More on English with Lou Dobbs

A couple of months ago, I wrote about Lou Dobbs’ coverage of a case in which a school in Kansas has made it against the rules to speak English. Soon after, I wrote to Mr. Dobbs to share with him what I wrote. I have never heard back from him regarding the issue, which is fine. I’m sure he is inundated with numerous comments and messages from people around the country and outside of the United States and he does not have time to respond to all. However, for someone who promotes himself as an independent thinker and whose website seems to want to encourage open debate and discussion by asking viewers to get involved, he seems to have a very narrow position on this and he certainly has not responded to the kinds of concerns that I (and I’m sure others) have raised regarding English-only policies.

I have been checking transcripts of his show since I emailed Dobbs and, finally, on October 22, Dobbs took up the subject of requiring English within institutions and forums again. This time, he addressed the issue with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, in connection with discussion of a ballot measure in Missouri that would require all public business to be done in English. Video of the exchange can be found here.

It’s obvious that Dobbs supports this measure. Indeed, Dobbs seems downright indignant toward any who would oppose making English the official language of public business. This indignant tone is perhaps most notable when Dobbs says, “the idea that we're having these discussions in 2008 is mind boggling that there should be any division at all over this issue.” On the one hand, I feel compelled to agree with Dobbs on that particular statement … though for quite an opposite reason. How can we, in 2008, after all that has been recognized about how excluding languages reinforces racism and takes away from democracy, be so narrow-minded as Dobbs as to think that English should unquestionably be the official national language? On the other hand, I’m happy to keep having the discussion, especially since it’s obvious that plenty of folks like Dobbs and Governor Blunt still have some questions to address in relation to their positions vis-à-vis racism and the real practice of democracy. So, once again, I am posting my concerns about the positions that Dobbs is advancing and I will be emailing him to invite him to discuss the matter with me.

Furthermore, I want to recognize one other aspect of this issue that seems particularly significant in relation to the positions that Dobbs advances. Time and time again, Dobbs appears to be a proponent of free enterprise and private ownership and rights. This is evident in his argument about the school board in Kansas adopting an English-only policy, with his claim that individuals bringing a suit against the school “completely forget 200 years of history and ideals and values that have made this liberal society available to them.” It seems the history of a liberal society to which Dobbs refers could be taken to mean the rights of private institutions and organizations to enact whatever policies within their groups that they wish. This draws upon the public-private split that has been central to much of United States society since its inception, that has been a hallmark of the theories of liberalism to which Dobbs refers, and, that seems to be the only ground upon which he might have a case in railing against those who challenged the school’s English-only policy (i.e., the school, since it is private, has a right to enact its own rules within its organization). I’m not sure I entirely agree with that case, but I think that’s the only viable case he has here. Yet, he clearly then has a double standard when he is discussing the institution of English as an official language, as in the case of the proposition in Missouri. Here, we are certainly not talking about a private institution or organization; this is very much the opposite—the public forums of public administration. When Dobbs then says that we should require the language of one group to take precedence over others within that forum, he has now advocated the private takeover of the public good and, thus, he has muddied the water of the very public-private split that he as held up as so sacrosanct. At the same time, for one who spends much time vigorously arguing against elitists who are imposing their wills on the United States’ people, he is now doing the very same thing that he has been so vociferously against. He is advocating for the imposition of the will of whites of European heritage who have held power in this country since its inception to maintain and reinforce their own power and privilege against others.

Lou, you can’t have it both ways like this. Well, I suppose you can, but it is not "intellectually honest," which is a quality that you hold up in this very segment of your program as important, and it exposes a number of unexamined assumptions of significance that inform your positions. And so, in the same way that you have issued challenges to others, I challenge you to take a much harder and deeper look at the ways in which your own cultural biases are influencing your positions and blinding you to aspects of racism that are embedded within those positions.