It was reported today that a Philadelphia shop owner Joe Vento is being "investigated" by the city's Commission on Human Relations because he posted a sign in October 2005 requesting of his customers that "when ordering please 'speak English'".
According to their website, the three member commission "is the City agency that enforces civil rights laws and deals with all matters of inter-group conflict within the city". Therefore, apparently, a shopkeeper who posts a sign requesting that his patrons speak English has violated some civil rights law or has otherwise caused an inter-group conflict. The commission has been investigating Mr. Vento for over two years.
I have been studying the commission's web site and it would appear that the primary reason for its existence is to enforce a feel-good, "let's all be nice to each other" attitude. It's the sort of attitude that used to be promulgated by church groups and other voluntary associations but now this vague mission has been made the law in the form of yet another government agency. Consider this juicy line item from their 2006 annual report:
A great deal of the PCHR work in 2001 rose from the shadows of dust and debris that were left behind on September 11, 2001, a day that will forevermore reverberate in our minds and hearts. In the aftermath of this tragic attack on American soil, the PCHR moved forward methodically and established a dialogue with law enforcement, criminal justice and social services systems to promote tolerance-building initiatives and an understanding of the culture, customs and concerns of the Arab/Sikh/Muslim community.
One might conclude that the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations considers 9/11 to be the fault of us intolerant and ignorant types who don't understand the "Arab/Sikh/Muslim" community. Instead of a vicious and cowardly act of war by Muslim fundamentalists, it is a "tragic" attack by parties best left unmentioned (because we might offend local Muslims). Incidentally, someone should inform the Commission that Sikhs are not Muslim. The Sikhs were not involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or in any other attacks against the U.S. for that matter. Admittedly, the Sikhs have suffered from discrimination and violence in the U.S. since 9/11 precisely because they have been lumped in with Muslims by mistake.
Certainly, tolerance and understanding of other cultures is to be encouraged, but should it be enforced by a government agency whose sole purpose appears to be to seek out violators of vague and unwritten guidelines on political correctness? The abuse of power is evident in this case: an agency that has spent over two years going after the owner of a steak shop over a silly little sign? Who, precisely, was injured or damaged in any way by this sign? Bob Lentz, author of the Associated Press article linked above, apparently could not locate the original complainant.
Lentz does, however, interview a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, Camille Charles, who compared Vento's signs to the discrimination of the Jim Crow era. Dr. Charles, who is African-American, seems to have spent most of her professional life obsessing over discrimination against blacks, to judge by her publications:
Pressure Cooker: The Minority Experience at Elite Colleges and Universities.
Black Immigrants and Black Natives Attending Selective Colleges and Universities in the United States.
Won't You Be My Neighbor? Race, Class and Residence in a Prismatic Metropolis.
"Racial Inequality and College Attendance: The Mediating Role of Parental Investments."
The Source of the River: The Social Origins of Freshmen at America's Selective Colleges and Universities.
"The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation."
etc.
Clearly, this scholar is pretty invested in the concept of ongoing racial discrimination in American society and especially in American universities, which is obviously where she has spent most of her adult life. Little wonder that the reporter was able to elicit from Dr. Charles a predictably knee-jerk and ludicrous comparison between an English-only sign and a Jim Crow whites-only policy. Ludicrous because clearly Vento's sign is not directed at African-Americans, who speak good English, but rather at immigrants of unspecified ethnic background who choose to order in languages other than English. In other words, the charge of racial discrimination now applies to statements of linguistic preference.
Whether Mr. Vento's approach is an appropriate means of addressing the problem of lack of English among immigrants is really beside the point. The question here is whether an appointed government agency should be in the business of telling a shop owner what sort of sign he may or may not hang on his wall. The AP article suggests that it is a question of civil rights, but this was merely asserted by biased parties and not established in any independent manner.
Nor is Mr. Vento alone in his feelings about a polyglot society. Twenty-seven states have enacted "English only" laws during the past few decades (see Wikipedia for the list) as well as numerous communities. It is generally recognized among immigrants that learning English is the key to success in the U.S., although there are immigrant communities today just as there were a century ago where the older generation does not bother to learn but a few essentials of the dominant tongue, leaving it to their children to master this most obtuse and illogical of world languages.
An ABC News report clarifies that Mr. Vento did not refuse service or discriminate against anyone.
"Here at Geno's no one, and I mean no one, in 40 years has ever been refused service for a language barrier."
What we are witnessing here is a "tragic attack" on the sensibilities of imaginary outraged patrons.
Nevertheless, the outcome of the Philadelphia commission proceedings is sadly predictable. This agency is packed with activists out to attack anyone who doesn't toe the line of political correctness and Mr. Vento has somehow become become a symbolic target. One can only wonder whether the angry bureaucrats would be seeking to pillory Mr. Vento if he were African-American himself, and would Dr. Charles have been so enthusiastic in her support of this witch hunt?
According to the Philadelphia Daily News, Mr. Vento was exonerated for "insufficient evidence". Nick Taliaferro, the executive director of the Commission on Human Relations, summed it up nicely: "This is an excellent example of the balanced and conscientious attempt made by the Commission, on a daily basis, to fulfill its mandate." That says it all.