dominant group will surrender their ethnic and cultural values and adopt the values of white male Euro-Americans … We
are a multicultural society.”18 The basic understanding of this multicultural America is that the diversity present in the United States is undeniable and that America
only benefits from linguistic and cultural diversity. However, the following quotation demonstrates a very different image of America: “My father had to acquire the
common American tongue. His life has been better for it.”19 This third and final
category is the “assimilationist America.” In this view, America is a monolingual,
English-speaking country, which gains its strength from the unification and acculturation of various immigrant groups. There is also often an emphasis on immigrants “becoming American” by shedding their cultural and linguistic ties to their
native countries.
In general, the use of the assimilationist America appears in proinitiative articles, but it is often included in articles that support the continuation of bilingual
education. Furthermore, almost every newspaper balances the various themes.
18Letters to the editor / Talk about bilingual education; we are a multicultural society. (2002, October 20). Boston Globe, p. D12.
19Jacoby, J. (2002, October 3). English 101. Boston Globe, p. A15.
222
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
For example, the Boston Globe includes America in 22 of its articles and the
Boston Herald only has 7 articles that mention America. However, because the
Boston Globe has a 9:8 ratio of multiculturalism to assimilation, and the Boston
Herald has a 1:2 ratio, both newspapers maintain a relatively equal balance between the two perspectives. The only newspaper to overwhelmingly use one definition is the Rocky Mountain News; of the 15 articles that mention the term
America, 9 of those are in favor of assimilation and the rest are neutral. In none
of the articles does a mention of a multicultural America appear. Clearly, in the
case of Colorado, an assimilationist view of America did not necessarily lead to
an acceptance of the bill.
Spanish and Other Language Groups
In all of the newspaper articles in both states, Spanish is mentioned far more often than any other language group. A total of 19 non-Spanish languages are
mentioned in 34 articles in all of the Massachusetts newspapers, and 15 different
languages are mentioned in only 9 articles in the Colorado print media. In contrast, Colorado authors refer to Spanish 300 times in 63 different articles—one
third of all Colorado articles—and Massachusetts authors 184 times in 58 articles—one fourth of all articles. There is a clear assumption or generalization in
the newspaper accounts and also by many advocates on both sides of the debate
that the issue is essentially only relevant to Spanish-speaking students. “‘Bilingual’ is a misnomer; the reality is that during the critical first years of school, instruction is mostly in one language—Spanish.”20 Although it is true that the majority of bilingual students are Spanish-speakers, there are at least 140
languages21 spoken in the Massachusetts and Colorado public schools, and bilingual programs in both states include Portuguese, Vietnamese, and Haitian
Creole, among others. Nevertheless, as it is clear from the imbalance in the articles, the bilingual education debates almost always revolve around the fate of
Spanish-speaking students who are Latino.
In the majority of cases, other language groups are only mentioned in comparison to Spanish-speaking students. The most frequent comparison is drawn between Latino and Asian immigrants and is usually used to illustrate Asian immigrants’ relative success in American schools. Some authors understand that there
the two groups have more dissimilarities than in their language and culture:
20Bilingual
ed hasn’t kept it’s promise. (2002, October 25). Rocky Mountain News, [Denver] p.
52A.
21ESL preferred choice: Bilingual not used in many districts outside Denver. (2002, October 11).
Rocky Mountain News, [Denver] p. 6A.
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
223
There is a big difference between Latino immigrants and Asian immigrants who
come from the professional classes of Hong Kong and Taiwan. They are doing pretty
well, they have had education.22
However, the majority tends to blame Latinos themselves for their lack of successful integration:
Hispanics are the only group of U.S. immigrants in history who do not have to learn
American ways. They have their own TV and radio stations, churches, stores, holidays, language and flag … Spanish-speaking people can go from cradle to grave and
never have to speak English.23
It is not just young Spanish-speaking bilingual education students that are referred to in this statement; it is an attack against Latinos in the United States as a
whole. This statement and others that immigrants, especially Mexicans, do not assimilate or learn to speak English is far from correct. Research has clearly shown
that Latinos, especially the second generation, speak English. In fact, according to
sociologists Portes and Hao (1998), among most immigrant nationalities, knowledge of and preference for English is nearly universal, and only a minority remain
fluent in their parents’ languages:
Viewed from this perspective, the main language problem associated with contemporary immigration may not be the threat that it poses to the dominance of English but
the rapid disappearance of fluent bilingualism among second generation. (pp.
269–270)
Hispanic/Latino
Almost all of the Colorado articles use the term Hispanic whereas in Massachusetts there is a clear preference for the term Latino. This difference is most likely
due to regional preferences. These terms appears in approximately 40% of all the
Massachusetts articles and 30% of all the Colorado articles. While a difference of
10% in the overall count of articles on its own may not be significant enough to
draw conclusions, the difference in the content of these articles makes the contrast
between the two states far more evident. Many of the Colorado articles only mention Hispanic once and often only do so to cite a statistic about the group or identify an organization. On the other hand, almost all Massachusetts articles that men22Hayward, E. (2002, October 24). Special report: Structure, parents seen as key to bilingual success. Boston Herald, p. 001.
23Thomason, L. (2002, November 14). Hispanics coddled as no others in U.S. Rocky Mountain
News, [Denver] p. 46A.
224
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
tion Latino do so at least twice, often to describe more details about the Latino
population as an ethnic minority. They use Latino as a positive ethnic identifier, often citing Latino leaders, or the expectation of high Latino voter turnout. Seven of
the articles that specifically focused on Latinos use the term in their headline in
Massachusetts, whereas only two do so in Colorado.
The fact that Massachusetts’ articles refer to Latinos more frequently and in a
more positive light than those in Colorado is important. It reflects the way in which
the image of Latinos was used in each state and the extent to which ethnic identity
was used in support of bilingual education. Latinos in Massachusetts are often
cited to gain support for the anti-initiative movement. Latino-oriented voter registration campaigns, such as the Initiativa Latina, received feature articles highlighting their work in their communities. Ethnic identity and the need to maintain a
sense of cultural history were often the overriding themes of these articles. For example, one bilingual parent was quoted as saying, “[My daughter] is in the bilingual program because I’m very proud of the fact my family is Puerto Rican. This is
a way to preserve our language and our culture as well as to continue to study both
languages.”24 For parents and activists such as these, learning English is as important as understanding their heritage and maintaining their native language.
In Colorado, such praise of Latino heritage is much less frequent. The English-Plus campaign actually stayed away from ethnic politics intentionally. It was
part of their strategy to minimize the association of bilingual education with residents of Latino heritage (Escamilla, 2003). Although this did not prevent the appearance of Latinos in the print media, it may have indirectly led to a negative image of Latinos in the Colorado print media. A large percentage of the articles that
mention Hispanics in Colorado cited the group for socially negative behavior. One
example is “Indicators show that Hispanic students are in a dire state of emergency.”25 The most frequently noted indicator of this “crisis” is above average high
school dropout rates; 30% of the Colorado articles that make reference to Latinos;
15 out of 49 also mention the group’s high school dropout rates. The dropout problem is mentioned only five times without relation to Hispanics. In Massachusetts,
dropout rates are only mentioned in nine articles overall and only four refer directly to Latinos, a frequency significantly smaller than that of Colorado. Annual
dropout rates for Latinos in 2001–2002 were 7.3% in Massachusetts and 4.6% in
Colorado.26 However, projected 4-year dropout rates (the percentage of ninth graders projected to drop out over a 4-year period) are much higher, 26% to 33% for
24Hayward, E. (2002, October 25). Special report: Bilingual graduation rate is near equal of California program. Boston Herald, p. 034.
25Hayward, E. (2002, October 23). Special report: Educational crisis plagues Hispanic kids in Bay
State. Boston Herald, p. 001.
26Massachusetts Department of Education, 2001–2002 Annual Dropout Rates; Colorado Department of Education, 2001–2002 Dropout Rate. Research and Evaluation Unit.
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
225
Latinos, respectively. Even though the figures are lower in Colorado, the media
seems to interpret these figures as a Latino problem. The new language programs
are expected to improve these high dropout rates, but some Colorado residents assume that many Latino students will not complete their schooling. For example,
one editorial stated that “Even if some [Hispanics] should drop out before graduation, at least they’ll have learned the language and be better able to assimilate in
our society.”27 In other words, it is important to make sure all students receive 1 full
year of English because they may not stay in school long enough to learn it later.
If I Can—You Can
One of the more interesting mentions of Latino/Hispanic occurs in a hypothetical
context: “If I were Hispanic …” Two Massachusetts editorials, one in the Worchester Telegram and one in the Boston Globe, focus their arguments on what the
authors would do if they were Hispanic and the humiliation they would feel for
having the option to use their native language in this country. Although written by
different journalists, both cite the differences between Hispanics and other immigrant groups and claim that the large number of services available in Spanish
means that Hispanics do not speak English and are incapable of learning it. Both
seem to be blaming American institutions for making it too easy for Hispanic immigrants to not want to learn the language badly enough.
Interestingly enough, neither of these authors considers himself a fully American native. The first author, Robert Nemeth, of the Worchester Telegram, is a Polish refugee who came to the United States at the age of 29. Jeff Jacoby, of the
Boston Globe, is the son of a Jewish refugee from Czechoslovakia. Each uses his
family’s personal experience as evidence of successful assimilation processes. As
Jacoby says of his father, “The only English he knew were the words he picked up
on the boat coming over. But like millions of immigrants before him, and like
scores of others he met after settling in Cleveland, he made learning English an urgent priority.” Jacoby implies that it was purely through hard work, determination,
and perseverance his father was able to overcome his problems with English.
Whereas Nemeth does not recount how he learned English well enough to be writing for the newspaper, he does explain that his son became fluent in 9 months while
immersed in all English classes when he entered kindergarten. It is unclear exactly
how much English Nemeth himself knew at the time or whether his son has retained any Polish, but the theme of both these articles is certainly one of “If we can,
why can’t you?”28 Other articles and a good number of letters to the editor repeatedly display this attitude either through personal stories or historical comparisons
27Amendment
31: Round 2. (2002, November 8). Rocky Mountain News, [Denver] p. 37A.
28Nemeth, R. (2002, October 27). Failed bilingual system requires drastic change. Worchester Tele-
gram, p. C2.
226
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
to other ethnic groups. The general consensus seems to be that bilingual education
is only helping Hispanics avoid the traditional struggle with assimilation that everyone else had to pass through and thus preventing them from joining American
society and reaping its rewards. Issues of race and ethnicity, reception to the host
country, changing economic conditions, or access to cultural capital are never discussed in conjunction with this theme.
Segregation
In Massachusetts, where assimilation theory and multiculturalism were most
openly debated, proponents of the initiative often used language reminiscent of the
Civil Rights Movement to discredit bilingual education. “Bilingual kids are segregated much like black children used to be in the South”29 and “Bilingual education
is a system designated to keep a whole class of people in the language ghetto”30 are
representative of sentiments repeated throughout each state’s newspapers. Linguistic ghettos and segregated classrooms are cited with relative frequency in Massachusetts’ newspapers, and the words segregate and ghetto appear a total of 18
times. In Colorado, these words are only mentioned 10 times, but it is still important to note their presence in the discourse. As mentioned previously, multiculturalism is thought to have arisen from a frustration with the results of the Civil Rights
Movement. Therefore, the use of clearly civil rights language by supporters of the
bill, many of whom also include assimilationist arguments, is significant. These
claims of continued segregation use multicultural arguments against bilingual education by designating the bilingual education itself, and perhaps any other institution that does not promote the full assimilation of immigrant groups, as discriminatory. The proinitiative supporters have appropriated the language of
multiculturalism to promote a neoassimilationist position.
Election Results
After the elections, newspapers in both states published articles about the large
numbers of Latinos who voted against the bill. In Colorado, a poll cited many
times by newspapers stated that 92% of the 600 Latinos questioned as they left the
polls said they voted against the bill. The evidence for Latino disapproval of the
bill was also supported by the fact that districts with large Latino populations voted
heavily against it. The Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and the Rocky Mountain
News all ran articles citing the large percentage of Latinos who voted against the
29Nemeth, R. (2002, October 27). Failed bilingual system requires drastic change. Worchester Telegram, p. C2.
30Cada, C. (2002, October 23). Colorado ponders a ban on bilingual education like Massachusetts
Initiative, November 5 question will substitute immersion. Boston Globe, p. A2.
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
227
bill. The Rocky Mountain News even went so far as to list the election results for the
10 districts most heavily populated with Latinos, claiming that the high rejection
rates in these counties was a reflection of high levels of Latino disapproval of
Amendment 31. Although this may be the case, it is also true that in every one of
these counties, the percentage of voters who rejected the initiative was at least
twice that of the percentage of Hispanic residents in the county. Therefore it is not
possible that the rejection of the ballot was caused solely by Latino voters.
On November 19, 2 weeks after the elections, Rep. Richard Decker of the Colorado State legislature proposed banning all languages other than English in public
school classrooms until the end of elementary school. In defense of his native language, Decker even tried to have foreign language study by native English-speaking students banned. He claimed that this statute was in response to the
Colorado residents who believed in the goals of Amendment 31 but did not want to
make it part of the constitution.31 The statute was ruled unconstitutional and never
formally presented to the legislature, but the fact that Decker thought that this
would be publicly accepted is telling, especially because it is almost identical to
the Nebraska bill passed in 1921, in the heyday of the assimilationist ideologies
(Daniels, 1997).
Some of the articles that were published discussing the campaign strategy of the
anti-31 organizers in Colorado also show a similar picture. The television campaign that began in early October was titled “Chaos in the Classroom.” In a series
of ads, anti-initiative ads claimed that the passage of the amendment would bring
swarms of unprepared students into mainstream classrooms, creating educational
chaos and detracting from other students’ learning. A transcript of one of the ads in
the Rocky Mountain News described it as follows: “We know Amendment 31 will
knowingly force children who can barely speak English into regular classrooms,
creating chaos and disrupting learning.”32 The ads were clearly playing on a general fear of non-English speaking immigrants, especially Latinos. One editorial
clearly stated these concerns about the ads in its description of the next ad released.
“The second week’s ad continued the theme of chaos and disruption, with visuals
of children looking apprehensively at classmates. We hope that these ads were not
deliberately crafted to appeal covertly to ethnic prejudice, but at the very least they
attempt to frighten people.”33 Instead of attempting to convince the public that bilingual education is a positive thing for immigrant students, as was done in Massa-
31Eric H. (2002, November 19). Legislator pushes English-only in the classroom Decker: No other
tongues in grammar school. Denver Post, p. B-02.
32Abbott, K. (2002, October 3). What you speak may determine where you stand. Rocky Mountain
News, [Denver] p. 24A.
33The lies told about Amendment 31; Political ads pick wrong target for critique. (2002, October
22). Rocky Mountain News, [Denver] p. 36A.
228
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
chusetts, the Colorado campaign decided to focus on the supposed negative effects
of English immersion on “regular” Americans.
The goals of this campaign and the proposal to the legislature fit smoothly with
the evidence from the newspapers that Colorado residents are in fact more willing
to implement traditional assimilation theory. When the fear of cultural differences
is added to the negative portrayal of Latinos and already existent ideas about how
Americans as a whole have been formed by the assimilation process, the decision
to vote against Amendment 31 seems entirely logical.
Massachusetts campaign managers did not use this tactic. Instead the major slogan of the Massachusetts anti-initiative organizers was “Don’t Sue Teachers.” Beyond discussions of the punitive clause of the bill, the overall tone of probilingual
education articles was one that advocated the appreciation of individual ethnic
groups’ heritage and multilingualism among all Americans. Although many were
willing to concede that the existing bilingual programs were not performing as
well as they should be, they advocated small-scale reforms instead of an entirely
new system.
Many of the arguments against bilingual education refer directly to its relation
to multicultural values. “Diehard defenders of moribund bilingual education programs have their own agenda, steeped in ethnic politics, multicultural ideology,
and good old-fashioned labor-union job protection.”34 The assimilationist arguments used in this editorial in Colorado do not mean that Glazer’s (1997) analysis
of the spread of multiculturalism in the 1990s is incorrect. The fact that a journalist
who strongly supports English-only policies and the removal of bilingual education must include reference to multiculturalism and ethnic politics in some ways
supports Glazer’s claim that multiculturalism has seeped into every corner of the
country and every aspect of politics. However, in the context of this study, this extension of multicultural language multiculturalism does not support Glazer’s claim
that it represents the weakness of assimilation theory. Instead it represents the persistence of a new form of assimilationism that has evolved over the past century
and adapted to the opposition presented by multiculturalism and the changes in the
political and social context of this country. The neoassimilationist perspective that
is present in both Colorado and Massachusetts is composed of the basic principles
of straight-line assimilation theory but includes important variations. Much of the
theory in the early 20th century focused on the future creation of the American
people through the melting of the European races. As articulated in Zangwill’s
play, “The real America has not arrived yet … He will be the fusion of all the races,
the coming superman” (Glazer, 1963, p. 289). During the height of assimilation
theory, America was seen as not yet formed; however, over the decades, the fusion
of European immigrant groups occurred and what it meant to be American became
34Amendment
31: Round 2. (2002, October 22). Rocky Mountain News, [Denver] p. 37A.
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
229
clearer. Even among multicultural advocates, European Americans are usually
grouped together to represent the majority of Americans (Glazer, 1963).
The uncertain future used by straight-line assimilationists is converted by
neoassimilationists into an idealization of past. “If I can—you can,” ideas represented in many of the articles refer to the successful assimilation of immigrants
who arrived in this country during the first two waves of immigration. The melting
of these immigrants has already occurred and worked; therefore, future immigrants should follow the preestablished pattern. Groups such as Latinos that do not
follow that pattern are looked down on and seen as purposely avoiding the assimilation process through programs like bilingual education.
Precisely because current-day neoassimilationists have already seen results of assimilation, they do not see this process in the same way as Park (1928) or Zangwill
saw it. Assimilation is no longer a process of minority groups melting together to
form a new and different American identity, independent from any of the parts
from which it is made up. Currently, immigrants are expected to shed their cultural
heritage to “become American,” without altering the definition of what it means to
be American. Neoassimilationism represents the evolution of the language of assimilation. Neoassimilationists have co-opted a multicultural language as a reaction to the dominance of multiculturalism in the past, and, by using the opposition’s own arguments against them, they strengthen the appeal of neoassimilation
theory. Furthermore, as Glazer (1997) predicted, the word assimilation itself is almost never mentioned. The word only appears four times in the Boston Globe and
nowhere in any other newspaper. This absence of the term assimilation strengthens
their theory by making it harder for opponents to identify its theoretical base.
CONCLUSION
Although both Massachusetts and Colorado can be seen in the midst of a return to assimilation, it is important to note that they are not at the same point in that process. In
Massachusetts the two ideologies are still very much in a process of struggle. Multiculturalism may be losing that fight, but at least at the time of the elections it had not
yet been entirely rejected. In the case of Colorado, however, it is clear that neoassimilationism has already succeeded in making multiculturalism invalid, even for
advocates of bilingual education and other members of the Latino community. Because of its geographic location and racist history with Mexicans, it is not surprising
that Colorado would be more nativist than its northeastern neighbor.
Yet the November 2002 elections were just one sign of anti-Latino sentiment on
the rise. Beginning in 1992, the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program collected
hate-crime statistics reported by participating law enforcement agencies across the
United States. In 2002, 7,459 single-bias incidents were reported: Racial bias accounted for 48.8%, religious bias 19.1%, sexual-orientation bias 16.7%, and bias
230
BURDICK-WILL AND GÓMEZ
against an ethnicity or national origin (under which anti-Hispanic incidents are recorded) were 14.8% of the total.35 The hate crimes reported in 2002 to the FBI represent a drop of nearly 25% from 2001 when 9,730 hate crimes were reported. The
high number of incidents reported in 2001 was thought to be due to the September
11 backlash and anti-Islamic in nature.36 When the numbers are examined carefully, we find that in 2002 of the 1,102 incidents that were of ethnicity or national
origin, 480 incidents or 43.5% were anti-Hispanic in nature. This is a considerable
rise from 2001, when 28.5% or 597 out of 2,098 (of the ethnicity or national origin)
incidents were anti-Hispanic. So whereas hate crimes in general decreased in
2002, anti-Hispanic-motivated hate crimes increased.
More recently anti-Hispanic, or more precisely anti-Mexican, rhetoric has crept
back into national discussions of immigration and what it means to be American.
Samuel P. Huntington (2004a), chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, wrote
The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the Untied States
into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups,
Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves- from Los Angeles to Miami-and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. The
United States ignores this challenge at its peril. (p. 30)
His article, and then his book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National
Identity (2004b), warned us that “the cultural divide between Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between blacks and white as the most serious
cleavage in U.S. society” (p. 32). His concerns about language, specifically bilingualism and bilingual education, and culture ignore research on immigrants and
English-language acquisition, the cognitive achievement of students with fluency
in two languages, and the “Americanization” of Latinos in the United States
(Portes & MacLeod, 1996). Political scientists Rodolfo de la Garza, Angelo Falcon, and F. Chris Garcia (1996) have shown that Mexican Americans, regardless of
what language they speak, support American core values as Anglos do. Huntington’s exaggerated “us versus them” rhetoric will only fuel an anti-Latino agenda
that feeds on a narrow neoassimilationist agenda and false assumptions. His positions (or fears) in the end do not support Anglos, Latinos, or the continuation of the
American dream, regardless of what language it is stated in.
The November 2002 vote over bilingual education was more than a vote over how
to teach immigrant children English; it was about what it means to be American,
about who belongs, and about how Latinos are reshaping the American landscape.
35Hate
36Hate
Crime Statistics. (2002). FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program.
crimes decrease in 2002. (2004, July 20). www.cnn.com
ASSIMILATION VERSUS MULTICULTURALISM
231
REFERENCES
Bonilla-Silva, E., & Foreman, T. A. (2000). I am not a racist but … mapping White college students’ racial ideology in the USA. Discourse & Society, 11, 50–85.
Daniels, R. (1997). Not like us: Immigrants and minorities in America, 1890–1924. Chicago: Ivan R.
Dee.
de la Garza, R. O., Falcon, A., & Garcia, F. C. (1996). Will the real Americans please stand up: Anglo
and Mexican-American support of core American political values. American Journal of Political
Science, 40, 335–351.
Escamilla, K. (2003). Breaking the code: Colorado’s defeat of the Anti-Bilingual Education Initiative
(Amendment 31). Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 357–382.
Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A
constructivist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1–37.
Glazer, N. (1963). Beyond the melting pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New
York City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Glazer, N. (1997). We are all multiculturalists now. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glazer, N., & Moynihan, D. P. (1963). Beyond the melting pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gonzalez, G. (1997). Culture, language, and the Americanization of Mexican children. In A. Darder, R.
D. Torres, & H. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Latinos and education: A critical reader (pp.158–173). New York:
Routledge.
Huntington, S. P. (2004a). The Hispanic challenge. Foreign Policy, 141, March/April, 30–45.
Huntington, S. P. (2004b). Who are we: The challenges to America’s national identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States: From 1960s to the 1980s. New
York: Routledge.
Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33,
881–893.
Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E Pluribus Unum: Bilingualism and loss of language in the second generation. Sociology of Education, 71, 269–294.
Portes, A., & MacLeod, D. (1996). Educational progress of children immigrants: The roles of class,
ethnicity, and school context. Sociology of Education, 69, 255–275.
Suárez-Orozco, M., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and
achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Unz, R., & Tuchman, M. (1997). Proposition 227: English language education for children in public
schools. Sacramento, CA. Retieved from http://www.onenation.org/fulltext.html
Zangwill, I. (1917). The melting pot, a drama in four acts. New York: MacMillan.
Zhou, M. (1997). Growing up American: The challenge confronting immigrant children and children of
immigrants. American Review of Sociology, 23, 63–95.