Gingrich speech full of hatred

An understanding of the English language was unnecessary to hear the racism and hatred in Newt Gingrich's Saturday speech to the National Federation of Republican Women.

The former House speaker compared bilingual education with "the language of living in a ghetto," according to CNN.com. Gingrich suggested that the United States should replace bilingual education with "immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity." He went on to say English should be the only language on voting ballots.

After experiencing what a foreign language class has to offer, Gingrich also should enroll in U.S. history. And then sociology.

For starters, Gingrich, who may seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, does not fully grasp bilingualism. In a bilingual program, ideally students are immersed in the target language at a young age enabling them to learn English as soon as possible, said Patricia Roper, a Spanish professor at the University of Cincinnati who has taught in multiple bilingual programs. In a school with both native and non-native speakers of English, "the kids [would] learn from each other and all end up bilingual," Roper said, showing how the program benefits more than just non-native speakers.

Not only do foreign language programs offer non-English speakers the opportunity to learn English, studying a foreign language forces students to have a better grasp on their first language.

So while bilingualism encourages what Gingrich claims he wants - people to speak English and a better understanding of English - Gingrich repeatedly bashes the programs. In 1995, Gingrich claimed that bilingualism invites "long term dangers to the fabric of our nation," CNN.com reported.

Our diverse nation is comprised of a majority who speak only English, those who speak more than just English and those who speak their native language and are in the process of learning English. This situation is in no way threatening the core of our nation, as Gingrich tries to suggest by hyperbole.

And this is where a professor in U.S. history wouldn't pass Gingrich, who fails to acknowledge that the United States is an unarguably - whether you like it or not - nation of immigrants. And therefore, we are always going to be dissimilar.

There is no great need to want it any other way, unless you are simply full of contempt for people who aren't like you. Speaking different languages is not going to result in any greater setback for our nation than those that have resulted from racist mentalities such as Gingrich's.

"The more we know about each other, the more we care about each other and the more we can communicate and share instead of condemning and killing each other," Roper said.

According to UC sociology professor Blasco Sobrinho, Gingrich's beliefs are an example of what sociologists call "systematic discrimination on the basis of ethnicity."

Sobrinho points out that although close to half the American population spoke German in the 1780s, the founding fathers chose not to "allow themselves to be spooked" into identifying any official language in the U.S. Constitution.

Gingrich, who has a Ph.D. in history, should be well aware of the wisdom behind the decision. The difference today with Spanish speakers, Sobrinho said, is that the native speakers of Spanish "appear to be mostly brown-skinned Mexican and Central American descendants of Native American ... genetic stock."

Gingrich was wrong to be close-minded about bilingual programs. But he was foolish to disrespect racial minorities to a group of politically active women who are likely to be conscious about minorities as well. His racist comments are not excusable and were a desperate attempt to appeal to the new racist constituency interested in changing the U.S. Constitution.