Pushback against Alaska Native Languages Bill

A few weeks ago I noted the overwhelming support expressed for the first hearing of HB 216, proposed legislation which would grant official status to all 20 Alaska Native languages. I must admit that I was surprised at the speed and ease with which the bill sailed through its first hearing in the Community and Regional Affairs Committee of the Alaska House of Representatives. I wondered then if this reflected a new era for Alaska Native languages, part of an ongoing sea-change in public attitudes toward Alaska's indigenous linguistic heritage. Perhaps the era of English-only fear-mongering had passed.

Well, not so fast. The hearing in the State Affairs Committee yesterday didn't go nearly so well.

Opponents of the bill expressed concern that it would "deepen the divide" between Native and non-Native Alaskans. Nothing quite like using fear of racism to justify ongoing racism. The "divide" between Natives and non-Natives exists at least in part because the English language is given preferential status over Alaska Native languages. The Committee heard legal testimony which confirms that HB 216 would not put any additional financial burden on the state. The bills supporters even offered a friendly amendment explicitly clarifying the symbolic nature of the legislation.

But apparently this symbolism is precisely what concerns the bills opponents. Some of the committee members questioned the value of a "symbolic" bill. Strange that they seem less concerned about the "symbolic" nature of including English as an official language. As the overwhelmingly dominant language of the state, English hardly needs official status to support its continued viability. And yet there is stands in state legislation as the sole official language of the state.

Proponents of the bill originally stressed the "symbolic" nature of the bill in order to assuage any fears that the legislation would require use of Native languages or production of official materials in Native languages. That is not the bill's intent, and legal experts testified repeatedly that the bill would not obligate the state to do this.. However, now the bill's opponents are using the "symbolic" status as a way to argue against the bill, questioning why we should bother to pass legislation which is merely symbolic.

Rep. Ben Nageak (not a State Affairs committee member) gave impassioned testimony, saying "I don't think this bill will change anything today in this state. It's just a recognition, that people since time immemorial have been speaking their language and they're trying to keep it alive. This bill is not symbolic; it's a recognition. A recognition that people were here before the Russians."

Nevertheless, opposing committee members feigned support for the concept behind the bill while objecting to its format, worrying that it would "politicize" the issue. Well, duh! Language policy is political. As Rep. Nageak said, the bill would give recognition to Native languages. Political recognition. There are of course other forms of recognition, but the point of putting Native languages into state law is to give political recognition.

Listen to Rep. Ben Nageak's testimony (in Inupiaq)

Listen to Rep. Ben Nageak's testimony (in English)

Of course in today's politically correct world no one can go on record as actually being against Native language. Rep. Keller went so far as to tell Nageak that he "shares your passion" though he disagrees with the "vehicle." In other words, he's willing to go on record saying that he supports Native languages, but he's unwilling to grant those languages official status on par with English.

This appears the be the nature of racism in 21st century Alaska. We're more than happy to celebrate Native languages and cultures as long as they are given secondary status. But allow them to have an equal status with English? That's another story. That gets branded as "divisive." The parallels with the early days of the Civil Rights movement and the justifications given for maintaining racial segregation are striking. I guess I had hoped that we had made more progress than that. Yesterday's hearing for HB 216 reminds me of just how far we still have to go.