William Perry Pendley
President and Chief Legal Officer
mountainstateslegal.org
"The gall of Mexican officials does not end with the push
for illegal entry," writes Heather Mac Donald in City
Journal ("Mexico's Undiplomatic Diplomats"). "After
demanding that we educate their surplus citizens, give those
citizens food stamps, deliver their babies, provide them
with doctors and hospital beds, and police their
neighborhoods, the Mexican government also expects us to
help preserve their loyalty to Mexico."
"Since 1990," she notes, "Mexico has embarked on a series of
initiatives to 'strengthen solidarity programs with the
Mexican communities abroad by emphasizing their Mexican
roots, and supporting literacy programs in Spanish....'" As
if such efforts by Mexico and its diplomats in the United
States were not enough, federal officials are collaborating.
Says Mac Donald, "[t]he U.S. Department of Education...helps
bring hundreds of Mexican teachers to U.S. schools for part
of the school year or during the summer...."
The Department of Education is not alone in supporting
Mexico's bilingual education agenda in America. The U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), for example,
is committed to preventing American employers from ensuring
that their employees speak English on the job. It would be
one thing if the EEOC were implementing this radical agenda
with some ostensible statutory support or an occasional
judicial ruling in its favor. It is quite something else
again that the EEOC does so without any legal basis
whatsoever. Nonetheless, that is exactly what the EEOC is
doing on both U.S. coasts.
In a case now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in San Francisco, the EEOC demands that a
family-owned restaurant be punished for and barred from
using English-language workplace rules that prevent
employees from creating hostile working conditions. Richard
and Shauna Kidman have owned R.D.'s Drive-In in Page,
Arizona, for more than 25 years; most of their employees and
customers are Navajos. In May 2000, the Kidmans learned
that some employees, speaking in the Navajo language, were
harassing their fellow employees. Wishing to ensure a
proper work environment and fearful that they might be
subjected to sexual harassment litigation, the Kidmans, in
accordance with EEOC's policy, established English-language
workplace rules.
In September 2000, the EEOC sued the Kidmans for racial
discrimination. That is, the EEOC maintains that language
is a proxy for race such that discrimination based on
language is racial discrimination. Thus, the EEOC relies on
a logical fallacy: not all Navajo speakers are Navajo and
not all Navajos are Navajo speakers. Moreover, the Ninth
Circuit has rejected the EEOC's argument because "it is
wrong" since, "[n]othing in the plain language of [the Civil
Rights Act] supports" the EEOC's position. Nonetheless,
knowing that most businesses will settle an EEOC lawsuit,
EEOC's lawyers press their radical agenda. Fortunately, the
Kidmans are able and willing to fight back.
A continent away, another small business is fighting back.
Days after the EEOC lost a federal civil rights lawsuit it
had filed in New York City against a business that had
adopted English language workplace rules, the EEOC sued a
Rochester businessman. In 2000, James Erb purchased a
90-year-old, small, family-owned business, Spring Sheet
Metal and Roofing Co., Inc. To ensure workplace safety,
Spring Sheet Metal requires a level of English language
proficiency as well as a willingness on the part of
employees to communicate in English. When one of its
employees, on the job for less than 60 days, refused to
comply, he was discharged due to his unwillingness to
communicate in English in a dangerous, third-story work
setting. The EEOC threatened to sue and, when it lost a
similar case, filed against James Erb. Clearly, the EEOC
hopes for a split between the New York courts.
Mexico's bilingual agenda makes sense for Mexico. What does
not make sense is why, in the sixth year of the Bush
Administration, the EEOC, in conflict with congressional
directives and court rulings from two of the nation's most
liberal cities, shares that radical agenda.
From: LBighorn 4/6/2006 3:42:25 AM
of 6895 |
