English-only bill harmful to tourism?

There’s a bill, sponsored by Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, winding its way through the Oklahoma Legislature that would bar any state agency from accommodating non-English-speakers.

There are the usual arguments about whether such legislation is discriminatory. But according to the Bixby Bulletin, Rep. Anastasia Pittman, D-Oklahoma City, brought up an issue that I hadn’t considered, and it’s a significant one concerning the Mother Road:

Rep. Pittman said she took part in a meeting Tuesday where Department of Tourism officials discussed Oklahoma’s potential to attract international business and tourism.

“We invest hundreds of thousands of dollars each year just to attract businesses and tourism from countries such as Germany, and that investment has paid off.  In order to attract these dollars, we have to publish brochures and websites in different languages.  If we don’t keep up these efforts, international travelers and businessmen will simply go somewhere else.” […]

“We are at the crossroads of America, connected from corner to corner by interstates and by Route 66.  We have a diverse heritage, including the oldest and the newest cultures to live in this land.  No matter what provisions are written into this bill, at its heart it sends a message to people across the globe that Oklahoma does not want your business, and that we do not want your tourism.”

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and an exception was placed into the bill creating an exemption for efforts regarding commerce and tourism. Lawmakers, including Terrill, had better make sure that exemption stays there if the bill happens to become law.

Exemptions also were created for American Indian tribes, of which there are several dozen in Oklahoma. Pittman makes the rather cogent argument that the more exceptions you place in the bill, the more meaningless — and possibly mean-spirited to certain peoples — it appears to be.

3 thoughts on “English-only bill harmful to tourism?

  1. “Pittman makes the rather cogent argument that the more exceptions you place in the bill, the more meaningless — and possibly mean-spirited to certain peoples — it appears to be.”

    Appears to be? This bill is mean-spirited by nature. No amount of rationalizing can change that.
    Bills like this have fallen flat in my home state. Hopefully this one will eventually too.
    This country was founded by “foreigners”. I can’t help but chuckle that they exempted the American Indian tribes. They’re the only real natives around.

    I’m glad to see that they have exempted the tourism industry so Route 66 can continue to serve travelers from overseas.

  2. Years ago, Sandy Garrett, our head of education, decided that all schools would have to also offer classes to Indians in their native tongue. Then someone pointed out that there was something like 80 different spoken Indian languages in Oklahoma.

    It ain’t mean-spirited. All the foreigners that came to this country learned English and learned to work within a given system. For the life of me I can’t figure out why folks move to a country and then demand that everyone else learn THEIR language.

  3. Dwayne says: “For the life of me I can’t figure out why folks move to a country and then demand that everyone else learn THEIR language.”

    That’s a really great question, Dwayne. I’ve wondered about it for years: Why *did* the English colonists do that?

    Welcome to America. Now speak Cherokee.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.