Reasserting hegemony

Material Information

Reasserting hegemony English for the children and the politics of bilingual education
Miller, Kathryn Lauren
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
v, 111 leaves : ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Education, Bilingual -- Political aspects -- United States ( lcsh )
Referendum -- History -- United States ( lcsh )
Education, Bilingual -- Political aspects ( fast )
Referendum ( fast )
United States ( fast )
History. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
History ( fast )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 104-111).
General Note:
Department of Political Science
Statement of Responsibility:
Kathryn Lauren Miller.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
268661275 ( OCLC )
LD1193.L64 2008m M54 ( lcc )

Full Text
B.A., University of Colorado at Boulder, 2005
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Political Science
Kathryn Lauren Miller

This thesis for the Master of Arts
degree by
Kathryn Lauren Miller
has been approved
-I-/?- i>y

Miller, Kathryn Lauren (M.A., Political Science)
Reasserting Hegemony: English for the Children an the Politics of
Bilingual Education
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Anna C. Sampaio
This thesis analyzes the proliferation of the anti-bilingual education initiatives
know as English for the Children in California (1998), Arizona (2000), Colorado
(2002) and Massachusetts (2002). The analysis is conducted through an examination
of the campaign finance records of each of the four English for the Children
initiatives. In doing so, this thesis demonstrates that the English for the Children
campaign to end bilingual education is linked to a wider movement to restrict
immigration and limit immigrant rights. Furthermore, it is consistent with an attempt
to reinforce the already existing social and governmental hegemony of English, while
restricting Latinas/os and privileging whiteness.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend
its publication.

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................1
Public Ballot Initiatives...............................5
The Value of this Research.............................14
Potential Problems.....................................16
Outline of the Chapters................................19
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................23
A Brief Introduction to the Bilingual Education Debate.25
Language Politics and Policy...........................27
Social Constrictions...................................34
OF CALIFORNIA (PROPOSITION 227)............................43
The Semantics of Proposition 227.......................45
An Introduction to the Donors..........................50

William J. Hume
Richard Gilder................................................56
Fieldstead and Company and Howard
Fieldstead Ahmanson, Jr................................62
Gloria Matta Tuchman and the race
for Superintendent of Schools..........................70
US English and the English Only Movement....................74
COLORADO, AND MASSACHUSETTS...................................79
Arizona Proposition 203 (2000)............................80
Colorado Political History and Amendment 31...............82
English Language Political Action Committee (ELPAC).......83
Texans for Amendment 31: Peter Schaeffer,
The Brothers Woodhill, and CRACK....................86
Massachusetts Political History and Ballot Issue Two......90
ProEnglish: The English Language Advocates................91
Thomas D. Klingenstein, Howard Ahmanson,
and the Claremont Institute.........................95

Between 1998 and 2002 bilingual education programs in the states of
California, Colorado, Arizona, and Massachusetts were threatened by the ballot
initiative English for the Children. Ron Unz, California software developer and
primary English for the Children author professed that his initiative was designed to
help immigrant children learn English so that they could assimilate properly, and to
give them the opportunity to take part in the so-called American Dream. The
initiatives proposed to dissolve existing bilingual programs and replace them with a
one-year full English immersion program (English for the Children). Although the
impact of English for the Children was not limited to any one demographic, it
primarily targeted immigrant Spanish-speakers. This can be deduced from the
language of the initiative itself as well as from the demographics of the target states.
According to a 2005 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, California, Arizona, and
Colorado have some of the highest concentrations of Latinos in the country. While at
the same time, Massachusetts is cited as being one of the new Hispanic states,
which saw growth that was both fast (increases of more than 200%) and sizable

(more than 200,000 additional Hispanics) (Hispanics: A People in Motion 2005, 8).1
This suggests that the English for the Children initiatives targeted Latina/o
immigrants over and above other groups of non-native English-speaking immigrants.
Bilingual education has been controversial in the United States for decades.
Among those weighing in on the debate are teachers, scholars, government officials
and agencies, school boards, citizens, immigrants, and immigration interest groups
(both pro and anti-immigration). It is no longer merely a question of language and
which language is the most useful to master for someone living in the United States.
It has become an issue of what it means to be an American, what role language plays
in the spheres of influence and power, how language is used in the life of the average
citizen (and non-citizen), and identity and culture more generally (Schmidt 2000).
Moreover, it raises issues of domination, subjugation, oppression, and under-
representation of the speakers of minority languages by people and institutions
dominated by speakers of the majority language. In effect, as Schmidt (2000),
Shannon (1995), Crawford (2004) and others have asserted, language issues cannot,
and should not, be examined merely as questions of language itself. Rather, they
should be understood as complex and sensitive political conflicts with far-reaching
Thus, in analyzing these specific anti-bilingual education campaigns, I am not
simply judging the merits of one or another pedagogical method. Instead I delve
1 Growth rates cited here come from comparing census data from 1980 to 2000.

much deeper into issues of hegemony, immigration, and the implications of language
policy in the United States. In particular, in this thesis I ask two central questions:
what do the campaign finance patterns of the anti-bilingual education ballot initiatives
in California, Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts reveal about English for the
Childrens logic with regard to language and Latinas/os? Is there a more pernicious
effort to assert English hegemony as a racial project, and to restrict Latina/o
immigrants in the process that underlies these campaigns (Omi and Winant 1994)?
Through the course of this research I have found that there is more to the
English for the Children campaigns than what initially meets the eye, and certainly
more than the authors and financial supporters would have us believe. This thesis
will demonstrate that this push to end bilingual education in California, Arizona,
Colorado, and Massachusetts is linked to a wider movement to restrict immigration
and limit immigrant rights. Beyond this, I have found that English for the Childrens
mission to dismantle bilingual education is consistent with an attempt to reinforce the
already existing social and governmental hegemony of English. As such, these
campaigns constitute a racial project (Omi and Winant 1994) privileging whiteness,
as it is expressed in the hegemony of English, while restricting Latinas/os.
The implications of such a dramatic overhaul to the education system are far-
reaching in states with such large numbers of English Language Learners (ELL). As
I will discuss in depth in Chapter Two, prominent scholars of bilingual education
such a Sheila Shannon (1995), Ronald Schmidt (2000), and James Crawford (2004)

persuasively argue that full-immersion programs do not work for young children who
have yet to develop a sufficient grasp of their mother tongue. They argue that short-
term immersion programs leave the students unable to speak either language fluently,
thus seriously hampering their abilities to succeed in a predominantly English-
speaking country (Shannon 1995; Crawford 2004; Schmidt 2000). To leave an entire
segment of society so severely disadvantaged in this way has implications far beyond
the students themselves. For this reason, it is crucial to understand the ramifications
of these changes, but also why and how English for the Children was introduced, by
whom, and to what network of political discourse it is linked.
The California English for the Children initiative set the stage for and tone of
the subsequent three campaigns, and its text that serves as the model for the other
initiatives. Additionally, the later three campaigns relied heavily on the resources of
the California campaign. They shared an adjusted version of the same text, funds,
workers, and consequently, donors. Because of this I have dedicated Chapter Three
exclusively to an analysis of the California campaign. It is not possible to understand
the dynamics of the whole English for the Children movement without a thorough
understanding of Proposition 227.2 However, before delving into the specifics of the
campaign, one needs to have an understanding of initiative process more generally.
2 English for the Children appeared on the 1998 California ballot as Proposition 227.

Public Ballot Initiatives
An analysis of English for the Children would be incomplete without first
understanding the initiative process itself, and the role it played in the campaigns.
The University of Southern Californias Initiative and Referendum Institute defines
an initiative as "... when the citizens, collecting signatures on a petition, place
advisory questions, memorials, statutes or constitutional amendments on the ballot for
the citizens to adopt or reject (Initiative and Referendum Institute). While there is
not a national initiative process in the United States, to date there are twenty-four
states and hundreds of cities and counties that have adopted some form of initiative
process, whether direct or indirect (Initiative and Referendum Institute).3 Among
these states are California (adopted in 1911), Arizona and Colorado (both adopted in
1912), and Massachusetts (adopted in 1918) (Initiative and Referendum Institute).
The movement to incorporate some form of public initiative process started
with the Populist Party of the late eighteen hundreds as a challenge to the lack of the
state government accountability to the people. While initiative processes differ
slightly from one state to the next, they all abide by the same basic template, and
serve the same basic purpose. Citizens initiatives allow the people to act
independently of the legislature to correct perceived mistakes, and to make up for
3 The direct initiative process allows a citizens initiative with the required number of signatures to be
placed directly on the ballot for popular vote. The indirect process requires that citizens initiatives be
submitted to the state legislature first, and are placed on the ballot for popular vote only if rejected by
the state legislature. Colorado, California and Arizona all allow direct initiatives, however
Massachusetts only allows for indirect initiatives (Initiative and Referendum Institute).

perceived deficiencies. There are, however, rules and regulations that dictate which
initiatives will appear on the ballot, when and how. In the direct initiative process,
the primary prerequisite is the collection of a pre-determined number of registered
voters signatures on a petition within a finite period of time. The number of
signatures required differs from state to state and is usually determined by a
percentage of the voting population during a certain prior election. For example,
California requires that petitioners attempting to revise a statute collect signatures
equal to five percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election (California
Secretary of State). Only after petitioners have met the requirements can their
initiative appear on the ballot (California Secretary of State; Initiative and
Referendum Institute).
These powers are not without controversy. Debates over how much power
and control is too much when placed in the hands of the majority date back to the
countrys founding, and continue to this day. Contemporary arguments often focus
on the question of whether or not citizens initiatives place too much power in the
hands of elites, who likely have resources at their disposal for signature-collecting
and campaigning that are not available to the average citizen. The counterargument
asserts that, in fact, initiatives allow non-elites to challenge the elites monopoly on
power by giving them a tool by which to circumvent government institutions and act
directly on their own behalf. This heated debate is unlikely to be resolved any time in

the foreseeable future. Furthermore, this thesis is not intended to take a side, one way
or the other.
Perhaps more important to the main argument of this thesis is the historical
use of initiatives as weapons in the tense and racialized politics of late twentieth
century California. A 2001 study conducted by Zoltan Hajnal and Hugh Louch for
the Public Policy Institute of California entitled Are There Winners and Losers?
Race, Ethnicity, and Californias Initiative Process, demonstrates this racialized use
of ballot initiatives. Hajnal and Louch analyzed voting data from all ballot initiative
elections from 1981 to 2001. They found that [o]n minority-focused issues such as
affirmative action, illegal immigration, and bilingual education, whites had a nearly
64 percent chance of voting for the winning side, whereas the comparable figure for
Latinos was 32 percent (Hajnal and Louch 2001, vii).4 They explain that
[although non-Hispanic whites are no longer a majority of
Californias population, they still constitute nearly two-thirds of the
voters in initiative elections. The winner take-all nature of these
elections means that a white majority could pass major initiatives over
the objections of other racial and ethnic groups (Hajnal and Louch
2001, v).
Their findings were consistent over the thirty-year period subject to the study, which
span the last three decades of the twentieth century. Along with the anti-affirmative
action initiative Proposition 209, and Proposition 187, the authors cite Proposition
4 These trends are not reflected in their analysis of California ballot initiatives determined not to be
racially targeted.

227 as one of the top three highly racialized California initiatives in recent history
(Hajnal and Louch 2001, 17-20).
The pattern of using ballot initiatives as tools of racial polarization has been a
major theme in California election politics since the 1970s, as the above-cited study
shows. Furthermore, the consequences of these negatively targeted initiatives are far
from trivial. The history of California ballot initiatives is particularly important to
this study not only because English for the Children has it origins there, but also
because California is considered to be a trend setting state to which other state look
for direction (Hajnal and Louch 2001, iii). While these are highly suggestive trends,
they merely scratch the surface. The research presented in this thesis is intended to
flesh out these suggestions by examining one such racially targeted initiative from a
different angle, as a means of understanding both English for the Children, and the
larger attempt to assert racial hegemony to which it belongs.
Over the decade since Proposition 227 passed in California there have been
numerous studies regarding its impact, and how the results of the new program
compared to those of bilingual education programs. There are articles which assert
that English for the Children is racist, and that it is hurting, rather than helping a
specific segment of society. Still others insist that it is helping ELL children to better
assimilate into the dominant culture. In this paper, I conduct a different type of

analysis, not of what has happened since 227 came into effect, but before, by
examining the financial and political buildup that served as the preamble for the
Arizona, Colorado and Massachusetts campaigns. I do this by looking beyond the
public face of the debate to one significant element of the campaignthe donors. By
examining the campaign finance records, I am able to scrutinize English for the
Children independently of existing analyses that favor one side of the argument or the
other. This allows me to see where and when the campaign finance records
contradict and/or confirm proponents claims. I have chosen to research the
campaign in this way as a means of bypassing campaign propaganda and the analyses
of others in order to develop a more systematic analysis of who and what is actually
propelling English for the Children, and implications of these trends.
Since such campaign finance databases are a matter of public record, I was
able to acquire them from the elections divisions of the Secretary of States offices of
California, Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts. The vast majority of the relevant
records are now available on the websites of these institutions.5 California is the only
exception to this, since its complete online campaign finance records only date back
to the 1999 election cycle. However, the State Archives division of the California
Secretary of States office has paper copies of all records on file and available to the
public. For this research, I used both the information provided in the online database,
5 The URLs for each of the Secretary of States offices are as follows:
California SOS: . Arizona SOS: .
Colorado SOS: . Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth:

as well as the 180-page hard copy of the complete Proposition 227 campaign finance
records for the year of and the year prior to the election. Through these databases, I
was able to acquire primary lists of all of the donors to the respective campaigns, late
contributors included. In addition to who was making donations, these records
revealed contribution amounts, and their frequency. From this, I was able to calculate
what percentage of the total contributions came from a given donor both by state, and
for the English for the Children campaign as a whole. I used this information to
narrow the field down to the elite donors.6 In several of the databases, the campaign
was also required to include certain personal contact/identification information for the
donor in addition to his/her full name when filing, such as an address. This
information served as a jumping off point for more in-depth research of each of the
individuals through which I developed a genealogy of contributions and political
statements for the most significant donors.
With the information from the election commissions of each of the four states,
I went to the Federal Election Commissions online campaign contribution database
( This database allowed me to see all recorded individual
contributions made in federal elections over the last ten years, including
congressional and presidential elections. From this information I could establish
general contribution patterns for the donors based on the party affiliation of the
6 For the purpose of this paper, those who contributed $1,000 or more to one or more of the English for
the Children campaigns are considered elite donors.

recipients, what key issues they have in common with one another, and the size and
frequency of contributions. Since the Federal Election Commission database only
provides information concerning federal elections, I had to go elsewhere to find state-
level contribution information for a given donor. I did not look up every individual
who contributed to one or more of the English for the Children campaigns in the
databases of each state. I did, however, use non-governmental campaign finance
sources that systematically search state and federal databases. In the event that I was
uncertain about any given donation, I cross-referenced my findings directly with the
relevant states records. The non-governmental sources I used included, the California Voter Foundation (,, the Campaign Finance Information Center (,, and I did not use information from any one of
these non-governmental sites without checking it against one or more of the others.
In order to find out where certain recipients stood and stand on a given issue, I
did not rely only on public statements and profiles, or (for members of Congress)
votes. I also looked at who, aside from the English for the Children donors, had
contributed to his or her campaign in the hopes that this might shed light on his or her
positions. With this information I was able to form a working database about each of
the elite donors from which to launch the next step in my research. 7
7 Determining the party affiliations of those running for a given office is one thing; however, I make no
assertions and/or direct speculations as to the party affiliations of the donors themselves. This having
been said, for some of them, it is not difficult to deduce, or make an educated guess.

After establishing a subset of the most prominent and important contributors
and their general contribution patterns, I systematically researched each individual in
an attempt to form an accurate picture of their respective political positions. I started
by using Internet search engines (predominantly Google) to gather some public
information about the donors. Public information in this case includes articles written
by the donor, newspaper articles written about the donor, organizations to which the
donor belongs, titles and positions in that organization, and in some cases the donors
line of work, membership in political action committees, and other political
associations. I was able to accumulate a considerable amount of information on many
of the high-end donors in part because the majority of them are involved in prominent
political organizations.
Since knowing the names of the donors organizational affiliations did not
always tell me a great deal about them, it was often necessary to look deeper into the
organizations themselves to find out where they stood on issues related to education,
immigration, multiculturalism, race, and on language politics or bilingual education
directly. I placed varying degrees of importance on these organizational stances
depending on the level of involvement of the donor and how well it seemed to
coincide with other information I had gathered about that person. I did this by
looking at organizational publications, public statements, political campaign
contributions, and any other relevant information that I was able to gather. In some
cases, the political ideology of an organization was made clear, while in other

instances, deciphering political positions required more analysis. With this
information, I was then able to make certain assertions about the positions of the
donors, and from there, I could develop a more complete political genealogy which, I
argue, informed English for the Children.
As a hypothetical example to illustrate this methodology, assume that, in
examining the campaign finance database of the Colorado Secretary of States office
website (, I find that donor X has contributed $50,000 to the
English for the Children of Colorado campaign. After looking at the contribution
amounts of the other donors, I determine that X has made the third largest
contribution and thus warrants closer examination. I start by checking the Federal
Elections Commissions campaign finance database ( to see who X has
contributed to in Federal elections over the last ten years. To assure that I have the
correct person, I cross-reference any personal identification information that was
listed on the Colorado database with that listed in the FEC database. For a more
complete dataset, I also search for donations made by X, using the nongovernmental
sources cited above, such as The FEC records allow me to see the
names and party affiliations of politicians, political action committees and political
parties that have accepted donations from X. If, for example, the FEC records show
that X has been consistently donating money to the Immigration Political Action
Committee (IMMPAC), I can deduce that X is in favor of severely restricting
immigration and immigrant rights. If I do not already recognize the people or

organizations, I look at who else they are accepting money from and who they are
giving money to (most important in the case of political action committees). For
example, in order to find out more about IMMPAC, I would look at their campaign
finance records and see that they have donated thousands of dollars to anti-
immigration Congressman Tom Tancredo. This information makes it easier for me to
gauge what exactly IMMPAC is advocating for, and by extension, what causes X is
advocating for. To better understand X, I try to find other organizational affiliations,
any articles written by donor X, and other such relevant information. I am able to
locate much of this information by simply typing the name of donor X, and any other
known information into Google, then following the leads those searches provide to
form a more complete understanding of Xs political tendencies.
The Value of this Research
The United States is a country that asserts itself as an exemplar of democracy.
Yet, while the US prides itself on a proficient use of the majority rule aspect of
democracy, there is an ongoing and more profound struggle to uphold the democratic
principle of minority rights. Since the rule of the majority clearly has the potential to
be oppressive and very dangerous to any and all minorities, it is important to
acknowledge the danger posed to language minorities in addition to racial, religious,
and political minorities. Furthermore, when this conflict involves children who are

not only underrepresented as minorities but also as young people, our responsibility
becomes all the more significant.
While there is not a Constitutional right to an education in the United States,
there is a right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national
origin, which was interpreted by the Supreme Court to include protection from
language discrimination in the case of Lau v. Nichols. That decision states that
...there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same
facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand
English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education (Lau v. Nichols
1974; Civil Rights Act of 1964). It is this Constitutional tradition of protecting
minority rights, and the potential risk posed to them by the English for the Children
initiatives that make it so critically important to thoroughly examine and understand
this campaign. Critically analyzing the apparent logic of the financial contributors is
a small but important part of this process.
Moreover, cultural and linguistic diversity are attributes that should be
embraced, and taken as a sign of mutual respect and social progress toward something
more closely resembling cultural wisdom. The active campaign to end bilingual
education represents a blow to mutual respect and to open-mindedness. If we as a
society reject diversity and try to wipe it out through processes of assimilation and
alienation, then we cannot hope to continue to thrive in the twenty-first century. A
healthy democracy is contingent upon a multiplicity of ideas, publicly debated by a

heterogeneous population. It requires variety and inclusiveness, and is stifled by
exclusiveness and homogeneity. This does not only apply to political affiliations and
ideological perspectives, it also applies to races, religions, cultures, and traditions,
including language.
The importance of this issue is not limited to the symbolic. The United States,
and particularly the states in the West and the Southwest are currently experiencing
growing populations of Spanish-speaking Latina/o immigrants, and as I stated before,
this is concomitant with an increase in racialized ballot initiatives in the same states.
This shift has increased the need for K-12 programs that have effective methods of
teaching ELLs and the proper support and funding with which to do so. The issue of
bilingual education is not likely to go away any time in the near future, and it will be
one of increasing importance in many more states than has historically been the case.
Providing a high quality education to the increasing population of Latinas/os is too
important to let proposed solutions like those found in the English for the Children
initiatives go unchallenged and without close scrutiny.
Potential Problems
There are a few issues that could potentially cause problems or confusion in
this research. One of these is late campaign finance filings on the part of English for
the Children. A late filing is when a given campaign fails to submit records of a
monetary contribution that has been received until after the deadline, either because it

was temporarily lost, orone can speculateas a mode of hiding that contribution
from interested parties until after the election has taken place. This might occur
because the contribution for which there was a late filing is controversial in some
way, or perhaps it reflects poorly on the campaign and runs contrary to its stated
message. The difficulties with late filings are twofold. They are not always readily
available or easy to track down, thus they are difficult to factor into research of this
kind. Furthermore, English for the Children consisted of four campaigns in four
different states, yet there were many internal contributions from one campaign to
another. Thus it is conceivable that, for example, the California committee was still
receiving contributions at the time of one of the other campaigns, and then passing
that money along using its own name, rather than that of the contributor.
Where Internet databases proved insufficient as a means of dealing with this
issue, I contacted the Secretary of States offices directly, and/or worked with a
representative of the local government publications library. This allowed me to
locate complete paper copies of the campaign finance records containing the
necessary information. However, in the case of California, I was only able to locate
records for the year that 227 was on the ballot and the year before. Second, and
perhaps less significantly, the reasons for the late submittals are not a part of the late
filing paperwork, thus speculations as to the reasons for their tardiness are just that,

The vast majority of the campaign finance information used in this research
was gleaned from various Internet sources, and was thus subject to any systems
glitches that may have been present. I was able to detect some such glitches and
subsequently was able to account for them either in whole or in part, but I am unable
to say that I have accounted for all of them. Those that I did come across were minor
and did not change the implications of the records on the whole. In one such
instance, I found a mistake in the database of regarding
whether a contribution was to a candidate, or is in opposition to that candidate. I was
able to easily account for this by cross-referencing the information with other
databases then making the necessary adjustments. However, it is impossible to tell
whether or not I was able to catch all inconsistencies of this kind, which is why I am
mentioning it here. The online California campaign finance database for the 1998
initiative was particularly vulnerable to glitches because all the information for 227
was added retroactively when the database was created in 2000. I corrected this by
requesting hard copies from the Secretary of States office directly. As I stated
above, I have no reason to suspect that any potential database problems would change
the outcome of this research, and/or the nature of the findings.
Lastly, since it is clearly not possible to be inside another persons mind or
heart in order to understand their deepest motivations, I do not claim to be able to
perform such a feat. Instead I am analyzing the information that I was able find on
the donors in order to identify patterns and logical disconnects between what the

campaign says it does, and the donors organizational and political affiliation. In
sum, this is not meant to be a psychological evaluation of the major players; it is
meant to be a political evaluation of the logic that pervades the campaign as revealed
in the political history of the major donors.
Outline of the Chapters
Chapter Two consists of a review of relevant literature as it has been applied
to this research. I start by locating English for the Children within the academic
debate over bilingual education methods in general, with respect to the effectiveness
of its proposed methods, using James Crawfords (2004) arguments and analysis as a
cornerstone. I then go on to discuss the broader impacts of bilingual education as a
language policy issue, employing Ronald Schmidts (2000) arguments. He asserts
that language helps compose an individuals core identity on a very profound level,
thus language policy should not be treated as an abstraction. The fundamental
importance of language and language policy is reflected in the public debate, which
tends to take place in two different rhetorical camps, one primarily concerned with
national unity, and the other with linguistic and cultural equality (Schmidt 2000).
Sheila Shannon (1995) takes this even further, arguing that the anti-bilingual
education push is an assertion of the hegemony of English in the United States
(Shannon 1995).

These analyses fit more broadly within Schneider and Ingrams (1993)
discussion of social constructions. They argue that while policy can be a reflection of
social perceptions and divisions, it can also construct and define target populations.
Furthermore, negatively constructed populations will be the targets of punishment
policy, further entrenching their already disadvantaged position (Schneider and
Ingram 1993). Ian Haney Lopez (2006) demonstrates how race, rather than
decreasing in importance as some suggest, has been codified and constructed by law.
It is neither a new phenomenon nor is it unusual for laws to be racially targeted
(Lopez 2006). Finally, Bill Ong Hing (2004) brings race, law and immigration
politics together, arguing that immigration policy in the United States reflects how
America perceives itself and who is and is not truly American (Hing 2004).
Chapter Three delves into a review of the findings for Californias English for
the Children initiative, Proposition 227. This chapter starts with a descriptive history
of the 227 as well as some of the other statewide initiatives that passed during that
same period of time, as a point of reference for understanding the social and political
climate of California. This leads into a discussion of the text of Proposition 227 itself
and how the language used supports the larger arguments of this thesis. In doing this,
I briefly discuss some of the relevant federal laws and how these relate to the issue of
bilingual education, language rights, and immigration. This is in an attempt to define
the boundaries within which this debate is occurring, as well as describe the ground
rules to which all interested parties are theoretically compelled to conform.

I then move into the funding patterns themselves, discussing the donation
amounts and distributions and why this is important. After establishing a framework,
I move into an analysis of top four donors, starting with Ron Unz, then William
Hume, Richard Gilder, and Howard Ahmanson, Jr. In discussing each of them, I
analyze their contributions to other organizations and campaigns, their political and
social affiliations, and their own writings, where relevant. The organizational
affiliations therein range from the Hoover Institution, the official English
organizations, and others, all the way to Evangelical Christian organizations. I give a
detailed description and explanation of the relevance of each organization to the
arguments of this paper. After laying out all the applicable evidence, I then analyze
the findings.
Chapter Four focuses on the English for the Children campaigns in Arizona,
Colorado and Massachusetts, all of which followed the California campaign. In this
chapter, I discuss similarities between the latter three campaigns and the California
campaign, and the differences between them. I start by providing a background to
English for the Children in these three states, as well as a brief overview of the states
political histories. I introduce those who contributed money to more than one of the
campaigns, including Ron Unz, Howard Ahmanson, Thomas Klingenstein, Richard
Gilder, and others. I then move into an analysis of some of the significant donors who
gave only to one of the latter three campaigns. This again includes analyses of these
donors political and organizational affiliations. Lastly, I conclude with a summation

of the findings, including an analysis of what they mean within the context of the
literature, and the concepts of language politics and hegemony.
This thesis will examine the English for the Children initiatives in California,
Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts by creating and analyzing a genealogy of the
campaigns elite donors, and their respective political contributions and associations
with political organizations. I examine these campaign finance patterns in order to
determine what they reveal about the logic of the English for the Children campaigns
with respect to language and Latinas/os. I argue that intrinsic to these campaigns was
a more pernicious effort to assert English hegemony as a racial project, and to restrict
Latina/o immigrants. This research is important for a number of reasons. The right
to be free from discrimination based on race and language has long-since been
established by the US Supreme Court, and because of this, it is just as important to
understand the logic behind these initiatives, as it is to determine their long-term
consequences. Moreover, states in the West and Southwest in particular are
experiencing considerable growth of Spanish-speaking immigrants and citizens. I
argue the English for the Children campaigns push to eliminate bilingual education is
linked to a larger racial project designed to reinforce already existing conditions of
racial and linguistic hegemony that are found in social and governmental systems.

The English for the Children campaigns push to end bilingual education is
occurring at the intersection between two different, but not unrelated, debates. The
most visible debate is over which method of teaching English language learner
students is more pedagogically sound.8 This debate exists in two different
dimensions that often overlap, but rarely seem to interact. One is in the realm of
academia between and among pedagogy experts, linguists, policy makers, political
scientists, and other social scientists. The other dimension is concerned with the
methodology and implementation of the programs in question. Between the two there
is an enormous disconnect, which is typified by the English for the Children
initiatives. Beyond this, immigration policy, bilingual education, and anti-bilingual
education initiatives in the United States are also being deconstructed using an
entirely different, racial framework.
In this chapter, I introduce these debates as a means of providing a
foundational background, and to locate my own assertions about the English for the
Children initiatives within the existing conversation. I begin with an introduction to
8 To clarify, this is in reference to language acquisition for elementary school age children, as opposed
to those who have already fully developed their respective primary language(s).

the methods used in teaching ELL students, including bilingual education. In doing
so, I provide a descriptive analysis in addition to locating the method proposed by
English for the Children along an already established pedagogical spectrum. I then
step back and discuss the broader implications of this, shifting to a analysis of
language politics more generally.
Bilingual education is political, rather than just pedagogical, inevitably
leading back to fundamental issues of identity, race and national unity (Schmidt
2000). English is also being used as a tool with which to assert hegemony. By so
directly privileging English, policymakers are often reinforcing its hegemonic status.
In the subsequent section, I introduce Schneider and Ingrams (1993) theory of
socially constructed target populations. Rather than being merely a reflection of
existing conditions, policy can be used as a tool with which to construct target
populations, be it in a negative or a positive light (Schneider and Ingram 1993).
Furthermore, as Bill Ong Hing (2004) argues, policy, including language and
immigration policy, is used to define Americanism itself and as a means of actively
excluding certain groups (Hing 2004). The arguments that I discuss here allow me to
deconstruct the ways in which these initiatives assert English hegemony as a racial
project while restricting immigrants in the process.

A Brief Introduction to the Bilingual Education Debate
From the outset, it is important to note that the term bilingual education
applies only to a certain subset of the methods by which ELL students are taught; yet
it is widely misused to describe all methods that employ the primary language as a
tool of instruction. This false understanding of bilingual education is then often
juxtaposed with full immersion programs. The difference is relevant here for a
number of reasons. The English for the Children campaign uses the term bilingual
education in reference to all methods of teaching LEP students, with the exception of
immersion programs. Not only is this a false dichotomy, it is also a way of taking
problems with one method and lumping them together with all the other methods,
thus making it harder to distinguish between them, and easier to discredit all of them.
I will analyze the initiatives texts in further detail in Chapters three and four.
For clarification on the distinctions between the methods at issue, I borrow
from Weiner and Escamilla (2002) of the Education and the Public Interest Center.
In their article The Unintended Consequences of Colorados Anti-Bilingual
Education Initiative, Escamilla and Weiner provide a framework for categorizing
various methods that use the primary language in teaching ELLs. Their framework
divides the methods between maintenance and transitional approaches: the former
aiming to develop the students use and understanding of English while maintaining
the native language, and the latter using the native language only as a tool to assist in
the transition to an all-English learning environment (Weiner and Escamilla 2002).

They further distil the broad categories of maintenance and transitional into four
specific methods: English as a Second Language (ESL),9 Transitional Bilingual
Education (TBE), Maintenance Bilingual Education (MBE), and Dual Language
Bilingual. ESL programs mix ELL students of different abilities and native English-
speakers into the same classroom, and the instruction is predominantly in English.
The TEB method employs the ELL students primary language(s), but [a]s the
students progress in English, the programs decrease the amount of instruction in their
primary language with the goal of mainstreaming them into the schools regular
classes as soon as possible (Weiner and Escamilla 2002, 2). MBE programs are
similar to TEB programs, except that they aim to ...maintain a fluency in their
primary language, resulting in bilingualism (Weiner and Escamilla 2002, 2). Dual
Language programs ...combine native English speakers and ELL [English language
learner] students in the same classes, with the goal of developing proficiency
(bilingualism) in all students in both languages (Weiner and Escamilla 2002, 2-3).
The Structured English Immersion program proposed by English for the Children
falls into a category of its own, with neither an eye for maintenance, nor for ensuring
that the student has a sufficient grasp of English before exporting her/him into the
mainstream English-only classrooms (Weiner and Escamilla 2002).
It is not the purpose of this research to debate the merits of the bilingual
methods or the immersion methods as it is a charged and complex issue. However,
9 Weiner and Escamilla cite ESL as the method by which 86% of Colorado ELL students are taught, as
of the publication of their article in August of 2002 (Weiner and Escamilla 2002, 2).

this research is predicated on the broad body of literature developed among
pedagogical experts that supports the claim that maintenance bilingual methods are
preferable to full immersion programs (Crawford 1999; Schmidt 2000; Shannon
1995; Weiner and Escamilla 2002). As Schmidt asserts,
...the evidence seems to argue very powerfully thatwhen properly
and fully implemented in a dual-language program that is integrative
rather than segregativea genuinely bilingual maintenance approach
is more effective at promoting both greater mastery of English and
greater overall educational achievement for language minority students
than a policy of rapid immersion into mainstream English-only classes
(Schmidt 2000,253).
This having been said, the debate over methods of teaching ELLs cannot be chalked
up to pedagogical differences of opinion. There are also social and political factors
involved, which I will be addressing here in depth.
Language Politics and Policy
In his book Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States, Ron
Schmidt (2000) argues that most of the contention surrounding bilingual education is
centered on issues of identity which competing rhetorical strategies are
deployed on behalf of two competing public values: national unity and equality
(Schmidt 2000, 38). He argues that the conflict over bilingual education, and
language policy more generally, is predominantly between two paradigmatic camps,
the pluralists, and the assimilationists, [ultimately, the conflict between
assimilationists and pluralists in relation to U.S. language policy comes down to a

fundamental disagreement over the inherent nature of the country itself and its
identity as a national polity (Schmidt 2000, 178). There are underlying differences
in the way that these two groups understand the nature of the United States both
historically and in the present, which seems to have brought them to an impasse with
respect to the meaning of Americanism. Assimilationists believe that the English
language is profoundly linked to Americanism. As such, true Americanism cannot be
attained, either through processes of naturalization or otherwise, without fluency (and
many say literacy) in English. Furthermore, they
...view the long-time dominance of English in the United States as
being threatened by new linguistic competition from immigrants who
are being encouraged by public policy to retain their home languages
rather than shifting to English in the most efficient manner possible
(Schmidt 2000, 77).
This fear is especially profound in areas of the country experiencing more
pronounced increases in immigration from the fastest growing ethno-linguistic
groupnamely Spanish-speakers from Latin American countries (Schmidt 2000).
The pluralists contest the historical narrative of the assimilationists.
Assimilationists argue that immigration to the United States is just as much a
voluntary choice now as it has always been, and that the failure of current, non-white
immigrants to assimilate is due to their lack of desire to be American. Pluralists, on
the other hand, insist that this assertion is predicated on a fundamentally false
assumption, not just about the immigrants of today, but the immigrants of the past as
well. They argue that

[i]n addition to immigration in search of individual freedom, the
American people derives from processes of colonization, an
international slave trade, military conquest, territorial purchase from
European powers, imperialist aspiration in the Western Hemisphere
and in Asia, and other foreign policy interventions resulting in political
refugees claiming special access to U.S. protection (Schmidt 2000,
They further claim that cultural and linguistic genocide was a deliberate device used
in the conquest and expansion of what is now the United States, and should never be
confused with voluntary assimilation.
Adding to this, Schmidt argues that the strong ties between ones mother
tongue and ones identity make this particularly important. We each experience
language not just as a tool of communication but also as a fundamental part of how
we understand ourselves, and our core identity (Schmidt 2000, 49). Furthermore,
there is a distinction to be made between learning new languages, and being forced to
abandon ones primary language. Since language can be constitutive of a persons
core identity, ...any attack on [ones] language is experienced as an attack on
[his/her] very being (Schmidt 2000, 49). Thus, pluralists argue that language policy
cannot be distilled from its context, and treated simply as an issue of national unity,
or practicality without serious consequences for the speakers of minority languages
(Schmidt 2000).
Schmidt argues further that assimilationists make unacceptable assertions
about the dynamics of the groups involved, and that this stems in part from a distorted
vision of history. By misrepresenting history, assimilationists justify two assertions

about the positions of Anglos and immigrants in the United States. The first being
that Anglos are the victims of hoards of thankless immigrants who refuse to
...behave as guests should behave... (Schmidt 2000, 197). Rather, they happily
accept American jobs and freedoms, all the while contending that they have the right
to live according to the dictates of their own languages and customs, instead of by
those of their host. The second assertion, which is based on a failure to recognize the
privileged position of Anglos in the United States, is that .. .pluralist programs are
unprecedented forms of privilege that victimize English-speaking monolinguals,
rendering the English-Plus program as an agenda for minority domination (Schmidt
2000, 197). In reality, the English-speaking majority is the collective beneficiary of
unearned privilege, which it jealously tries to protect through language policy
(Schmidt 2000).
Beyond this, Schmidt maintains that the assimilationists argument about
language policy as a matter of national unity, and their proposed solutions to it, are
not just. The United States is a multicultural and multilingual society, just as it has
been since its inception. What is more, this diverse landscape has long been the scene
of exclusion and assertions of domination by the majority. As such, Schmidt argues,
language policy that fails grapple with and accept these realities cannot be just
(Schmidt 2000, 198). He is basing his notions of justice on arguments made by
political philosopher, Will Kymlicka (1989). While assimilationists argue that
because immigration is voluntary, it is necessarily the immigrants burden to

assimilate, Schmidt contends that this cannot be true. Drawing from Kymlicka, he
argues that individuals, while they are responsible for the consequences of their
actions, ...ought not to be held responsible for the circumstances of their choices
(Schmidt 2000, 195). Thus, policy that fails to take this into account cannot be just
(Schmidt 2000).
Sheila Shannon (1995) parallels Schmidts arguments but places more
emphasis on linguistic hegemony, and the idea of language rights as human rights. In
her article The Hegemony of English: A Case Study of One Bilingual Classroom as
a Site of Resistance (1995) she argues that the dynamics between languages have
consequences that extend far beyond language itself. She looks at language issues
that arise in the classroom with an understanding of English as both dominant and
hegemonic. Shannon defines linguistic hegemony thusly:
Whenever more than one language or language variety exists together,
their status in relation to one another is often asymmetric. In those
cases, one will be perceived as superior, desirable, and necessary,
whereas the other will be seen as inferior, undesirable, and
extraneous...To maintain its dominant status, a language has to be
associated with political, governmental, economic, and social
domination and the consent of the people (Shannon 1995,176).
Linguistic hegemony, like other forms of hegemony has to be constantly maintained
and reinforced. As she makes clear, where there is domination, there are those being
dominated, and this process is not without casualties (Shannon 1995).
Linguistic hegemony behaves as many other forms of cultural domination do.
The characteristics ascribed to a certain language are often projected upon the

speakers of that language. Dominated language groups then internalize the inferior
status of their language, [consequently [developing] a tendency to abandon their
language for the dominant onenaturally choosing an association with higher status
(Shannon 1995, 177). Furthermore, it is often the case that the speakers of minority
languages are people of color, Spanish and many Asian and indigenous languages
being the most prominent examples. Because of this, linguistic discrimination can
and is easily translated into racial discrimination, and the reverse is also true. This, at
least in part, is where racial discrimination in immigration policy meets
discrimination via language policy. Anti-bilingual education initiatives in states with
high levels of non-white immigrants, as well as non-immigrant English-speakers are a
good example of this relationship playing out, as I will argue in detail in the chapters
to follow (Shannon 1995).
Shannon further argues that the dominance of one language over another has
nothing to do with the languages themselves, and everything to do with social and
political forces.
Because languages are linguistically equal (i.e., what one wishes to
express in one language can be expressed in another), the domination
of one language or language variety over another is actually based on
sociopolitical factors. Thus, the language associated with political and
economic domination in a particular context is typically the dominant
language (Shannon 1995, 178).
This cuts to the heart of the language debate, sheding a slightly different light on the
anti-bilingual education initiatives. In ruling out the possibility that English is the

dominant language because it is somehow linguistically superior, it becomes all the
more clear that it is social and political forces at work. However, the ...nonstatic
nature of hegemony includes agency by both the dominant and the dominated
(Shannon 1995, 177). There is a constant back and forth struggle in which the power
relationship is being reasserted and redefined (Shannon 1995).
Assimilationists claims that linguistic homogeneity is inextricably linked to
national unity are a reflection of the struggle to maintain hegemony. By making the
English language the required characteristic of Americanism, they are by implication
saying that one who cannot speak English, regardless of legal status, cannot truly be
American. Furthermore, as Ron Schmidt points out,
[t]he state cannot be neutral in respect to language or culture. Those
who belong to the dominant cultural community enjoy a plethora of
unearned advantages in comparison with those who belong to minority
cultural communities, and many of those advantages are maintained
and supported by governments... (Schmidt 2000, 196).
It would be unrealistic to assume that the state will be neutral, especially since
benefits stemming from linguistic hegemony permeate into other aspects of everyday
life. Policymakers (and by extension, laws and political institutions) are not value
neutral, as there often assumed to be (Schneider and Ingram 1993). On the contrary,
they have a vested interest in how power and privilege are delegated, as well as the
means with which to influence this process.

Social Constrictions
Schneider and Ingram (1993), in their article Social Construction of Target
Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy, argue that public policy is not
insulated from society, nor is society insulated from public policy.
...[SJocial construction of target populations refers to (1) the
recognition of the shared characteristics that distinguish a target
population as socially meaningful, and (2) the attribution of specific,
valence-oriented values, symbols, and images to the characteristics
(Schneider and Ingram 1993, 335).
They argue that policy is not simply acting out of consideration for existing social
constructs, rather, it is deliberately creating and further reinforcing them. The
country is comprised of certain target populations, all of which are receiving
different messages from the government (Schneider and Ingram 1993, 334). They
contend that [t]here are strong pressures for public officials to provide beneficial
policy to powerful, positively constructed target populations and to devise punitive,
punishment-oriented policy for negatively constructed groups (Schneider and
Ingram 1993, 334). Moreover, while the messages embedded in the policies reinforce
existing social conditions and constructions, they can also alter social constructions
for better of for worse (Schneider and Ingram 1993).
This process has definite winners and losers, but which populations win and
which lose is never a coincidence. It is the powerful and politically active
populations that retain the most control over this fluctuating dynamic. This is due in
no small part to the fact that [ajdvantaged groups have the resources and capacity to

shape their own constructions and to combat attempts that would portray them
negatively, an ability that the powerless do not posses (Schneider and Ingram 1993,
337). It follows that these same positively constructed groups can and do have the
ability and resources to use policy to maintain certain groups as disadvantaged and
powerless. The attractiveness of policy directed toward powerless people with
negative images (the deviants) is surprisingly similar except that the deviants are
punished and have almost no control over the agenda or the design (Schneider and
Ingram 1993, 337). An example of punishment policy is the criminalization of drug
use, where rather than spending state money to rehabilitate addicts and help them
reintegrate into society, they are incarcerated, sometimes for very long periods of
time without ever being offered the help they would need to overcome an addiction.
As Schneider and Ingram point out, this is not due to an oversight on the part of
policy-makers, or even a lack of understanding of the problem. It is policy designed
to punish a negatively constructed group, which does not posses sufficient political
power to oppose it (Schneider and Ingram 1993).
With respect to language politics, certain language minority groups have been
negatively constructed using both historical narrative and public policy. These
minority language populations have in turn been subject to punishing policy, which
has taken many different forms. Official English legislation and anti-bilingual
education initiatives are examples of punishment policy aimed at language minorities.
As Schneider and Ingram explain, [t]he negative social constructions make it likely

that these groups will often receive burdens even when it is illogical from the
perspective of policy effectiveness (Schneider and Ingram 1993, 338). Furthermore,
these trends are present without regard to issues of social justice and equality. They
clarify that these illogical policy decisions still need to appear to be justified on some
level, and appear to have ...a believable causal logic connecting the various aspects
of policy design to desired outcomes (Schneider and Ingram 1993, 336; Schmidt
In the event that they are motivated by racial discrimination, these logical
connections are not likely to be revealed outright. As Omi and Winant (1994) argue,
explicit racism is no longer socially acceptable in the same way that it once was. As
such, openly racist language would likely do more harm than good in convincing the
public to accept a given policy, even if the policy is in fact racially motivated (Omi
and Winant 1994, 127).
Schneider and Ingrams analysis is important in its own right, and is highly
useful for the purposes of my analysis of the English for the Children campaign;
however, it is incomplete in some important ways, shying away from making
assertions about the policy-makers themselves. While they do challenge the
assumption of scientific neutrality and objectivity that pervades policy studies, they
fall short of addressing policy makers as being already raced (and gendered), even
while they construct race and ascribe value to certain target populations
(Hawkesworth 2003). Mary Hawkesworth (2003), in her study of the 103rd and 104th

Congress, provides an avenue through which the study of policy, policy-makers and
institutions can be denaturalized. She argues that these people and institutions should
be understood as being already raced and gendered. This .. .illuminate[s] dynamics
that structure hierarchies on the basis of race and gender (Hawkeswoth 2003, 529).
She uses race and gender as research guides, rather than as merely descriptors.
Ian Haney Lopez (2006) continues along a similar vein in his analysis of race
as both present in law, and defined by law. He argues that [t]he operation of law
does far more than merely legalize race; it defines as well the spectrum of domination
and subordination that constitutes race relations (Lopez 2006, 8). This assertion is
particularly important to the arguments made in this thesis. Lopez establishes that it
is not only inappropriate to view law and policy as race-neutral, it is also historically
inaccurate. While law and policy are themselves informed by the times, they are also
used to delineate white from non-white and American from non-American. Along
this same line, Lina Newton (2005) explains exactly how policy is informed by the
times, as well as further building on the argument that policy-makers are actively
involved in shaping and manipulating the social constructions.
Newton (2005) analyzes the national discourse, including the stories and
myths that comprise the basis for immigration policy. Her work on immigration
policy can also help us understand language policy, even where the two do not
directly intersect. She argues that images of immigrants as either good or bad are
deliberately constructed, and that the narratives created to go along with these images

are in turn used as grounds for policy action. More importantly, Newton
acknowledges that these social constructions are not created by ghosts in a vacuum.
... [Political elites manipulate the mythology and symbols of
immigration as they define who constitutes the nation, who makes
significant social and economic contributions, and who is better kept
out. In short, the policy-making process divides the immigrant
population into those who are deserving and those who are
undeserving of access to the nation (Newton 2005, 140).
Newtons argument can be tied back to Schneider and Ingram, and the notion of
political elites as being socially constructed and maintained by public policy that
directly benefits them. This is crucial to understanding how certain narratives are
created and/or manipulated by political elites, and how they are used to justify certain
policy solutions. It directly relates to the English for the Children initiatives, which
promote structured English immersion as the solution to what the elites supporting
them deem to be a problem. Although the problem is presented differently
depending on the intended audience, the purpose remains the same. One portrayal is
the American Dream narrative, which is employed by English for the Children in
such a way as to use English to define Americanism, thus excluding from the nation
those who do not speak English, even if they are citizens (Hing 2004; Newton 2005;
Schneider and Ingram 1993).
Bill Ong Hing (2004) argues that immigration policy is itself used to define
Americanism. However, it is not only the political elites that contribute to this
process, it is also the actions of individual private citizens. He explains that through

the acts of individual citizens, certain groups are being de-Americanized, and that the
resulting sociocultural narratives are then being codified and exacerbated by state
Certainly, de-Americanization is a process that involves racism, but
unlike the racism directed at African Americans, with its foundations
in the historically held beliefs of inferiority, de-Americanizers base
their assault on loyalty and foreignness. [The] victims are immigrants
and foreigners even though they may in fact be citizens by birth or
through naturalization. Irrespective of the victim communitys
possible long-standing status in the country, its members are regarded
as perpetual foreigners (Hing 2004, 260).
The public initiative process is one key point where the whims of individual citizens
join hands with the policy making process. The California initiative, Proposition 187,
which aimed to altogether exclude immigrants from access to social and
governmental benefits, is a good example of this intersection.
There are various devices through which de-Americanization happens, and
language is one of these tools. Yet, as Hing explains,
[d]e-Americanization is not simply xenophobia, because more than
fear of foreigners is at work. This is a brand of nativism cloaked in a
Eurocentric sense of America that combines hate and racial
profiling...This is part of the sad process of unconscious and
institutionalized racism that haunts our country (Hing 2004, 266).
As I show in the chapters to come, by making the English language a pre-requisite for
Americanism, English for the Children excludes non-English speakers from being
real Americans, regardless of their citizenship status.

This chapter provides a review of the literature that I use to analyze the
English for the Children initiatives in Chapters Three and Four. Escamilla and
Weiner provide a foundation for understanding the different methods of teaching ELL
students, both methods that use the primary language and those that do not. This
helps to locate the initiatives at hand and to understand structured English
immersion in the context of other methods. I turned to Ron Schmidt for a more in-
depth analysis of language politics and policy. He provides an analysis and
background information on the assimilationist and pluralist perspectives on language
policy issues. More importantly, he offers a foundational study for this research,
providing a theoretical link between language issues and identity issues by which he
asserts that one can experience an attack on ones language rights as an attack on
oneself, opening the door to language discrimination as a form of violence (Schmidt
2000). Sheila Shannon argues along the same lines, that language policy is not at all
an issue of national unity; it is a reflection of the hegemony of the English language.
This hegemony is expressed not just in bilingual education policy, or language policy
more broadly, but also through other forms of cultural and economic domination
(Shannon 1995). Schneider and Ingram take this even further, arguing that social
categories can be, and are created through policy, and that policy further reinforces
existing negative and positive social constructions (Schmidt 2000; Shannon 1995;
Newton 2005; Schneider and Ingram 1993).

Newton, along with Schmidt argues that these social constructions and
narratives are often manipulated by political and social elites, who use policy to
further entrench their own privileged positions, while ensuring that others remain
political weak. Furthermore, this process creates categories of deservedness with
respect to which immigrants should be allowed access to the nation (Newton 2005;
Schmidt 2000). Hing argues that, in addition to being used as a regulatory tool,
immigration policy is used to define Americanism itself. He further argues that that
social constructions and policy are accompanied by processes of de-Americanization
that are initiated by individual citizens, then supported and perpetuated by the state
(Schmidt 2000; Newton 2005; Hing 2004).
While this research is about the English for the Children initiatives, and a
clear understanding of the bilingual education debate is critically important, it is not
my intention to weigh in on the pedagogical argument here. There are other equally
important facets to the debate that need to be taken into consideration while analyzing
the English for the Children campaign donors. The literature that I have reviewed
here provides the necessary theoretical and contextual background needed to examine
the initiatives clearly, and provides a framework with which to present my findings.
My analysis of the English for the Children initiatives further challenges
value-neutral policy studies. That is, I acknowledge from the outset that the

initiatives do not exist in a value-neutral vacuum, insulated from the political and
economic elites that support them, and form the populations negatively of positively
affected by them. Building off these authors arguments, I contend that English for
the Children advocates are participating in a racialized discourse that ascribes
negative value to immigrants. This reassertion of English hegemony privileges
whiteness and further entrenches existing racial and social hierarchies. These
assertions are evidenced in both the initiative text, and the campaign finance records
of all four English for the Children campaigns, which I lay out in detail in the final
two chapters of this thesis.

The English for the Children initiative made its debut in California as
Proposition 227 during the 1998 statewide election. It was introduced just four years
after California Proposition 187, an initiative designed to deny unauthorized and
authorized immigrants access to social benefits ranging from medical care to
education. The dynamics and demographics of the state were changing, and many
Californians were on the offensive. Immigration from Mexico and Central America
was on the rise, and the economy was waning. The atmosphere was ripe for
scapegoating, and openly hostile sentiments toward immigration were sweeping
across the state with considerable momentum.
In the midst of the anxiety and agitation, Proposition 187, also known as the
Save our State or the SOS initiative passed easily in 1994 with 58.9% of the vote
(History of California Initiatives 2002). However, its opponents immediately
challenged the new law in court. In 1998, US District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer ruled
in the challengers favor, that most of 187 violated the Supremacy Clause.10
Additionally, ...provisions of 187 relating to the denial of elementary, secondary and
10 The Supremacy Clause says that Federal law trumps State law when the two come in conflict with
one another (US Constitution, art. 6, sec. 2).

higher education, health and social services were all found unconstitutional
(American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California 1998). Proposition 187s
proponents appealed her decision, however the appeal was dropped in 1999 per an
agreement between the two sides (Nieves 1999).
During the year 187 was on the ballot, Ron Unz ran in the Republican
gubernatorial primary against incumbent Governor Pete Wilson. Governor Wilson
was an ardent and vocal supporter of Proposition 187, and he spent much of his
campaign coddling the sentiments from which it came. Unz, on the other hand, took a
more moderate stance on immigration, publicly denouncing 187 in his campaign
against Wilson. In contrast, Unz later went on to support Proposition 209 in 1996,
which eliminated affirmative action for the state. With time, it became apparent that
his opposition to 187 was more likely an attempt to win over moderate Republicans
rather than an accurate representation of his personal views on immigration. Unz lost
the primary that year, but it would not be the end of his involvement in politics, and
more specifically, issues relating to immigration. On the heels of 187, after losing in
the gubernatorial primary to Pete Wilson, Unz began his well-funded campaign to
end bilingual education in California and eventually in Arizona, Colorado, and
Massachusetts (OBrien 1998).
This chapter tells the story of English for the Children from a different angle,
by analyzing the campaigns finance records, and the patterns of political
involvement on the part of its major donors. That is, I examine who made financial

contributions to the Proposition 227 campaign, how much, and when. I also examine
what this donation reveals about their own political identity and its trajectory. I do
this by looking at other significant monetary contributions made by four of the top
five donors, and some of their other social and political affiliations. To introduce
English for the Children, I begin by analyzing the text," what the language itself
reveals, and the general tone of the initiative.
The Semantics of Proposition 227
In many respects the language of proposition 227 is unambiguous. For
instance, the text leaves little to the imagination regarding the authors assessment of
bilingual education. The text states that:
...the public schools of California currently do a poor job of educating
immigrant children, wasting financial resources on costly experimental
language programs whose failure over the past two decades is
demonstrated by the current high drop-out rates and low English
literacy levels of many immigrant children... (CA Education Code ch.
3, art. 2, sec. 305).
It is important to note here that the above argument is drawn into question by the fact
that schools are not legally allowed to inquire into the citizenship status of students,
thus making it very difficult for proponents to substantiate such a claim. 11 12
11 The texts of the four campaigns are slightly different, so in this chapter I look only at the text of
Proposition 227. In addition, 227 serves as model for other initiatives, and a thorough examination of
227 allows for a better understanding of the larger English for the Children campaign.
12 In the 1982 decision in the case of Plyler v. Doe, the US Supreme Court held that, per the Fourteenth
Amendment, unauthorized immigrant children are people in the eyes of the law, and are thus protected
from discrimination. Additionally, in the opinion of the Court, Justice Brennan stated that [i]f the

Furthermore, the methods of bilingual education in California can hardly be
accurately labeled experimental after said decades. These methods include ESL
(English as a Second Language), dual language, and various other transitional and
maintenance approaches, and they have been used for decades, just as the text
suggests. The initiatives proposed remedy to the system that its authors view as
broken is sheltered English immersion for a period ...not normally intended to
exceed one year (CA Education Code ch. 3, art. 2, sec. 305). Following this year,
English language learners, or ELLs are to be placed into mainstream classrooms
without any further assistance in their respective native languages. Violations of this
mandate make teachers subject to lawsuits, forcing them to personally accept
responsibility for paying damages, and legal fees (CA Education Code art. 5, sec.
The text clearly indicates that the goal of this program is not to help ELLs
improve, or even maintain their native languages, it is to force them to assimilate
into the mainstream as quickly as possible, regardless of what may be lost in the
process. It says that ...all children in California public schools shall be taught
English by being taught in English...Once English learners have acquired a good
working knowledge of English, they shall be transferred to English language
State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other
children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some
substantial state interest. No such showing was made here (Plyler v. Doe 1982). The Department of
Education, in issuing policy guidelines for implementation to school, has translated this to mean that
public schools have no reason, and no authority to inquire as to the immigration status of students.

mainstream classrooms (CA Education Code art. 2, sec. 305). The text does not
mention retention or development of the students native language as being a goal of
the new program. Furthermore, I argue that the mainstream, as it is presented in the
text, is not merely linguistic, but also cultural, and to a certain degree, political. I will
revisit this issue later in the chapter (English for the Children).
In the text of the initiative, the authors repeatedly claim that English for the
Children is designed for the sole purpose of assisting immigrant children in their
education and in their lives. It claims that to succeed is to become more like us,
and that there will be no success without knowledge of English, which is the most
important language in the world (CA Education Code ch. 3, art. 1, sec. 300). Yet
there is a very important, and seemingly deliberate error in the text. The semantic
significance of calling all ELL children immigrants suggests that there are other
issues at play. Namely, there are many children bom in the United States who speak
little or no English (Schmidt 2000). California in particular has a considerably large
Spanish-speaking population that consists of immigrants and natural-bom citizens
alike. Yet, there is nothing in the initiative to suggest that the two sub-categories
would be treated any differently from one another, thus both immigrants and
American citizens would feel the impact of proposition 227. The implicit message is
that, irrespective of where they were bom, those who do not speak English cannot
tmly be Americans. Yet, English is not now, nor has it ever been the official
language of the United States.

The initiative text refers to English as a defining characteristic of
Americanism, without which one cannot be a productive member of society. It
states that:
...the public schools of California have a moral obligation and a
constitutional duty to provide all of Californias children, regardless of
their ethnicity or national origins, with the skills necessary to become
productive members of our society, and of these skills, literacy in the
English language is among the most important...(CA Education Code
ch.3, art. 1, sec. 300(c)).
The authors imply that one can do these things as a monolingual English-speaker, but
not as a bilingual, yet well-established research suggests otherwise.
In their book, Immigrant America: A Portrait, Alejandro Portes and Ruben
Rumbaut discuss two studies of elementary school aged children that support
arguments in favor of fostering bilingualism rather than programs that compel
students to be monolingual, such as that codified by Proposition 227. A 1962 study
conducted in Montreal, Canada by Peal and Lambert found that, within a sample of
ten-year-old students,
...the bilingual group performed significantly better than the
monolinguals on a wide range of verbal and nonverbal IQ tests....In
particular, controlling for social class and demographic variables, the
bilinguals in this study performed best on the type of nonverbal tests
involving concept formation and cognitive or symbolic flexibility
(Portes and Rumbaut 1996, 200). 13
13 Peal and Lambert .. .distinguish between two types of bilinguals: true or balanced bilinguals, who
master both languages at an early age and can communicate competently in both, and semi- or
pseudo- bilinguals, who know one language much better than the other and do not use the second
language in communication (Portes and Rumbaut 1997, 200).

Building on this, Portes and Rumbaut go on to cite a study conducted in the San
Diego Unified School District during the 1986-1987 and 1989-1990 school years that
demonstrated a direct and positive correlation between true bilingualism and
academic achievement. Furthermore, the study shows that while fully bilingual
students are doing very well, with consistently above average academic achievement,
limited bilinguals academic performance is below average, and they ...are far more
at risk to leave school than those fluent in both languages... (Portes and Rumbaut
Thus, there is strong evidence that full immersion programs that do not work
to develop the native language not only fail to advantage ELLs, they distinctly
disadvantage them. Full immersion programs leave the students unable to understand
lessons in other subjects, since they are spending all of their energy just trying to
understand what is being said. As a result, ELL students are left behind in all
subjects, including English. So, if teaching students English is not the purpose of this
initiative, what is? I argue that underlying the initiative is an effort to maintain the
status quo and resulting power structures of the linguistic and cultural hegemony of
English (Shannon, 1995).
One way to measure these underlying factors is by analyzing the campaigns
financing; in particular, looking at who is providing financial support, to what extent,
and what this reveals about their political history? I chose this method because it
provides a window through which the initiative can be analyzed without needing to

rely exclusively on official propaganda favoring one side or the other. In using raw
materials, taken directly from the public record, I am able to make a substantiated
claim about the campaign that bypasses the speculations and opinions of secondary
An Introduction to the Donors
While the specific language used by the English for the Children campaign
may have been a strategic attempt to win the votes of those who supported
Proposition 187,1 argue that it is also very much indicative of what lies at the heart of
the initiatives anti-bilingual education push. This claim is supported not only by the
language in the initiatives text, but also by the very nature of the campaigns
financial contributors political preferences and ideologies, revealed through other
contributions and organizational affiliations.
On the website of Unzs organization One Nation/One California, which can
be considered the parent organization of English for the Children, the campaigns
sponsors vocalize their opinions and interpretations of the initiative. The most
prominent and vocal supporter is Ron Unz. In addition to writing the English for the
Children of California initiative, Ron Unz financed it with almost $753,000 of his
own money, amounting to over 58% of the initiatives total funds.15 The majority of
14 See Chapter One for a thorough description of the methods and how they are applied here.
15 Through One Nation/One California, Unz was also involved in supporting other campaigns,
including the successful campaign to recall Nativo Lopez a few years after 227 passed. At the time,

the remaining donations came from just a handful of elite individuals and
organizations, some of whom seem almost out of place at first glance. Many of the
individual donors were corporate executives, lawyers, businessmen, all of them were
wealthy elites, seemingly far removed from the plight of young Latino students
struggling to learn English in the California public schools. A small minority of these
men carried most of the load.16 For the California initiative, the top five contributors
funded over 85% of the campaign, including Unzs contributions totaling 58% (CA
Secretary of State).
Of these top five contributors, only three of themRon Unz and Howard
Ahmanson, Jr. (listed under the name of his organization, Fieldstead and Company),
and William Humewere living in the state of California at the time of the election.
The fact that the top five donors contributed such a large percentage (85%) of the
accumulated financing overshadows the donations under $10,000, which amount to
less than 10% of the total (CA Secretary of State). Though the initiative passed with
61% of the vote, this was clearly not due to an outpouring of local grass roots
Lopez was a school board member in the Santa Ana Unified School District. According to the Los
Angeles City Beat, [w]hen [he] was a member of the.. .board, he made it his mission to find [legal]
loopholes so that most Latino parents could continue to have their children leam subjects in Spanish,
despite the successful English only state initiative of Ron Unz (Romero 2003). He was also the
president of the Mexican American Political Association, which is a political and social advocacy and
support organization for Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans living in the United States
(Mexican American Political Association).
16 All but one of the recorded contributions to the California campaign of over $10,000 were made by
men. The sole female donor was the wife (now ex-wife) of one of the other donors.

financial support during the campaigning period.17 This raises questions as to who
these wealthy contributors were, and why they were so interested in dismantling
Californias bilingual education programs? Where were these donors coming from,
ideologically, politically, and economically, and what does this reveal about English
for the Children? To answer these questions, I looked to the donors themselves,
starting with William Jerry Hume.
William J. Hume
William J. Hume contributed $50,000 to English for the Children of
California, making him the fifth largest contributor. Hume presents a significant link
between the anti-bilingual education initiative and an atmosphere of nervous
animosity with respect to immigration. As head of the San Francisco based company
Basic American Foods, Hume wields considerable financial and political sway in
California politics. In addition to contributing to Rick Santorums various
campaigns, which I detail below, he has been a member of the Heritage Foundations
Board of Trustees since 1993, and he sits on the Hoover Institutions Board of
Overseers.18 According to his Heritage Foundation profile, Hume ...has been an
active leader of business efforts to improve Americas educational system. Appointed
17 Although 227 passed with 61% of the vote, the voting patterns were not consistent across racial
lines. In fact, as Schmidt explains, .. .a Los Angeles Times/CNN exit poll from the June 2, 1998,
primary election in California, found that Latinos voted nearly two to one (37% to 63%) against
Proposition 227.. .while white voters favored the measure by 67 percent to 33 percent (Schmidt 2000,
18 The Hoover Institution and the Heritage Foundation are both conservative think tanks.

by Gov. Pete Wilson to serve on the California State Board of Education, he has
championed such education reforms as school choice" (Heritage Foundation).19 20 He
is quite active in the push for school vouchers, with the ultimate goal of privatizing
the public schools altogether (Heritage Foundation).
Both the Hoover Institution and the Heritage Foundation have been vocal in
the current immigration debate, and both advocate for more restrictive national
policies. Through Hoover Digest (the organizations magazine), the Hoover
Institution has taken a clear position on the immigration debate. In a 1998 essay that
appeared in Hoover Digest, entitled The Case Against Immigration as We Know
It, Peter Brimelow makes his argument against immigration. In this article,
Brimelow outlines why white America should be afraid. He insists that the current
wave of Latino immigrants is different than previous waves.
.. .concentrations [of immigrants] can cause trouble. Immigrants do not
spread all across the United States in a thin, tactful layer just four one-
hundredths of a native-born American thick. They invariably
accumulate in specific localities. When the immigrants' absolute
numbers in these localities pass a certain point, their communities
achieve a critical mass. Their alien languages and cultures become, at
least for a while, self-sustaining. And the natives start asking
themselves, "Are we still living in America?" (Brimelow 1998).
19 During Humes Senate confirmation hearing for the position on the California Board of Education,
he distributed copies of the book The Bell Curve, which, among other things, claims that the authors
can scientifically prove that whites have higher IQs than blacks. He was heavily criticized for doing
this, yet still confirmed (Bacon and Berkowitz 1999).
20 This is a shorter essay adapted from The Case For Limiting Immigration by Peter Brimelow, in
The Debate in the United States over Immigration (1997), edited by Peter Duignan and Lewis H.
Gann, published by the Hoover Press. Brimelow is also the author of Alien Nation: Common Sense
About Americas Immigration Disaster, which was published in 1996 by Harper Perennial.

In this article, Brimelow paints a picture of a brown wave of people swarming out of
control over the US/Mexico border, bringing with them their alien languages and
their high birth rates. Sooner or later, he suggests, immigrants will take over not just
cities, but the entire country (Brimelow 1998).
The tone of the Hoover Digest essay is harsh, although perhaps less subtle
than publications of the Heritage Foundation, another conservative think tank for
which Hume is a member of the board. In a lecture published on the Heritage
Foundation website, Lamar Smith explains the reasons for his belief that the United
States should not give amnesty to unauthorized immigrants, and why there needs to
be stricter enforcement of immigration laws. To support his claim that unauthorized
immigrants are taking Americans jobs, he says the following about the recent
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids on the Swift meatpacking plants:
Recently, federal immigration agents arrested illegal workers at two
large meat-processing companies. At one, they were replaced quickly
by local African-Americans who lined up for the jobs. At the other, the
jobs went immediately to legal immigrants (Smith 2007).
The glaring issue here is race, more so than immigration. While on the surface the
lecture does not seem to be openly hostile, it still carries distinct undertones of racism
and paternalism. Smith is making a statement here. He is essentially saying that
unauthorized immigrants are taking perfectly good jobs away from other low skilled
people of color. In saying this, Smith is also making a value judgment. He is
implying that either unauthorized immigrants are even more expendable and

unwanted than American blacks and authorized immigrants, or that blacks and
authorized immigrants are just one rung up from unauthorized immigrants. Either
way, his failure to mention white workers, since there are low skilled white workers
in the meatpacking industry, suggests that he considers whites to be in a different
echelon altogether; a higher one.
Smith also subtly exploits the residual post 9/11 fear of terrorism that resides
in the collective American consciousness. He draws a link between unauthorized
Mexican immigrants, and violent extremists, namely violent Muslim extremists. He
asserts that .. .those who want to harm us will use any means possible, including our
immigration policy, to do so (Smith 2007). This, he says, is a violation of our good
will and warm generosity toward newcomers to this country (Smith 2007).
As the fifth largest contributor to Proposition 227, William Hume was in a
position of considerable importance within the campaign. Since the campaign
insisted that that it was working to ensure the success and opportunity of young
immigrants, it is alarming that it accepted such a substantial donation from a man
with close ties to these organizations. Both the Hoover Institution and the Heritage
Foundation have expressed hostility toward immigrants and a perceived threat that
increasing numbers of unauthorized immigrants pose to the status quo and the
established racial hierarchy. These apparently contradictory associations call into
question the officially touted logic of the English for the Children campaign. This

dissonance within the campaign becomes even more apparent when examining the
funding patterns of another major donor, Richard Gilder.
Richard Gilder
Richard Gilder donated $90,000 to English for the Children of California,
making him the campaigns third largest contributor. Over the past ten years, Gilder
has also made contributions to Wayne Allard (US Senate R-CO) in 2002, Newt
Gingrich in 1997, Marilyn Musgrave (US House R-CO) in 2002, and Pete Coors in
2004 (Federal Election Commission). He also contributed to a number of political
action committees, which then donated to politicians known for their hostility toward
immigration. These include, but are not limited to Freedom Works PAC, Faith,
Family, and Freedom PAC, the Club for Growth PAC, and Pro-Growth Action Team
PAC (Campaign Money; Federal Election Commission; Open Secrets).
Faith, Family and Freedom PAC is an Evangelical Christian and free
enterprise/free market organization that donated to Tom Tancredos campaign in
2000. Pro-Growth Action Team PAC is Pennsylvania House Republican Patrick
Toomeys leadership PAC, which is geared toward candidates who favor free market
economics, and Evangelical Christian causes. Howard Ahmanson and William Hume
are also regular contributors to Pro-Growth, which in turn contributed to the 21
21 Gilder contributed to several of these candidates on more than one occasion; however, for the
purpose of my argument, I have only included the year of one transaction.

campaigns of Bob Beauprez, Marilyn Musgrave, and Rick Santorum (Campaign
Money; Federal Election Commission).
To emphasize the importance of the financial contributions to these
candidates, I will briefly introduce them, and their respective stances on immigration
related issues. Rick Santorum is a conservative Republican US Senator from
Pennsylvania. He is an Evangelical Christian and is located on the far right of the
ideological spectrum. Santorum advocates expanding the fence along the
US/Mexico border; and an increase in Border Patrol, and National Guard presence on
the border. He strongly opposes any kind of amnesty for unauthorized immigrants
already in the country, and he advocates the declaration of English as the official
language of the United States (On The Issues).
Marilyn Musgrave is a Colorado Republican in the US House of
Representatives. She has a long track record of voting to limit immigration, and
immigrant rights (On The Issues). She was given a rating of 100% by the
conservative immigration group the Federation for American Immigration Reform
(FAIR), which rates politicians based on their votes on immigration issues, giving
them a higher ranking for votes restricting immigrants in one capacity or another
(Federation for American Immigration Reform). Among the votes that earned
Musgrave this ranking was one in favor of a House bill that
.. .would require hospitals to gather and report information on possible
illegal aliens before hospitals can be reimbursed for treating them. The
bill would also make employers liable for the reimbursements if an

undocumented employee seeks medical attention, unless the employer
meets particular conditions for exemption (One The Issues).22 23
Musgrave also advocates for elongating the fence along the US/Mexico border; not
informing would-be border crossers of the presence of the Minuteman Civil Defense
Corps; and she is a cosponsor of H.R. 769, the National Language Act, which would
establish English as the official language of the United States (On The Issues). In
sum, Musgrave is decidedly in favor of restricting immigration and opposed to
immigrant rights.
A Ku Klux Klan website calling itself the Official website of The Knights
Party, USA hails Musgrave and outlines those of her stances which they find
agreeable. The website, whose self-proclaimed motto is [bjringing a message of
hope and deliverance to white Christian America, described Musgrave in a favorable
light (Knights Party, USA). She has...pressed the legislature to pass laws
expanding the right to carry concealed weapons...more stringent immigration laws,
making adoption of children by homosexuals illegal, upholding the rights of ranchers
and farmers, and she opposes slave reparations (Knights Party, USA). I use this
example, not so much to outline Musgraves political positions as to demonstrate the
types of groups with which her politics are well aligned.
22 In reference to the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments; Bill HR
23 The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (often confused with a similar anti-immigration group, the
Minuteman Project, Inc.) is a group of civilians that feel the Federal Government is failing to protect
the US/Mexico border and stop unauthorized crossers from entering the US, and thus take it upon
themselves to do just that (Minuteman Civil Defense Corps).

Wayne Allard, a Republican US Senator, also from Colorado, is another of the
politicians receiving contributions from Richard Gilder, and he too is heavily in favor
of restricting immigration and immigrant rights. Allard supports the building of a
700-mile long fence along the US/Mexico border. He opposes amnesty for
unauthorized immigrants already in the country on the grounds that it would
encourage and reward law-breakers; he applauded the Immigration and Customs and
Enforcement (ICE) raids on the Swift meatpacking plants that resulted in the
deportation of hundreds of workers, many of whom left young children behind;24 25 and,
he vehemently supports the imposition of English as the official language of the
United States (Wayne Allard, Official Website; On the Issues).
Gilder has also contributed to the free market, neo-liberal political action
committee, Freedom Works. While other PACs that Glider has supported have
contributed to the campaigns of Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo,
Freedom Works has give by far the most substantial amount$25,000 between 1998
and 2001. Tancredo, who ran as a candidate in the 2008 Republican presidential
primary, is a vocal opponent of immigration, and immigrant rights. More
specifically, Tancredo speaks out against Latina/o immigrants, most of whom come
from Mexico (Hispanics: A People in Motion 2005). In a recent interview regarding
24 The ICE raids took place at Swift meatpacking plaints in six different states in December of 2006,
including Allards home state of Colorado. Around 1,300 unauthorized immigrant workers were
arrested that day, the majority of them were Mexicans (Swams 2006).
25 Tancredo dropped out of the race before the first primary election actually occurred.

immigration, with John Hawkins on the conservative website, Right Wing News,
Tancredo said:
You know, I'm a Republican, I'm a Conservative, I voted for George
Bush. In many ways, he's a fine President and I'm glad that he's there.
But this achilles [sic] heel that he has on immigration is so threatening
to the survival of this nation that in my mind it begins to overwhelm all
of the good things that he does. He can fight terrorists overseas, but he
leaves our borders so they can come in here and do their thing. Does
that make any sense? We send troops thousands of miles away to fight
terrorists, but we refuse to put them on our own border to keep them
out. Then we tell the Justice Department to find them when they're
here, swimming in a sea of illegals (Hawkins 2007).
The not-so-subtle link that Tancredo is making here is that unauthorized Mexican
immigrants are one and the same as terrorists.
In the same interview, Tancredo goes on to discuss his vision of the future,
should immigration trends be allowed to continue.
I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don't
control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the
point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or
united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a
nation at all. That is the honest to God eventual outcome of this kind
of massive immigration combined with the cult of multiculturalism
that permeates our society.. .There are places right now in East LA and
Southern Texas that you would not honestlythere is absolutely
nothing that you would say makes them part of the United States of
America. They are a separate countryit is (like a) separate country
right now, at this moment (Hawkins 2007).
Tancredo frames the immigration issue as if it were a matter of life or death for the
nation. He wholly divorces the notion of multiculturalism from Americanism, as if
they are utterly incompatible. As the third largest contributor to the Proposition 227

campaign, Gilders association with a PAC that explicitly supports an anti-immigrant
politician like Tancredo, and his entrenched involvement with the Club for Growth,
raises questions about the logic of English for the Children itself. Namely, does the
campaigns acceptance of contributions from Gilder, who also supports a variety of
anti-immigrant politicians and political organizations indicate a tacit or explicit
agreement with said political expressions?
Gilder is intimately linked to the Club for Growth PAC. He is the founder of
the Political Club for Growth for which the Club for Growth is the political action
committee. In addition to funding the campaigns of Tom Tancredo, Mitch
McConnell, Pete Coors, George Allen, Vernon Robinson, Wayne Allard, Bob
Beauprez, and Marilyn Musgrave, Club For Growth PAC also offers a connection
between several major donors to English for the Children. William Hume, William
Dunn, Thomas Klingenstein, James Woodhill, Louis Woodhill, and Robert Hannay,
are all regular contributors to the Club for Growth PAC (although, the latter three
men contributed to English for the Children in Colorado or Arizona, as opposed to
California). Club for Growth is a PAC predominantly centered on economic
concerns, which donates exclusively to Republican candidates, with the exception of
one in 2004, many of whom favor restricting immigration and immigrant rights
(Campaign Money; Federal Election Commission). 26
26 Club for Growth, a (a 501(c)(4)), is also know as Citizens Club for Growth, and makes political
contributions under both names. Although the Federal Election Commission lists the two separately,
they share funds, and even have the same address.

Gilders $90,000 contribution is almost double that of William Hume. He is
an irrefutably important figure within the English for the Children campaign.
Because of this, it is important to examine how he is expressing himself monetarily in
the political realm, particularly with respect to immigration and language issues. He
has been unambiguous in his support of candidates who vocally advocate for
restrictive immigration policy while opposing immigrant rights. With direct
contributions to Wayne Allard, and Marilyn Musgrave, and indirect contributions to
Tom Tancredo, Bob Beauprez, George Allen, Vernon Robinson, and Mitch
McConnell, Gilder leaves little to the imagination with respect to his stance on
immigration issues. Again, this raises questions about English for the Children itself.
The next donor that I will analyze furthers this conflict through his own associations,
making it all the more evident that English for the Children is linked to a broader
effort to reinforce English hegemony and to the restriction of immigration in the
United States.
Fieldstead and Company and Howard
Fieldstead Ahmanson, Jr.
After Ron Unz, the largest of the English for the Children contributors was the
California multimillionaire, Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson, Jr. via his organization,
Fieldstead and Company. Ahmansons contributions to the California campaign
alone totaled $130,000. Additionally, he contributed $10,000 to the Arizona

initiative, and $10,000 to the Colorado initiative, which I will discuss in detail in the
next chapter.27 Ahmanson is the heir to his fathers fortune, and founder of Fieldstead
and Company, a personal organization through which he gives tens of millions of
dollars to support various causes. It is important to note that all donations given by
the organization Fieldstead and Company can be understood to be contributions
directly from Howard Ahmanson, Jr., since it is his private organization, funded by
his personal fortune (Discovery Institute).
Through an examination of Ahmansons contribution history it becomes clear
where he stands politically and socially. Ahmansons most notable contributions in
the context of this paper have been to candidates and organizations that heavily favor
free market economics and Evangelical Christianity. Ahmanson also has a history of
contributing to the campaigns of candidates that are decidedly in favor of restricting
immigration, such as Rick Santorum. Yet, the most glaring contribution that he made
was to then Chief Deputy Attorney General of California, Republican David Stirling,
in his bid for Attorney General in 1998, the same year as Proposition 227. Ahmanson
donated $185,000 to Stirlings campaign, which he ultimately lost to Democrat, Bill
Lockyer (California Online Voter Guide).
In a 2004 article published on the website, Stirling
articulates his positions on immigration, multiculturalism, and multilingualism. In
27 This amount includes those listed by the California Secretary of States office as late contributions
(those made after the election), which are equally important since much of the funding for the other
three campaigns came from money given to the California English for the Children campaign.

the article, entitled Clintons Legacy of Multilingualism: Accommodating
Immigrants Over Reason, Stirling passionately protests a 2000 Clinton executive
order, which mandated that non-English speakers be provided with a translator upon
visiting a hospital or doctors office. Stirling is clear from the start that he is
predominantly concerned with the illegal aliens flooding across the border from
Mexico (Stirling 2004).28
In the article, Stirling says that this ...federal edict issued during the waning
months of the Clinton administration raised immigrant rights to a whole new level
Stirling 2004). Today he says, our government mandates that the thousands of
non-English-speaking, indigent immigrants who pour into the country illegally be
spoken to in their native languages by the nations physicians and hospitals...
(Stirling 2004). In effect he is saying that to be spoken to in ones own language
should not be a right that an unauthorized immigrant is afforded, even when it comes
to understanding and being understood in a conversation with her/his doctor. Stirling
insists that this move on the part of the Clinton administration went above and beyond
rights already guaranteed to these immigrants. As I discussed above, immigrants are
not the only people living in the United States that do not speak English. Thus he is
28 For the sake of clarification, Clintons executive order states that ... [t]he Federal
Government provides and funds an array of services that can be made accessible to otherwise
eligible persons that are not proficient in the English language.... [Federal financial
assistance] recipients must follow [accompanying guidelines] to ensure that the programs and
activities they normally provide in English are accessible to LEP [limited English proficient]
persons and thus do not discriminate on the basis of national origin in violation of title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Clinton 2000).

suggesting that those who do not speak English are not truly American, in essence
falling under the category of immigrant, regardless of their place of birth or
citizenship status. In donating almost two hundred thousands dollars to the Stirlings
campaign, Ahmanson demonstrated his explicit support for Stirlings strong
opposition to immigrant rights.
However, there are other, equally alarming political activities in which
Ahmanson is involved. Though at first glance it may seem that his strong ties to the
pro-globalization and the Evangelical movements are wholly unrelated to the
campaign to end bilingual education, I argue that they are in fact central to explaining
his involvement. Howard Ahmanson is heavily involved in the Christian
Reconstructionist and Dominionist movements. Mark Juergensmeyer, in his book
Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, describes
Reconstruction Theology as being at ...the extreme right wing of Dominion
Theology (Juergensmeyer 2003, 27). Dominion Theology [is] the position that
Christianity must reassert the dominion of God over all things, including secular
politics and society, and this viewpoint is notably promoted and propagated by
Moral Majority co-founder Rev. Jerry Falwell, and televangelist Pat Robertson
(Juergensmeyer 2003, 27). Reconstructionists
...feel it necessary to reconstruct Christian society by turning to the
Bible as the basis for a nations law and social order.,.[T]hey reason
that Christians, as the new chosen people of God, are destined to
dominate the world...The Reconstructionists posses a postmillennial
view of history. That is, they believe that Christ will return to earth

only after the thousand years of religious rule that characterizes the
Christian idea of the millennium, and therefore Christians have an
obligation to provide the political and social conditions that will make
Christs return possible (Juergensmeyer 2003, 28).
Other noteworthy subscribers to this theology are Rev. Michael Bray, the convicted
abortion clinic bomber, and Rev. Paul Hill, who was convicted of murdering the
Florida abortion clinic doctor, John Britton, and his bodyguard, James Barrett
(Juergensmeyer 2003).29
According to Juergensmeyer, Reconstruction Theology is also closely related
to Christian Identity, a movement to which the convicted bomber of the Oklahoma
City Federal building in 1995, Timothy McVeigh, has been linked (Juergensmeyer
2003, 31). The theology of Christian Identity is based on racial supremacy and
biblical law (Juergensmeyer 2003, 31), and it has been the cornerstone of groups
such as the Aryan Nation, and the Ku Klux Klan (Juergensmeyer 2003, 31-33, 150).
These examples demonstrate these theologies potential for hostile absolutism, and
violent radicalism. While Christian Identity and Reconstruction Theology are not one
and the same, they are very similar in the way they conceptualize the world, and the
way they think it should be. Needless to say, neither of these movements is
particularly fond of multiculturalism, multilingualism, or protecting immigrant rights.
It is hard to imagine a faithful Christian Reconstructionist, such as Howard
29 The bombing took place in Dover, Delaware in 1984. The murders were committed in Pensacola
Florida in 1994. In that incident, Dr. Brittons wife was also wounded, but survived. There are many
other examples of violence by members of this movement (Juergensmeyer 2003).

Ahmanson on a crusade to protect the rights of Latina/o immigrants to succeed by
diligently fostering their learning of the dominant language. Moreover, Ahmanson is
not the only major English for the Children contributor that can be definitively linked
to Dominionist forms of Christianity.
To proliferate the ideas of Reconstructionists Theology, subscribers have
created a number of institutes and foundations. Among them is Rousas J.
Rushdoonys Chalcedon Foundation, of which Ahmanson was a member of the board
of directors for over two decades (Benen 2000). According to the organizations
website, ...Chalcedon is a non-profit 501(c)(3) and Christian educational
organization devoted to research, publishing, and promoting Christian reconstruction
in all areas of life (Chalcedon Foundation).30 The website states that Chalcedon's
activities include foundational and leadership roles in Christian reconstruction...[with
an] emphasis on the Cultural or Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and the necessity
of a return to Biblical Law...(Chalcedon Foundation). In response to allegations of
racism, the Chalcedon Foundation says
[w]e do not believe that one race is inherently superior to another, or
that only one sector of the race is to take dominion as
Christians...Chalcedon supports only one form of racism: God
blesses, nourishes, and honors the Royal Race of the Redeemed, all of
those of whatever physical race that have placed their faith and trust in
Jesus Christ, and God curses the race of the First Adam, all of those
who live in unbelief, rebellion, and works-based righteousness (Rom.
5:12-21). (Chalcedon Foundation)31
30 Found under the subsection entitled The Ministry of Chalcedon.
31 Can be located the section entitled What We Believe.

However, it is indeed from the beliefs of the Reconstructionist that some of the most
violent and vocal white-supremacist groups get their notions of their own racial and
religious superiority. This kind of doublespeak is typical of the Chalcedon
Foundation, and as other social scientists have documented, is indicative of a trend in
language among neoconservatives and the new right (Omi and Winant 1994).
In an article written by a contributing editor to the Chalcedon Report32
entitled, Conquest of Aztlan: Will Mexican Separatists Dismember America?33
Lee Duigon reviews the film Conquest of Aztlan. Duigon criticizes the film,
saying that playing on our emotions, [it] muddies the waters. He then goes
on to say that
[t]he Aztlan position is simply absurd. What if the United States, in a
fit of suicidal do-goodism, were to hand over 20 states to the Chicano
separatists? After theyd succeeded in turning them into another
impoverished, corrupt, Third World despotism, where would they go
for jobs and freedom? Converting California to a province of Mexico
would only, in the long run, turn it into Mexico (Duigon 2005).
Such internal contradictions are characteristic of Chalcedon rhetoric. In the review,
Duigon takes a paternalistic and patronizing stance toward Mexicans, saying that
most of them are harmlessin a decidedly belittling tone. He then goes on to explain
that we should not worry about the Aztlan separatists because they are merely the
refuse of another impoverished, corrupt, Third World despotism (Duigon 2005).
He makes all of the formal gestures that he feels are necessary to establish himself as
32 The Chalcedon Report is a Chalcedon Foundation publication.
33 The term Aztlan references the Aztec homeland, which includes much of what is now the West and
Southwest United States.

not racist, then he goes on the describe exactly why we should not trouble ourselves
with Mexicans, in a most dehumanizing manner.
Howard Ahmansons donations to the California, Arizona and Colorado
English for the Children campaigns totaled $150,000, making him the largest
contributor after Ron Unz. His prominence within, and importance to the campaign
increases the significance of his political associations and the political statements he
makes through monetary contributions. Ahmansons large contribution to David
Stirlings campaign for California Attorney General in 1998 is one such important
political statement. Stirlings clear opposition to immigrant rights does not
compliment Ahmansons donations to a campaign that claims to be championing the
rights of those very same immigrants. As such, it is reasonable to question the logic
of such a donation, and the purpose of English for the Children. As a regular donor to
the Pro-Growth Action Team, Ahmanson has given indirect contributions to Bob
Beauprez, Marilyn Musgrave, and Rick Santorum, all of whom are vocal in their
opposition to immigrant rights, and active in the movement to restrict immigration.
He is also an active member of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, which has
been the bedrock for instances of violent radicalism, and is linked to white
supremacist organizations like the Aryan Nation, and the Ku Klux Klan. However, it
is in the context of the anti-bilingual education movement that these associations
become significant to this research. Political statements such as those outlined above
stand in stark contrast to the purported mission of English for the Children. This, in

combination with the other evidence compiled here suggest that English for the
Childrens aim is not to assist immigrant children, but rather to inhibit them. Yet still
further contention can be found in another candidate for whom Ahmanson is a major
patronGloria Matta Tuchman.
Gloria Matta Tuchman and the race for
Superintendent of Schools
Of the top five contributors to the California campaign, three of them also
contributed to Gloria Matta Tuchmans run for California Superintendent of Public
Schools in the 1998 general election. Howard Ahmanson donated $225,000, William
Hume donated $120,000, and Ron Unz donated $10,000 to her campaign (California
Online Voter Guide).34 Tuchman is listed as the coauthor of English for the Children,
and is deeply involved in California immigration politics. Andrea Lampros, in an
April 1998 article in the Contra Costa Times on an interview with Tuchman,
describes her thusly:
The daughter of Mexican immigrants, Tuchman tends to adopt
positions that are unpopular with Hispanics. She joined the board of
U.S. Englisha controversial nationwide organization that promotes
English as the official languagein the late 1980s. She is a
Republican who supported Proposition 187, the statewide ballot
initiative, recently ruled unconstitutional, that sought to cut social
services and public schooling to undocumented immigrants. Tuchman
has heralded bilingual education reform in California and nationwide
for more than a decade (Lampros, 6 April 1998).
34 Additionally, Richard Riordan, who donated $10,000 to the Colorado campaign donated $15,000 to
Tuchmans campaign (California Online Voter Guide; Colorado Secretary of State).

None of these facts about Tuchman are secrets. She has been vocal about her
positions for some time, and defends them, often by citing her own ancestry as
evidence that the movements she supports are not racist and/or anti-immigrant. This,
I contend, is a weak argument. I argue that Unz involved Tuchman in the campaign,
and listed her as a coauthor in an attempt at legitimization. However, Tuchmans
involvement does not change anything with respect to the logic and/or outcome of the
initiative. Yet, it would have the potential to coerce voters into thinking a certain way
about English for the Children. That is, the public could be manipulated into thinking
of Tuchmans presence in the campaign as indicative of broader support in the
Latina/o community, when this was in fact not the case (Schmidt 2000). In turn, this
could lead some voters to support the initiative when they would otherwise be
It might seem unreasonable and unlikely that a Latina, daughter of Mexican
immigrants, would support an initiative that many argue would be harmful to
immigrant children. Yet within the anti-immigration movement, it is not uncommon
to use immigrants to draw attention away from certain aspects of a given campaign.
For example, US English uses this same technique in naming a Chilean immigrant as
that organizations Chairman, which I will discuss in more detail later in this chapter.
This is not to say that any of these organizations would openly admit to this sly form
of deception, they likely would not. Irrespective of what her intentions may or may
not be, Tuchmans actions discredit her claims that the initiative is merely an

altruistic attempt to help the helpless, and that involving her in the campaign should
not ease the anxieties of those who suspect that 227 is harmful to ELL students.
Other scholars have examined the new rights use of less conspicuous
language when framing racial issues.35 Omi and Winant in their book Racial
Formations in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s, say that
[t]he new right generally does not display explicit racism. It has
gained political currency by rearticulating racial ideology. As we have
argued, rearticulating does not require an explicitly racial discourse,
and would in fact be severely limited by any direct advocacy of racial
inequality (Omi and Winant 1994, 127).
Just as many of the people and organizations described above, Tuchman and Unz do
not use the openly racist language of the pre-Civil Rights era. They both use the
language of equality and opportunity as a means of disguising the thinly veiled
logic of English for the Children. Instead of focusing on the target group itself, the
initiative focuses on the methods being used to teach them. This, Omi and Winant
explain, is another tool used by the new right to draw attention away from their racial
In the aftermath of the 1960s, any effective challenge to the egalitarian
ideals framed by the minority movements could no longer rely on the
racism of the past. Racial equality had to be acknowledged as a
desirable goal. But the means of equality, and the proper means for
achieving it, remained matters of considerable debate (Omi and
Winant 1994, 117).
35 The Heritage Foundation is one of the organizations that Omi and Winant describe as being a part of
the new right.

This notion is critically important to understanding English for the Children, which
focuses on the means by which immigrant children should be taught, and for
deconstructing the logic behind it. Yet, there was another dimension to Tuchmans
involvement that was directly related to her candidacy for the position of
Article 4(316) of the proposition gives the authority to allocate funding for the
new language program to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Schoolsthe
position for which Tuchman ran later that same year. If Tuchman had won the race,
she would have had the authority to fund, or not fund what remained of native
language instruction. Unz surely knew of Tuchmans intention to run in the 1998
general election at the time of the June vote, and he also certainly knew of her support
for Proposition 187.36 Just as concerning, however, is Tuchmans involvement with
the English only organization, US English.
The objective of US English is to establish English as the sole and official
language of the United States (US English). US English is another organization that
fits the patterns described by Omi and Winant. One way in which US English has
attempted to legitimize its position, and superficially separate itself from issues of
race is by placing Latina/o immigrants on its board of directors. Yet when the
organization is scrutinized more closely, there is little doubt as to the logic of its
English-only project.
36 English for the Children was on the ballot for the June 1998 election.

US English and the English Only Movement
US English states that it is .dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the
English language in the United States (US English).37 The organization is highly
active in both state and federal level pushes for official English. However, they are
not at all satisfied with symbolic declarations that, in reality, are not implemented
and/or enforced. Using similar language to that found in the English for the Children
initiative, US English states that ...the passage of English as the official language
will help to expand opportunities for immigrants to learn and speak English, the
single greatest empowering tool that immigrants must have to succeed (US English).
Nowhere in the organizations history or documents does it specify as to how
declaring an official language will help immigrants learn English. The organization
appears to be making no such comparable effort to establish programs through which
said immigrants might accomplish such a goal. After all, learning a new language is
certainly not an easy feat.
US English makes it quite clear that they conceive of immigrants from Latin
America, and Mexico in particular, as being different than the white European
immigrants of the past, and even Asian immigrants. In a purportedly benign article
by the current US English Chairman and CEO, Mauro E. Mujica, American
37 From the About U.S. English section of the official website.

Immigration: An Overview, outlines the organizations version of immigration
history. In the article, Mujica says
There are two diametrically opposed opinions on immigration policy
at the beginning of the 21st century: that of no immigrants; and that
of open borders. Each has its own supporters. Some see the rapid
growth of the population as a key to the revitalization of America and
a logical continuation of the melting pot tradition, while others see it
as an undesirable departure from Americas European heritage.
According to current projections, the population will rise from 260
million to 400 million people over the next five years, and 10 percent
of that growth will be due to post-1995 immigration (Mujica, 10).
In this passage Mujica describes the immigration debate in the language of absolutes;
that is, totally open borders, or absolutely no immigration. This is a fallacy.
However, in claiming that there are only two sides to the debate, he is putting himself
and his organization in a position in which they much choose a side. As he makes
clear in other parts of the article, he does not consider the new wave of Latino
immigrants to be a part of the supposed melting pot. He says
...some people believe in a racial and largely ethnic definition of the
American identity. Since the majority of the earliest Americans
came from the British Isles...American identity has been defined in
terms of the Anglo-Protestant culture and language (Mujica, 10).
While he does not explicitly say which of the views he and his organization
subscribes to in either of these quotes, it can be inferred by the general tone and
layout of the article. US English wants no immigrants.
In addition to Tuchmans direct involvement with US English, the majority of
the elite English for the Children donors supported politicians who were active in the

English only movement. The English only movement has many things in common
with English for the Children, both symbolically and in desired outcome. The
proponents of Proposition 227, as well as those of US English have clearly expressed
that they are interested in assimilation and homogeneity, not multilingualism and
multiculturalism. The logical consistency between the two movements, and the
involvement of 227 proponents like Tuchman are telling. In sharing supporters,
donors, and rhetoric with the English only movement, English for the Children aligns
itself with a larger campaign that is working to maintain English hegemony, and by
extension, Anglo hegemony.
Since the donors to the English for the Children of California campaign were
few in number, I chose to focus on only the most significant of the elite donorsRon
Unz, William Hume, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., and Richard Gilder, and the ways in
which they have expressed themselves politically through monetary contributions to
political candidates and political organizations. The founder of English for the
Children, Ron Unz, was the largest financial donor to the California campaign by far,
contributing about 58% of the total funds. William Hume, who contributed $50,000
to English for the Children of California, is a politically active conservative who is a
board member of both the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution, both of
which are conservative think tanks and active proponents for restricting immigration.

Hume was appointed as a member of the California State Board of Education by
former Governor, and champion of Proposition 187, Pete Wilson.
As members of the Club for Growth PAC, both Hume and Richard Gilder
made indirect contributions to the campaigns of several opponents of immigration
and immigrant rights, including Bob Beauprez, Wayne Allard, Marilyn Musgrave,
Mitch McConnell, Vernon Robinson, and George Allen. Gilder also made direct
contributions to Allard, Musgrave, and Pete Coors, and indirect contributions to the
campaign of Tom Tancredo through the Faith Family and Freedom PAC, and
Freedom Works PAC.
Multimillionaire Howard Ahmanson, Jr., an active member of Christian
Reconstructionist movement, made considerable financial contributions to David
Stirling in his campaign for California Attorney General. Since monetary
contributions are an accepted way to participate in the political process in this
country, it is all the more important that the political stances made by the donors,
which are analyzed in this chapter are inconsistent with the purported aim of the
English for the Children campaign.
The issues I have raised here go to the very heart of the language debate. All
of the top five financial contributors, again, totaling about 93% of the English for the
Children of California funding, are wealthy, white, English-speaking men. Together,
they represent the very essence of white privilege. These men have pooled their
resources for the purpose of destroying bilingual education for limited English

proficient student in the state of California, and beyond. English and whiteness go
hand in hand, in that the dominance of English in this country is an expression white
hegemonic power. Over centuries of European colonization the power of language as
tool of control has been shown time and time again. This power is both a symbolic
and a de facto means of excluding certain groups from participating in the political
process. To declare that the dominant groups language is the sole language of power
and government is to deliberately disenfranchise and alienate all those who fall under
the control of that government, but do not speak that language. By dismantling the
bilingual education system, and replacing it with an ineffective, and insufficient one
year full immersion program, English for the Children ensures that those LEP
children will remain subordinate and unthreatening to those in control, and to the
white hegemonic status quo. This is supported not only by the demographics of the
campaigns financial supporter, but also by their connections to racist and anti-
immigrant people and organizations.

With a win under their belts in California, English for the Children proponents
took their initiative on the road. However, while the scenery changed, English for the
Children did not. Many of the main characters in the Proposition 227 saga
reappeared as important supporters of the campaigns in Arizona in 2000, and in
Colorado and Massachusetts in 2002. As the initiative migrated from one state to the
next, certain central patterns remained. English for the Children retained its primary
purposeto dismantle bilingual educationand consequently, many of its major
financial supporters. This chapter picks up where Chapter Three left off, analyzing
English for the Children as it manifested itself in the subsequent years after California
Proposition 227. I look first at the political history of Arizona and examine the
campaign finance patterns of English for the Children of Arizona (Proposition 203). I
then follow the initiative through 2002 with the campaigns in Colorado (Amendment
31) and Massachusetts (Ballot Issue 2). Throughout, I demonstrate how the campaign
finance patterns in these three states further support my argument that English for the
Childrens mission to dismantle bilingual education is an attempt to reinforce the
already existing social and governmental hegemony of English, while restricting
immigration and immigrant rights in the process.

Arizona Proposition 203 (2000)
Two years after voters approved California Proposition 227, Ron Unz took his
English for the Children campaign to Arizona, successfully getting Proposition 203
on the ballot and passed into law by voters in 2000. Arizona, which shares a border
with the Mexican state of Sonora, has a large number of Spanish-speaking
immigrants. Not surprisingly, immigration has long been an important issue in the
state, which is not one know for leniency when it comes to unauthorized immigrats.
This is clearly demonstrated by a 2004 initiative, Proposition 200 (the Protect
Arizona Now initiative), which resembles Californias Proposition 187 in many ways.
It too is designed to limit immigrants access to education, healthcare, and many
public services.
Proposition 203, even more so than with the California initiative, lacked any
kind of outpouring of popular financial support. In total, there were only ten donors,
not including the considerable in-kind and monetary contributions from the English
for the Children of California campaign. Had the initiative had broad popular support
it would not be unreasonable to expect that there would have been some significant
number of small donations on the order of $10 to $100. These small contributions
would be made more as a declaration of support and approval than they would be to
actually fund such an expensive campaign. Of those ten donors, only six made
contributions of $1,000 or more, and among them were Ron Unz, and Howard

Ahmansons Fieldstead and Company, the top two financial supporters of the
California initiative. The newcomers to the English for the Children campaign were
Robert Hannay, David Reese, Thomas Klingenstein, and an English-only
organization, English Language Advocates, which is now known as ProEnglish.
(Arizona Secretary of State; California Secretary of State)
Eighty-one percent of the funding for the Arizona initiative came from
internal contributions from the English for the Children of California campaign, in the
form of both monetary contributions (totaling $12,850) and in-kind contributions
(worth $172,521.76) (Arizona Secretary of State).38 This is significant for a number
of reasons. It indicates that English for the Children was either unable to, or
uninterested in soliciting the help of local Arizonans in funding the campaign to end
bilingual education in their state. Proposition 203 was not a homegrown initiative
and, with major donors lined up and ready, there was no financial need for a public
outpouring of small-scale donations. In fact, less than $2,000 of the total reported
funds even came from people living in Arizona at the time (Arizona Secretary of
State). Although this pattern is more pronounced in the Arizona and Massachusetts
campaigns, it is also noticeable with the Colorado initiative.
Since there was a significant amount in late contributions made to English for
the Children of California, it is likely that the initiatives supporters intended early on
38 It is important to note here that, while Ron Unz did give monetary contributions to all the campaigns
in his own name, all of the contributions made under the name English for the Children are listed as
having the same Palo Alto, California address as Ron Unz.

to take their anti-bilingual education movement elsewhere. Although the campaign
incurred a considerable debt by the time of the election, the loans came almost
exclusively from Ron Unz himself. Thus, it is likely that late contributions were
intended to help fund an ongoing campaign rather than paying off debt. Since such a
large percentage of the funding for Proposition 203 came in the form of in-kind
contributions from the California campaign, much of the analysis of the donors from
the previous campaign in California are applicable here, and in Massachusetts and
Colorado. Since this is the case, this section focuses primarily on the new donors
rather than on those already discussed.
Colorado Political History and Amendment 31
Just as they did in Arizona, supporters brought English for the Children to
Colorado and Massachusetts as ballot initiatives in 2002. Colorado already had an
established Latino population for many years at the time (Hispanics: A People in
Motion 2005, 6). Thanks to a considerable push against the initiative, Colorado
Amendment 31 did not pass, but it took many people by surprise. Colorado has long
been a socially conservative state and has a history with the anti-bilingual education
movement. The most notable, and successful anti-bilingual education push took
place in the Denver Public School district (DPS) in the late nineties. The move was
spearheaded by then DPS Superintendent Irv Moskowitz, and it required all children 39
39 Late contributions to the California campaign came from Fieldstead and Company, Richard Gilder,
the California Republican Party, Ron Unz, and others.

to be placed in English-speaking classrooms after no more than three years with
native-language instruction (Illescas 1999). The vast majority of the students affected
were Latina/o, many of whom came from Mexico as immigrants. While this measure
was passed by the school board, not by popular vote, it set the stage for the state-wide
English for the Children initiative just a few years later.
More recently, Colorado has seen a strong push to restrict the number of
unauthorized immigrants in the state, and to more severely punish those already there
(Kim 2006).40 Several of the people who donated to the Colorado initiative have a
history of contributing to politicians and political organizations that advocate for a
more restrictive immigration policy, and a neoconservative project more generally.
Among them are the English Language Political Action Committee (yet another
English-only organization), New Yorker and Claremont Institution board member,
Thomas Klingenstein, Howard Ahmansons Fieldstead and Company, and Texans
Peter Schaeffer, James Woodhill, and Louis Woodhill.
English Language Political Action Committee (ELPAC)
One of the more politically significant contributors to the Colorado campaign
was the English-only organization, English Language Political Action Committee
(ELPAC), which contributed $12,500 (Colorado Secretary of State). In a similar
fashion to US English and ProEnglish (which I will discuss in detail later in the
40 House Bill 1023 being one example.

chapter) claims that its goals are policy oriented, and that it is primarily concerned
with the establishment of English as the official language of the United States.
However, the financial contributions that English Language PAC has made in the last
eight years suggest that there is another dimension to its advocacy. In 2000, 2002,
and 2004, ELPAC contributed thousands of dollars to the various campaigns of Tom
Tancredo, the conservative US Representative from Colorado discussed in detail in
the last chapter ( ELPAC clearly considered Tancredos
advocacy for the restriction of immigration from Latin American countries in
particular, and the restriction of immigrant rights, to be consistent with its own
project (On The Issues). ELPAC also donated to US Representative from Colorado,
Marilyn Musgraves 2004 campaign, and to Gloria Matta Tuchmans 2000 bid for the
House of Representatives (Federal Election Commission). Yet, Tancredo and
Musgrave are not even the most outspoken immigration opponent that ELPAC
ELPAC made thousands of dollars in contributions in 2004 to the North
Carolina congressional campaign of Republican Vernon Lucius Robinson. People
For the American Way (PFAW), a self-labeled progressive organization quotes one of
Robinsons radio campaign ads as follows:
The aliens are here but they didnt come in a spaceship, they came
across our unguarded Mexican border by the millions. Theyve filled
our criminal courtrooms and invaded our schools. They sponge off the
American taxpayer by clogging our welfare lines and our hospital
emergency rooms; theyve even taken over the DMV. These aliens

commit heinous crimes against us...They commit crimes but wont
commit to learn our language...Vernon Robinson will secure our
borders, cut off the welfare payments, and once and for all make
English our official language. Press 1 for English? NO! Vote Vernon
Robinson for English (People for the American Way).41
Robinson does not waste time mincing words, or coding his language when it comes
to immigration, language politics, and race ( Neither does
another of Robinsons patrons, the anti-immigration organization, US Immigration
Reform PAC, which says on its website that it believes that immigration-swollen
populations of the magnitude currently projected by the Census Bureau will spell
environmental, social, and political disaster for the United States (US Immigration
Reform Political Action Committee).
English Language Political Action Committee has openly supported some of
the most xenophobic politicians and candidates of recent decades. Vernon Robinson,
Tom Tancredo and Marilyn Musgrave all advocated for restricting immigration and
immigrant rights, and for the declaration of English as the official language without
skipping a beat. ELPACs financial contribution patterns demonstrate the
increasingly blurry line between these two purportedly different movements. By
accepting donation from ELPAC, English for the Children has located itself in the
same ideological territory. However, the involvement of Peter Schaeffer and the
Woodhill brothers is arguably even more alarming.
41 Found in the section entitled Right-Wing Outrage: Vernon Robinson.

Texans for Amendment 31: Peter Schaeffer,
The Brothers Woodhill, and CRACK
In October of 2002, less than a month before the November election in which
Amendment 31 was to be decided, three Texas business associates in the software
industry donated a combined total of $28,000 into the English for the Children of
Colorado campaign. They were Peter Schaeffer, the founder of Huston-based Neon
Systems, and his associates, one-time Neon Systems board members, and twin
brothers Louis and Jim Woodhill. Aside from the now familiar peculiarity of such
intense out-of-state interest in dismantling Colorados bilingual education programs,
the Texas crew was heavily involved in neoconservative politics (Colorado Secretary
of State; Neon Systems, Inc. 2001).
Peter Schaeffer made several political campaign contributions of interests,
which are likely indicative of his larger political position. He has donated to Vernon
Robinson ($1,000 in 2004), Mitch McConnell ($2,300 in 2007), Tom Tancredo
($2,300 in 2007), and to the anti-immigrant group Americans for Legal Immigration
Political Action Committee (ALIPAC) (News Meat; Federal Election Commission).
While ALIPAC claims, on the one hand, that it has no bone to pick with immigrants
who come the United States legally, other statements on their website contradict this.
ALIPAC uses its website a platform to advocate for a now familiar battery of anti-
immigrant causes, ranging from mass deportation, to stricter laws and increased
border patrols (Americans for Legal Immigration).

The Woodhill twins, and Jim in particular, have an even more pronounced
statement to make than Schaeffer. Between the two of them, the Woodhills have
donated many tens of thousands of dollars to the Club for Growth in recent years.
Club for Growth, as I discussed in more detail in the preceding chapter, has donated
to Tom Tancredo, Mitch McConnell, George Allan, Vernon Robinson, Bob
Beauprez, Marilyn Musgrave, Wayne Allard, and Pete Coors. They are heavily
invested in the issues that Club for Growth supports. Yet both have also expressed
themselves independently via monetary contributions to Tom Tancredo ($2,300 each
in 2007), Vernon Robinson ($2,000 from Louis, and $1,200 from Jim, both in 2004),
and Louis has also contributed to Marilyn Musgrave ($1,000 in 2002) (Federal
Election Commission). Since Jim Woodhill considers influencing public policy to be
one of his hobbies, it is not surprising that his involvement with English for the
Children is not the extent of his political participation. He is a significant contributor
to the conservative Manhattan and Cato Institutes, but more significantly, to an
organization that calls itself CRACK, of which he is also an Advisory Board member
and Huston chapter coordinator (; Tanner 2007).
CRACK, which is a painful and contrived acronym for Children Requiring a
Caring Kommunity, has twenty-three chapters in cities across the country, including
Huston, the chapter with which Jim Woodhill is predominantly involved. CRACK
has also manifest itself under the name Project Prevention, and was started in the late
nineties by a woman named Barbara Harris as a means of preventing alcohol and

drug-addicted women from having children (Scully 2000). Helping to improve
access to birth control for drug-addicted women is one of its goals, but CRACK also
endorses sterilization for these same women. In her article Cracking Open CRACK:
Unethical Sterilization Movement Gains Momentum, West Virginia University
College of Law Professor Judith Scully quotes Harris as saying We dont allow dogs
to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted
puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children (Scully 2000)
(Tanner 2007; Yeoman 2001).
The organization offers cash payments to drug addict women who undergo
either surgical sterilization, or long-term chemical birth control (Scully 2000;
Yeoman 2001). Furthermore, CRACK has been known to openly target poor women
of color. Scully explains that
[t]o solicit clients, CRACK has placed large billboards in black and
Latino communities in Los Angeles. The billboard advertisements
offer to pay $200 to drug users in exchange for their sterilization.
Some of the billboards simply say, Dont Let A Pregnancy Ruin Your
Drug Habit (Scully 2000).
Harris ambition did not stop there, however. She lobbied the California state
legislature, albeit unsuccessfully, to make it a crime for an addict to have a baby, for
which the mother would be put into jail unless she agreed to long-term birth control,
or to sterilization (Yeoman 2001). What is more, many of the women who take
CRACKS offer end up putting the money right back into their addiction,
exacerbating their drug problem (Yeoman 2001). However, it is not CRACKS ill-

conceived methods that are the most concerning. Their unabashed targeting of
certain racial groups for coerced sterilization is a thinly veiled program of eugenics
designed to restrict the reproductive choice and freedom of certain populations and
not others. By CRACKs own estimation, the overwhelming majority of women
getting the CRACK treatment are more black and Latina rather than white (Scully
2000). In the 1974 case Relf v. Weinberger, a Washington DC District Court ruled
that the use of terms like voluntary and agree are entirely inappropriate in
circumstances in which a person is subject to coercion, even if that person is fully
informed (.Relf v. Weinberger 1974; Tanner 2007; Yeoman 2001; Scully 2000)
As coordinator of the Huston chapter of CRACK, Jim Woodhill is far from
being an innocent bystander or merely an uninformed financial donor. This is further
evidenced by his association with the Cato and Manhattan Institutes, and his pattern
of supporting political candidates such as Marilyn Musgrave, Vernon Robinson, and
Tom Tancredo. None of these three donors, Jim Woodhill, Louis Woodhill, or Peter
Schaeffer reflect the purported driving force behind English for the Childrento help
immigrant children succeed. All three men have shown their support for anti-
immigrant candidates and politicians through their financial contributions. Louis
Woodhill, however, has taken his involvement to a much more alarming level with
his involvement with an organization that coerces drug-addicted women into a
sterilization program in exchange for cash.

English Language Political Action Committee, Peter Schaeffer, and Jim and
Louis Woodhill were the only significant donors that gave to the Amendment 31
campaign, but not to any of the other three English for the Children campaigns. The
involvement of each of them further supports the argument that English for the
Children not quite what it claims to be. Through their political associations and
donations, they have linked the campaign to a larger anti-immigration movement, and
to a wider movement to assert racial and linguistic hegemony.
Massachusetts Political History and Ballot Issue Two
While Massachusetts did not have an established Latina/o population like
Colorado, it did have an emerging Latina/o population that was growing rapidly
(Hispanics: A People in Motion 2005, 6). With these changing demographics came
new tensions, creating a climate in which voters were more receptive to initiatives
like English for the Children. The Massachusetts initiative was approved by voters
even though English for the Children spent over $250,000 more in Colorado than in
Massachusetts. Contradictorily, the Massachusetts campaign mirrored Arizonas with
respect to the number of donors it attracted. Not including the donations from one
English for the Children campaign to another, there were only nine total contributors,
including Ron Unz, and ProEnglish. Of those nine, only six gave $1,000 or more,
and only two gave more than $5,000. Ron Unz, and donations from other English for
the Children campaigns accounted for $147,500, nearly three quarters of the total

funds received by that campaign (Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth).
This again suggests that the initiative lacked a popular outpouring of grassroots
support. In fact, the Massachusetts campaign did not report any large donations for
anyone who had not also given to one or more of the other English for the Children
campaigns. They include ProEnglish, Thomas Klingenstein, and Howard
Ahmansons Fieldstead and Company.
ProEnglish: The English Language Advocates
One of the more politically significant contributions to the Arizona, Colorado
and Massachusetts campaigns came from the English-only organization ProEnglish.42
ProEnglish donated $5,000 to Arizona Proposition 203, $5,000 to the Colorado
Amendment 31, and $5,000 to the Massachusetts campaign (Arizona Secretary of
State; Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, Elections Division; Colorado
Secretary of State). Much like US English, ProEnglish does not limit its political
lobbying to official English legislation. It is involved in issues ranging from
immigration and citizenship, education for ELLs, and opposing statehood for non-
English-speaking territories like Puerto Rico, to the elimination of the Clinton
executive order (13166) which required that federally funded programs be made
linguistically accessible to otherwise qualified limited English proficient (LEP)
persons (Clinton 2000). In addition, ProEnglish opposes the provisions of the Voting
42 ProEnglish was know as English Language Advocates in 2000 when it contributed to the Arizona

Rights Act, which require that ballots be offered in languages other then English
when the percentage of this non-English languages speakers reaches a certain point.
They cite the influx of non-English speaking immigrants of late as a serious problem
(ProEnglish). However, they too seem to address these issues in the context of
immigration, rather than acknowledging that not all natural-bom citizens speak
English. They frame immigration as a threat to the countrys unity, arguing that it is
sameness we want, not a plurality of peoples, cultures, ideas and languages. These
sentiments are embodied in the organizations chairman, Bob Park (ProEnglish)
In addition to being the chairman of the board, Park is one of the
organizations founding directors. As the founder of Arizonans for Official English
(a ProEnglish predecessor) he was in the business of promoting the English-only
movement long before ProEnglish was formed. As the ProEnglish website explains,
...has been involved in citizenship, language and immigration issues
for 48 years, including a 30-year career with the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS)...Bob's commitment to preserving
English as our common language, and making it our official language,
stems from his first-hand experience dealing with language issues
during his long career with the immigration service. He is a coast
guard veteran, a member of the American Legion, the National Rifle
Association, and a past board member of United We Stand America
Arizona (ProEnglish).
His other organizational affiliations provide further insight into this founding
directors understanding of the link between English-only and immigration.

A pamphlet distributed by the American Legions National Americanism
Commission entitled Policy on Illegal Immigration: A Strategy to Address Illegal
Immigration in the United States, makes that organizations position unambiguously
The security, economy and social fabric of the United States of
America is seriously threatened by individuals who have illegally
entered this country. They are undocumented, live in the shadows of
our society and, by failing to assimilate into our culture, divide
America into ethnic conclaves [sic] (Policy on Illegal Immigration, 6).
The pamphlet then goes on to say that the [l]ax enforcement of immigration laws has
invited the criminal element to our society. Alien gangs operate in most, if not all,
major U.S. cities (Policy on Illegal Immigration, 9). Among its proposed solutions
to these perceived problems is to ignore the ruling of Plyler v. Doe (1982) in which
the court found immigrants students to be protected from discrimination as they are
persons in the eyes of the law and thus protected by the Constitution. They claim that
this ruling is no longer applicable, and that the US should eliminate education for
unauthorized immigrant children altogether. Through his membership in the
American Legion, Park has forfeited his ability to claim neutrality as chairman and
founding director or ProEnglish. Furthermore, this association is indicative of the
logic of ProEnglish itself.
While these associations are important, ProEnglish has itself taken a direct
stance on immigration issues that would likely ring true with the authors of the
American Legion pamphlet. Under the website section heading assimilation benefits

immigrants! ProEnglish has posted an article written by Gloria Bertram, an editorial
board member of the Utah newspaper, Spectrum and Daily News. The article,
entitled Immigrants Must Learn to Speak the English Language, asserts that,
[although immigrants are still coming for the same reasons their
European predecessors came, our country has become so
accommodating that English is almost no longer required to survive in
this Land of Freedom. Governmental programs are printed in several
languages and it is hard to come by an automated telephone system
that doesn't say Para Espanol numero dos....As much as we
appreciate the labor force immigrants represent, as long as they are
legal, we would appreciate it even more if they learned English
Bertram insinuates, though without saying outright, that there is some profound
difference between the white European immigrants of the past and the large groups of
non-white immigrants of today. Furthermore, she perpetuates the clear trend in
English-only advocates of ignoring the reality that lack of proficiency in English does
not make someone an immigrant. More startling, however, is her thinly veiled
perception of immigrants as no more than a labor force, which will be tolerated out
of pure necessity, so long as they assimilatethat is, act more like us, and less like
ProEnglishs support of English for the Children of Arizona, Colorado and
Massachusetts is significant in part because it is an organization that clearly embraces
an agenda of linguistic dominance, under the guise of promoting unity. English for
the Childrens purported mission to teach children English through a method that
coerces them to forget their native languages meshes well with this specific donors

expressed positions. In addition to being founded by a member of the anti-
immigration organization American Legion, ProEnglish uses its website as a platform
to denounce and belittle immigrants as a necessary evil that is more tolerable when
invisible. ProEnglish, like English for the Children, prefers that the large and
growing numbers of non-English speakers in the United States be subdued, and
disassociated with one another so as to neutralize any threat they may pose to the
existing social and political hierarchy. The political donations and associations of the
next two donors follow this same trend.
Thomas D. Klingenstein, Howard Ahmanson,
and the Claremont Institute
Thomas Klingenstein was the third largest donor to English for the Children
as a whole with a $25,000 donation to the Arizona campaign, and a $75,000 donation
to the Colorado campaign (Arizona Secretary of State; Colorado Secretary of State).
Howard Ahmanson, the second largest overall donor, gave $10,000 to each the
Arizona and Colorado campaigns in addition to his $130,000 contribution to
Proposition 227 in California. Klingenstein has donated to Republican, Marilyn
Musgrave from Colorado, and to Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison. He, along
with donors William Dunn, Jim and Louis Woodhill, Richard Gilder, and others, has
also contributed a significant amount to the Club for Growth PAC. This influential
and well-financed political action committee has contributed to the campaigns of