Speak English–for your own good

The News & Record reported Wednesday that two organizations—Legal Aid of NC, and the Southern Poverty Law Center—have filed a “civil rights complaint” against Wake County Public Schools. The SPLC, it is important to note, is an extreme left-wing organization, which is notorious for branding as “hate speech” any language that questions the wisdom of progressive public policy. The SPLC has no credibility whatsoever, and its claims should be examined critically.

What, then, is the nature of the charge against Wake County Schools? “Discrimination against Latino students and their families.” Apparently, three students in the school system were given letters to take home to their parents, and the missives were “in English, even though their parents couldn’t read the documents…”

According to the article, Latinos are 15 percent of the Wake County Schools student population, “with about half of those children having limited proficiency in English.”

There are a couple of glaring issues here: First, if the parents are unable to read a letter in English (for whatever reason), the kids should be able to read it to them. But—here is the second glaring issue–half of the Latino students in question can’t read the letter, either. Why not?

Dozens of studies have demonstrated that immigrants who become fluent in English are far more likely to achieve financial success. If Wake County Schools were to send letters in Spanish to accommodate newcomers, the system would actually be diminishing the odds of linguistic acculturation; that is, Wake County would be facilitating the linguistic incompetence (and consequent economic failure) of its Latino students.

Immigrants who wish to succeed in American society must learn to speak English. Assimilation pays handsome dividends, in terms of economics and citizenship alike. In this case, for a change, the public schools did something right. In a day or two, of course, Wake County will apologize for the “offense.”

Charles Davenport Jr. is the editor of The Greensboro Guardian.

9 Responses to Speak English–for your own good

  1. Roch says:

    Can you give us an example of something the SPLC has labeled hate speech that you think is really just “language that questions the wisdom of progressive public policy”?

  2. Bob Grenier says:

    “Immigrants who wish to succeed in American society must learn to speak English.”

    Oh no, Charles! That just CAN’T be right!

    The Spanish-speaking minority obviously has the right to demand the English-speaking majority communicate in Spanish! Don’t you see the obvious “progressive” victimization scheme.that needs to be implemented…….um, I mean “civil rights” violation that needs to be corrected here?

  3. Roch says:

    You seemed so adamant I’d have thought you’d have some examples in mind, but if you need to do some research…

  4. Here you go, Roch. I wouldn’t call it “research,” though. It took me about 30 seconds to find this.
    http://www.splcreport.com/?gclid=CJiqur3u0bACFUFo4AodYydl2Q
    The latest “hate group” report issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) demonstrates once again that the SPLC is neither a reliable source of information nor an “objective observer” in the immigration policy debate. The latest report issued by the SLPC is long on rhetoric and allegations and short of facts. Responsible journalists will not accept these SPLC allegations at face value; they will independently investigate any and all claims made by the SPLC.
    With great fanfare, they warn their own members and uncritical journalists of a “firestorm” of hate engulfing the land. Yet, the Southern Poverty Law Center offers no concrete information about these so-called “hate groups.”
    “…its use of the term “hate group” is merely a strategy to try to discourage and suppress political speech…”
    Clearly, through its “hate group” strategy, the SPLC is laying the groundwork for arguing that it should be unlawful for Americans to even advocate for the enforcement of current immigration laws.”
    The implications for journalists? This means journalists must be responsible enough to independently judge absurd claims and facts made by the SPLC. Once you begin to try to verify their claims and facts, we are confident you will soon recognize that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a credible organization, and that its so-called “hate group” designations have become virtually meaningless – fabricated out of thin air to manipulate opinion and control speech.

  5. Bob Grenier says:

    There’s a lot more where that came from GG, but it’s pretty obvious theat Roch is too lazy or too motivated to find it for himself. His comments above are what we’ve come to expect from him, the Master Troll of the Local Blahgosphere, and self-appointed “Ombudsman”.

    Meanwhile, here’s an independent/libertarian report on some specific absurdities promulgated by SPLC…

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc

    There’s much more of that sort of thing about SPLC out there. But to an agenda driven hack like Roch Smith Jr. none of that really matters.

    All that matters to him is being obnoxious toward viewpoints that don’t meet his self-appointed-expert-on-everything official standards of approval. This thread provides a shining example.of what’s been his long established method of operation.

  6. Roch says:

    Charles, you premised your absolute rejection of the SLPC’s credibility based on what you said was their reputation for “branding as ‘hate speech’ any language that questions the wisdom of progressive public policy.”

    I asked you for examples.

    You have replied but still have not offered any examples. Citing someone who agrees with you who themselves also fails to cite examples is not an example.

    So I will ask you once again. You asked your readers to believe you that the SPLC has no credibility because they brand any language that questions the wisdom of progressive police as hate speech. If you yourself are credible, you will provide some examples.

  7. Roch, you really need to start doing your own homework. I have included a few links for you, since you seem to think any piece of writing, sans links, is somehow illegitimate. By the way, if you consider the overwhelming evidence below insufficient (and you probably will, if only to remain “in character”), National Review featured a devastating article on the SPLC several months ago. If your questions are sincere expressions of curiosity, rather than mere Rochian annoyances, go find the NR article. I must say, I’m surprised that you would humiliate yourself by rushing to the defense of the SPLC.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/01/opinion/la-oe-rutten-gay-hate-20101201
    Last week, the law center added the Family Research Council to its list of more than 930 active hate groups, citing the anti-gay rhetoric of its leaders and researchers, which have included calls to re-criminalize consensual sex between individuals of the same gender.
    http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-southern-poverty-law-centers-creepy-mission/
    What the SPLC doesn’t do is connect the words written at sites like A Voice for Men and The Spearhead and others to violent action against women. It’s overt guilt-by-association rather than guilt itself. None of the violent men mentioned—or Thomas Ball who committed violence against himself—were associated with the Manosphere. No forums; no known comments; no known web affiliations. None were a visible presence on the sites targeted by SPLC, and there have been no reported cases of men linked to these sites committing criminal acts or engaging in violence.
    Roosh V, a popular seduction blogger and author, was mentioned in the list of “misogynist” bloggers. Libertarian outpost Reason magazine giggled at the SPLC’s reliance on a blog called “ManBoobz” and at the group’s turn from gutting organizations that openly state their violent intentions to badgering internet writers and ex-pat PUA bloggers. Reason spots the ridiculousness of the report:
    Take note, America: Having consensual sex (Roosh is not a rapist, but a seducer*) with someone you don’t actually like and then never calling her/him again will land you in a reputation-ruining** SPLC report.
    *and a pig
    But the response of the Estonians or the Danes or the Icelanders was far different from that of the SPLC. People in those countries recognized Roosh as an undesirable—an asshole, they might say—but they didn’t label him a perpetrator of hate or extremism. To put Roosh V on the SPLC watch list would be to track Andrew Dice Clay or Tucker Max. And that Roosh is on that list calls into question the other anti-Manosphere arguments put forth by the SPLC.
    Roosh offered speculation for his placement in the crosshairs of Dees and company:
    The reason SPLC included me was because game overlaps with a lot of the men’s rights issue. Anything that empowers men is hereby declared misogynistic, and they will attack it. You don’t see them attacking commercial publications like Ask Men, Maxim, or The Art of Manliness because those teach guys how to be obedient worker bees who buy consumer products. The SPLC list had none of those sites.
    Dees’ divorce records show a man who was seemingly more extreme in deed than any of the bloggers mentioned in the SPLC report.
    And two years later, amidst Dees’ cheating, he gave permission to Maureene—to whom he was still married—to begin seeing other men. In one incident, Dees and a private investigator set up Maureene in a sting. Dees and the P.I. busted out of a bathroom and began snapping pictures of Maureene and her lover in bed together. From the docket:
    Morris was acting crazy, and Maureene thought he was going to kill everybody in sight. He told her that he had five detectives with him (R.592). He hit her and gave her a busted jaw. (R. 592).
    If the divorce document is true, it is interesting to note that the SPLC is ignoring the violent misogynist in their own midst while taking aim at rhetoric contained on a few websites.

  8. Roch says:

    Roosh V? Seriously?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 83 other followers

%d bloggers like this: