Well, here’s one less reason to be so worried:

From: Jonathan Poullard Dean of Student <adpa...@berkeley.edu>
Subject: Travel to Mexico Advisory
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:06:14 -0700

Dear UC Berkeley Students,

In response to the recent security concerns in Mexico, the U.S.
Department of State has issued a travel warning to U.S. travelers
traveling to and living in Mexico. Please read carefully the full
advisory notice at

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_mexico.html

Accordingly, UC Berkeley strongly advises against travel to Mexico
during Spring Break. We encourage students to discuss your travel plans
with family, friends, and other concerned parties as appropriate.

Should you have any further questions regarding your decision to travel,
please contact the Dean of Students Office at 642-6741.

Jonathan Poullard
Assistant Vice Chancellor/Dean of Students

Even if the liberal media is burying the story, afraid what the stories of violence in Mexico (and extending to U.S. citizens) would do to the sentiments towards immigrants and immigration, it looks like at least students at Berkeley will be well informed.

Of course, it’s another question whether the information would fall on deaf ears, but, well, let him who has ears to hear hear.

Update: In the interest of full disclosure, the update email:

From: "Harry Le Grande, Vice Chancellor - Student Affairs (campuswide)"
        <CALm...@berkeley.edu>
To: "Students, " <CALm...@berkeley.edu>
Subject: Travel Advisory to Mexico
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:44:57 -0700

Dear UC Berkeley Students,

On Tuesday, March 15, 2009 you received an email from me regarding travel to and
in Mexico during Spring Break. In recent days legitimate concerns have been
expressed that our initial message seemed to suggest that travel to any part of
the country would be ill-advised. This was not my intention. We are, in fact, in
complete agreement with a recent State Department Advisory that warns only
against travel to areas of Mexico that border the United States.

I would ask that you read the full advisory at:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_mexico.html

I also encourage you to discuss your travel plans with family and friends. Your
safety and well-being is an important priority for us, and we just want to be
sure that you have a great Spring Break, no matter where you go.

Should you have any further questions regarding your vacation plans, feel free
to contact the Dean of Students Office at 642-6741.

Jonathan Poullard
Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs
and Dean of Students
Campus Life and Leadership
326 Sproul Hall
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-2426
ph: (510) 642-6770
fax: (510) 642-7167
poul...@berkeley.edu

I can’t see how anyone could have misunderstood the first email to mean that the entire country of Mexico is unsafe. I mean, that’s like thinking the entire Indian subcontinent is unsafe just because Kashmir is not a place a tourist would want to go to. But, well, some people don’t know coffee at McDonald’s is hot, so.

But should this wonderful language be the official language of the United States of America? Or more importantly, should U.S. have an official language in the first place? As a strict constructionist and a minimalist of a sort, I say no. The Constitution gives Congress or the federal bureaucracy no such power—you may be able to argue under the general welfare and interstate commerce clause, just like all other encroachment by and expansion of government powers, but you have to remember Madison’s words: promoting general welfare is not an unlimited power—whether something is appropriate or not depends on how much power is involved in that promotion, and I say locking down our language by government is too much power.

Perhaps the states have the power to designate English as their official state language, but that’s where it stops, in our system of federalism.

But, as you may be aware, some conservatives disagree, and I can see their point of view.

Early new Americans learned English out of pride for their new country — and out of necessity to engage in the capitalistic system. It made sense then and it makes sense now, yet the movement to prevent the recent wave of immigrants, mostly from Latin America, from becoming integrated and successful citizens by not teaching them English as the foundation for their success is alive and well-funded.

For immigrants like myself, learning and using English as the primary language is a matter of patriotism. I don’t know what it means to anyone else, but to myself, it is but a small way for me to prove this portion of my naturalization oath: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.”

But some of their other points I don’t agree with:

Other Western nations protect their languages. The French Academy, attuned to France’s high self-regard, vehemently monitors usage in classrooms and in the media. In Russia, the Orthographic Commission of the Department of Language and Literature meets regularly to protect proper usage of Russian. English, however, is not protected by its cultural elite.

As much as I would like the “cultural elite” of this country to love this country (and its language) more, I would also like them to express their love through private acts, not with government support (as is done in France, Russia, and in fact, every developed nation I know that keeps a “standard” official language). It’s been a matter of pride for me that in this country, the keeper of the language standard is not some government department (again, I don’t think Constitution gives the federal government such power), but rather, it’s private publishers like Merriam-Webster. It wouldn’t do to do away with this American phenomena in order to preserve American language and culture.

And finally, as someone who’s been part of an ESL program, I would like to refute

This explains why anti-American activists lobbied for federal monies to support English as a second language in our school systems — not the first language for Spanish-speaking immigrants — working behind the scenes in the labyrinth of the federal bureaucracy to alter the curriculum to their whim.

“English as a second language” is not the statement of goal of the program—it’s statement of the fact, with the goal of every teacher in that program being that the student will graduate from the program and join mainstream programs as quickly as possible (at least it was that way at the school I went to). In fact, because sometimes this doesn’t represent the fact (some people are learning English as a third or fourth language), they started calling it “English language development”. And as much as there are some aspects of these programs that are unhealthy, they serve a necessary role and stepping stone.

I have heard of bilingual programs where English instruction is so … deemphasized, but not having been in such a program, I can’t really say how those programs are.

Anyway. This has become a long and rambling post (I’m writing this on Sunday morning; I clearly didn’t prepare this and I am pressed for time—and this is a topic on which I could speak forever), but my main point comes down to this:

I don’t think English (or any other language) should be the “official language” of the U.S. if that involves any legal power or action. Symbolic gesture recognizing English as the most used language in the U.S. (call it “official language” if you want) are O.K. but that’s where it stops.