Proposition 227 The Crisis Of Democracy And The Indoctrination Of Our

Proposition 227: The Crisis Of Democracy And The Indoctrination Of Our Children Proposition 227: The Crisis of Democracy And the Indoctrination Of our Children By H. Michael Moya English 2 Professor Deena Hutchinson November 29th, 1999 Literacy for cultural reproduction uses institutional mechanisms to undermine independent thought, a prerequisite for the Orwellian manufacture of consent or engineering of consent. In this light, schools are seen as the ideological institutions designed to prevent the so-called crisis of democracy, another Orwellian concept, meaning the beginnings of democracy....... In fact, this very perspective on schools was proposed by the Trilateral Commission.This commission was created in response to the general democratic participation of masses of people in the Western world in questioning their governments ethical behavior. Its major purpose, as many understand it, was to seek ways to maintain the Western capitalists cultural hegemony. The Trilateral Commission referred to schools as institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young. Noam Chomsky stated it simply: The Trilateral Commission argued that schools should be institutions for indoctrination, for imposing obedience, fo r blocking the possibility of independent thought, and they play an institutional role in a system of control and coercion. -Donaldo Macedo Literacies of Power The vulnerability of democratic government in the United States (thus) comes not primarily from external threats, though such threats are real, nor from internal subversion from the left or the right, although both possibilities could exist, but rather from the internal dynamics of democracy itself in a highly educated, mobilized, and participant society. -The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability Of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission English Only. Official English. Americanism. Bilingual Education. These issues have emerged in the political and social arena to insight debate on the national, regional and local levels. Given the vast spectrum of differing viewpoints and opinions, it is no wonder that bilingual education has turned into such a heated battle. The struggle rages not only in the education debate, but in the areas of social welfare, civil rights and racial discrimination, intellectual arenas, and the politics of immigration. Generally speaking, until the early 1980's, America has taken English as the official language of the Union for granted. Noone ever questioned the use of English as the common denominator among our melting pot society. Therefore no additional legislation was ever lrequired to protect the English language from being undermined in some way. However, recently there have been drastic demographic changes taking place in various regions of the country. Immigration of linguistic minorities in large numbers has moved in like a wind current onto the bilingual education fire. Although this is not unusual, considering that immigrants from all over the world have been pouring into the nation for centuries, what is now making their presence such a huge concern is that they are requiring social services on a large scale in their native language. Government agencies are being pressured into providing these various services in languages other than the generally accepted English language. In 1974 the Supreme Court upheld an Office of Civil Rights regulation which interpreted the 1964 Civil rights Act to apply to persons with a language deficiency when protecting against prejudice based on national origin. This ruling was universally used as the basis for implementing bilingual education programs throughout the country. These are the roots of the current English Only movement in response to the spread of bilingual education. The debate started officially in 1981, Senator S.I. Hayakawa lobbied Congress to make English the Official language of the Union by amending the Constitution. As we all well know, amending the Constitution is no small task. The bill proposed to make official what was already obviously taken for granted. Hayakawa did not stop there. He included in his bill provisions that would prohibit federal and state laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, programs, and policies from requiring the use of other languages. The bill not only attempted to make Englis h official, but it also attempted to ban any other language. This went counter to campaigns started during the 1960's to accommodate the needs of linguistic minorities. Since the introduction of Hayakawa's Official English bill in 1981, a political movement has grown around the issue which has polarized people from all over the nation. Supporters quickly point out that English has always