Bid to curb bilingual ed supported by Golding

Senate candidate meets media with initiative sponsor at her side

SACRAMENTO — San Diego Mayor Susan Golding yesterday called the first news conference of her Republican U.S. Senate campaign to become the last candidate in the race to endorse a proposed ballot measure that would virtually abolish bilingual education in California.

“I really believe that this initiative will benefit all children, no matter what ethnic background, in the state of California and it will open doors for millions of Californians who, without it, face a lifetime of cultural segregation and economic underachievement,” Golding told reporters here.

Joining her at the news conference was Ron Unz, the computer software entrepreneur who is sponsoring the “English for the Children” initiative.

Golding’s two opponents for next year’s Republican U.S. Senate nomination — state Treasurer Matt Fong and Vista businessman Darrell Issa — had already endorsed the measure which, if it qualifies, will be on the June 1998 ballot.

Last week, a Los Angeles Times Poll showed 80 percent of California voters favor the initiative that would end most bilingual instruction.

Golding said she talked with Unz about supporting the measure before the poll came out, but nevertheless dismissed the poll as subject to dramatic change once the campaign heats up.

A one-time French teacher, the mayor said she would have signed on to the anti-bilingual campaign regardless of the political context.

“Because of my background in languages, I have had a longtime concern about bilingual education and the length of time that kids are put in it,” said Golding. “I don’t think it’s the right way to teach it and I don’t think that’s the right way to learn a language. If I were not running for the U.S. Senate I would be endorsing this.”

But there is an unmistakable political context and it meshes conveniently with the goals of Golding and Unz, who ran against Golding’s political mentor, Gov. Pete Wilson, in the 1994 Republican gubernatorial primary.

“English for the Children” may enjoy widespread support in the polls, but its most visible advocates are conservative Republicans.

For Golding, the bilingual initiative offers an opportunity to forge ties with conservatives suspicious of her more moderate views on other social issues.

For Unz, it gives his effort the stamp of approval of an opponent of Proposition 187, the anti-illegal immigrant initiative — though Golding herself does not call attention to that distinction.

Unz says he is determined not to allow his initiative to become a political sequel to the racially charged ballot measure campaigns over illegal immigration and affirmative action, last year’s Proposition 209.

Unz said Golding’s support is particularly prized because of “her position as the highest ranking Republican official in the state of California who opposed Proposition 187.”

Golding was anything but outspoken against the popular 1994 ballot measure designed to curb illegal immigration as she was torn between preserving San Diego’s relations with Mexico and remaining loyal to Wilson, Proposition 187’s most zealous champion.

Her most visible act of opposition to Proposition 187 came late in the campaign when she refused to allow the issue to come up for a debate by the City Council.

Golding kept an even lower profile last year over Proposition 209.

Her first public expression of support for the anti-affirmative action ballot measure came in an election night interview hours after the polls closed last November.

If, as expected, the Unz initiative qualifies for the ballot, it could breathe new life into a middle-ground legislative proposal that failed last year.

The bill, by Democratic state Sen. Dede Alpert of Coronado and Republican Assemblyman Brooks Firestone of Los Olivos, would leave the decision on how to teach non-English-speaking children up to local school districts.

Golding, a passionate advocate of “local control” on most issues, said she has little faith that the Alpert-Firestone bill would be effective because the state has usurped so much authority over public education.

“I don’t have much optimism under the present system that local school boards are ever going to get that kind of local control back,” she said. “If I thought it could happen, I would be happy to support that, but I don’t think it’s going to.”



Comments are closed.