The sociopolitical impacts of the english first movement: language policy, identity, and exclusion in the united states

  • Moehamad Sandy Hermawan 
    Universitas Indonesia
    Indonesia
  • Nur Iman Subono
    Universitas Indonesia
    Indonesia

Abstract

This study explores how the English-only movement, particularly through the agenda of the English First campaign, has influenced U.S. public policy in ways that impact non-English-speaking communities. Grounded in New Social Movement and Dominant Culture theories, the research employs a conceptual and document-based approach to analyze five key cases: California’s Proposition 227, Arizona’s Proposition 203, Executive Order 14224, EEOC v. Premier Operator Services, and language challenges in Aurora, Colorado schools. These cases reveal how English-only ideologies have been codified into educational, legal, and workplace policies that marginalize linguistic minorities and reinforce English as a marker of national identity. While often framed as promoting unity or efficiency, these policies have limited access to public services, equitable schooling, and fair employment for immigrant communities. Rather than measuring policy outcomes quantitatively, the study highlights the symbolic and structural dimensions of language governance, underscoring the need for inclusive, multilingual policies that protect linguistic rights and democratic participation in the U.S.
References
  1. Alim, H. S., Rickford, J. R., & Ball, A. F. (2016). Raciolinguistics: How language shapes our ideas about race. Oxford University Press.
  2. Arizona Department of Education. (2015). English Learner enrollment reports. https://www.azed.gov
  3. Associated Press. (2024). They came to America looking for better lives—and better schools. The Results Were Mixed. https://apnews.com/article/2aee52bc80300f5507a903cda3e441da
  4. Baron, D. (2018). The English-only question: An official language for Americans? Yale University Press.
  5. Blommaert, J. (2018). Durkheim and the internet: Sociolinguistics and the sociological imagination. In Bloomsbury Academic. Bloomsbury Academic. https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/26422101/Durkheim_proofs_9781350055193_txt_prf.pdf
  6. Buchanan, I., Bourdieu, P., Raymond, G., & Adamson, M. (1993). Language and Symbolic Power. In SubStance (Vol. 22, Issue 2/3). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3685295
  7. California Law. (1998). Proposition 227: English Language in Public Schools. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/1998/primary/pdf/227.pdf
  8. Callahan, R. M., & Gándara, P. C. (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market. In The Bilingual Advantage: Language, Literacy and the US Labor Market. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1161927
  9. Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Multilingual Matters.
  10. Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Lguagane diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Bilingual Education Services.
  11. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
  12. Del Valle, S. (2003). Language Rights and the Law in the United States: Finding Our Voices. In Language Rights and the Law in the United States: Finding our Voices. Multilingual Matters.
  13. Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2020). Social movements: An introduction (3rd ed.). Wiley.
  14. Duchêne, A. (2011). Neoliberalism, social inequalities, and multilingualism: The exploitation of linguistic diversity in the knowledge economy. Sociolinguistic Studies, 5(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v5i3.309
  15. EEOC. (1997). Court Speaks: English Only Rule Unlawful; Awards EEOC $700,000 for Hispanic Workers. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/court-speaks-english-only-rule-unlawful-awards-eeoc-700000-hispanic-workers-0
  16. EEOC. (2002). EEOC guidelines on national origin discrimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/national-origin
  17. Eyerman, R., Melucci, A., Keane, J., & Mier, P. (1990). Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. In Contemporary Sociology (Vol. 19, Issue 3). Temple University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2072433
  18. Fair, V. (2025). Trump signs executive order making English the official language of the U.S. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-makes-english-official-language
  19. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
  20. Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Racioling uistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
  21. Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2019). Bringing Race Into Second Language Acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 103(S1), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12523
  22. Gamson, W. A., & Tarrow, S. (1999). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. In Contemporary Sociology (Vol. 28, Issue 3). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2654187
  23. Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. Teachers College Press.
  24. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. Teachers College Press.
  25. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments. In Translanguaging with Multilingual Students: Learning from Classroom Moments. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315695242
  26. García, O., & Wei, L. (2013). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. In Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765
  27. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
  28. Gramsci, A. (2013). Selections from the prison notebooks. In Q. Hoare, G. N. Smith, & Eds) (Eds.), The Applied Theatre Reader. International Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891315-31
  29. Hill, E. G. (2002). California’s English learners: What has changed under Proposition 227? Legislative Analyst’s Office. https://lao.ca.gov/2002/prop227/prop227_052902.pdf
  30. Laitin, D. D. (2007). Nations, states, and violence. Oxford University Press.
  31. Lillie, K. E. (2013). The impact of restrictive language policies on engagement and identities in the multilingual classroom. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 12(4), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2013.818471
  32. Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  33. Lozano, A. (2020). The implications of English-only policies for language minorities in the US. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 24(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12365
  34. Menken, K., & García, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. Routledge.
  35. Parrish, T. B., Pérez, M., Merickel, A., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., & Delancey, D. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K–12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. American Institutes for Research. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/accountability/prop227/report.pdf
  36. Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. In The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315225593
  37. Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.
  38. Piller, I. (2017). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
  39. Ricento, T. (2015). Language policy and political theory: Building bridges, assessing fault lines. Oxford University Press.
  40. Rios-Aguilar, C., & Gándara, P. (2012). The (in)visibility of English learners: A quantitative analysis of the research literature. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 44–76. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211434648
  41. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4 SPEC. ISS.), 572–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805278067
  42. Romo, V. (2019). Arizona lawmakers reverse 2000 law that restricted bilingual education. NPR. https://doi.org/https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694737134
  43. Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000562
  44. Rumbaut, R. G., & Portes, A. (2002). Ethnicities: children of immigrants in America. In Choice Reviews Online (Vol. 39, Issue 08). University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.39-4894
  45. Schmidt, R. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Temple University Press.
  46. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority studetns’ long-term academic achievement. In Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (Vol. 96, pp. 1–351).
  47. Tollefson, J. W. (2008). Language policy in a time of crisis: How culture, capital, and politics shape language education. Language Policy, 7(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-008-9103-4
  48. Tollefson, J. W., & Pérez-Milans, M. (2018). The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning. Oxford University Press.
  49. Touraine, A. (1985). An introduction to the study of social movements. Social Research, 52(4), 749–787.
  50. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). Improving access to language services in health care. https://www.hhs.gov
  51. U.S.Census Bureau. (2022). Language use in the United States. https://www.census.gov
  52. U.S.Department of Justice. (2000). Executive Order 13166: Improving access to services for persons with limited English proficiency. https://www.justice.gov
  53. Urciuoli, B. (2008). The complex pragmatics of diversity in the neoliberal workplace: A preliminary analysis. American Ethnologist, 35(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00031.x
  54. Valentino, R. A., & Reardon, S. F. (2015). Effectiveness of Four Instructional Programs Designed to Serve English Learners: Variation by Ethnicity and Initial English Proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612–637. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715573310
  55. Wiley, T. G., & García, O. (2016). Language Policy and Planning in Language Education: Legacies, Consequences, and Possibilities. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12303
  56. Wodak, R. (2013). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. In The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446270073
  57. Wright, W. E. (2005). Evolution of Federal Policy and Implications of No Child Left Behind. Policy Studies, 29(480), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X029001361

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 186 times
PDF
: 1 times