Recent federal directives insisting upon English-only communications in public institutions should be a cause for concern not only for liberals committed to equity and inclusivity but for anyone looking to encourage integration and national unity.
While the stated aim is to “streamline” services and promote English proficiency, these policies risk alienating millions of Americans, the majority of whom are US citizens, whose primary language is not English. Educators know firsthand that language is not simply a medium of instruction but the bridge by which communities connect, information flows, and opportunities are accessed. Restricting institutional communications to English alone is counterproductive and only serves to fortify societal divisions.
Providing information in multiple languages has been criticized as a wasteful policy that caters to minorities, but it is the most efficient means to communicate with significant sectors of the population. If it were not, why would so many of America’s corporations provide multilingual customer services?
Public schools serve students who speak languages from all over the world and from all over America—Anchorage School District, for example, communicates with students, parents, and caregivers in more than a hundred languages. In schools, as elsewhere, we see the positive results of providing interpreted messages and texts, translated newsletters, report cards, and emergency alerts to families who speak Spanish, Diné, Chinese, Arabic, or Tagalog. When parents can follow what’s happening in their children’s education, they are empowered to support learning and advocate for their needs.
Parents who cannot read in English miss deadlines for enrollment, lose out on essential services like special education, and are excluded from participating in their children’s education, which is so vital to the children’s and their school’s success. When schools and public institutions acknowledge families in their home languages, they send a powerful message: you belong here. This fosters stronger relationships, higher parent engagement, and ultimately better outcomes for students.
We’re still trying to recover from the mistakes made during the COVID-19 locklockdown in districts where language services were underfunded—English-learner families endured confusion and isolation, unable to access reliable information about remote learning schedules, meal distribution, and health protocols.
In education, language access is still a legal requirement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent federal guidance have long recognized that meaningful access to public education cannot be achieved if students or their families cannot understand essential communications. However, we’re seeing legal rights eroded every day, so we have to frame the argument such that it makes sense to cost cutters.
Years of evidence have shown that limiting communications to English does not accelerate language proficiency. On the contrary, it breeds frustration, misunderstanding, and disengagement—root causes for conflict. We know that multilingual learners thrive, succeed, and learn English quicker when they have access to bilingual or dual language programs. And we’ve spent decades proving that bilingual education works and getting legislation passed on the back of that research.
We need to get the message across that language access fits in with core American values. It is not an ideological bonus endorsed only by woke liberals—it is a practical and efficient means to enable communication and thus encourage integration, so that we can all work together to build a Big, Beautiful, Bilingual society.