The Fifty-Year Tune Up: Two Words, A Historic Change Commentary
The Fifty-Year Tune Up: Two Words, A Historic Change
Edited by:

JURIST Guest Columnist Nick Stratouly, St. John’s University School of Law Class of 2015, is the author of the eighth article in a twelve-part series from the staffers of the Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development. Stratouly discusses gaps in federal anti-discrimination legislation…July 2, 1964. A snapshot of the US at this point in history, unfortunately, was pretty bleak. President Kennedy had been assassinated just seven months before; the nation was still caught up in the tumult of the Civil Rights Movement, which had been struggling to achieve equality for nearly 10 years. On this date, though, the nation shined bright: President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. A sweeping piece of legislation, the Act outlawed discrimination in a whole host of settings, including the workplace. The workplace anti- discrimination law, known as Title VII, prohibited discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin—a huge victory for those who fought during the Women’s and Civil Rights Movements.

July 2, 2014. Moving forward to this year, a snapshot of the US on July 2, 2014 would hopefully include the media heralding the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act with statistics about improved equality in the workplace. Unfortunately, and while I do not wish to undermine the great changes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought to American society in the last 50 years, one minority—non-English speakers—still have little to celebrate. Because Title VII enumerates “race, color, religion, sex and national origin” as the five “protected” characteristics, its scope is limited. In fact, one minority group—non-English speakers, who actually make up 25% of Americans or 65 million people—receives little to no protection under Title VII. The Act, in all of its historic and legislative breadth, leaves these 65 million people out in the cold (both figuratively and literally, if someone is fired from a job for speaking a language other than English in the workplace).

Many of these 65 million people work in places that have so-called “English-only policies”—workplace rules that mandate employees speak English at all times except for breaks. While some may see these policies as an effective business strategy (i.e., with all employees speaking one language, the business is more efficient), the opposite is true. These policies foster feelings of isolation, inferiority and intimidation—none of which help make business more “efficient.” Instead these policies undermine the cooperative workplace environment that is often crucial to the success of a company.

Yet the problems with English-only policies do not end there. Beyond the workplace, the feelings of inferiority and isolation leech into linguistic and cultural communities as a whole. Employees working in environments with English-only policies must divorce themselves from their linguistic identity; because linguistic identity is a crucial component of cultural identity, culture and therefore diversity suffers. A dearth of diversity as a result of English-only policies is anathema to every idea of the US as a “melting pot.” A monolingual and monocultural society is incredibly sterile—by enclosing ourselves in our own culture, we lose the diversity of viewpoints and exposure that are crucial to an ever-globalizing and cosmopolitan world.

Beyond that, though, these English-only policies actually do more damage to the US in terms of reducing our economic competitiveness. By ensuring English-speakers have a “safe harbor” in the workplace, English-only policies have the penumbral effect of actually decreasing the number of Americans who can speak a second language. Statistics demonstrate that the number of bilingual Americans (18%) is deplorable compared to other parts of the world (53% of Europeans). With bilingualism as one of the top employment traits sought by both American and multinational companies, Americans are losing out. English-only policies certainly do not help. In fact, they may only serve to further this widening language gap.

What is the solution? For the aggrieved non-English speaker, many nativists would simply say “learn English.” Unfortunately, that is not the solution to the problem. Forcing someone to learn English parallels forcing someone to work a particular job (i.e., a secretarial position) simply because of his or her gender. Granted the language one choses to speak is technically a “mutable” characteristic, but requiring someone to change the language he or she chooses to speak is neither fair nor just.

Additionally the difficulty with using English-only policies to foster English-language acquisition is that the acquisition actually does not happen. Despite this “incentive” to learn English, the language acquisition rate for those who receive instruction in English remains low, which means that, even after instruction, non-English speakers still report having no or minimal knowledge of English. Why? One idea is that the language acquisition cost is borne by those least able to bear that cost. Minority, non-English speakers are often on the lower end of the income scale. Ironically, nativists want this same group to bear the cost of their own language acquisition. In this system, language itself becomes an entry cost to the market and a barrier to those who otherwise would be participants.

English-only policies clearly go against everything Title VII was aimed at preventing. The main goal of Congress in enacting Title VII at the apex of the Civil Rights Movement was to foster equal economic opportunity. By barring a large number of eligible and able participants from the job market, English-only policies contravene this Congressional goal. The litany of negative effects—inferiority, isolation, intimidation, discrimination, xenophobia and monoculturalism—borne out of these policies demonstrates that Title VII fell short of its noble goal, at least right now.

Luckily the solution is simple: All Congress needs to do is add two words to the list of enumerated protected characteristics —”and language.” This change would have ensured the excitement of July 2, 1964 was felt this year on July 2, 2014, as Title VII turned fifty years old. While two words may seem like a lot of legislation for the current “do-nothing” Congress, I think it’s a fair tune-up for a fifty-year old law that deserved much celebrating this past July.

Nick Stratouly earned a B.A. in English from Boston College. He interned for the Nassau County Attorney’s Office and now works at Peter T. Roach & Associates, P.C. He currently serves as Notes and Comments Editor for the Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development.

Suggested citation: Nick Stratouly, The Fifty-Year Tune Up: Two Words, A Historic Change , JURIST – Student Commentary, Dec. 17, 2014, http://jurist.org/student/2014/12/nick-stratouly-historic-change.php.


This article was prepared for publication by Elizabeth Dennis, an Assistant Editor for JURIST Commentary. Please direct any questions or comments to her at commentary@jurist.org


Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.