Whenever we write about bilingual education, we get letters. But ever since the publication of our story about educator and bilingual education critic Rosalie Porter (“A True Disbeliever,” April 11) by Mary Bagg, our mailbox has been stuffed, mostly with angry letters sharply critical of the story. Unfortunately, we simply don’t have the space to print all of the letters, many of which are interesting regardless of one’s opinion of bilingual ed or our reporting about it. (Please see our Letters page this week.)What follows are two of the letters we received last week; the first was written by a supporter of bilingual education who cites some of his credentials in his letter; the second letter comes from a man who, fairly or unfairly, has become synonymous with the anti-bilingual movement:

After reading the article “A True Disbeliever” and your subsequent “Sticks and Stones…” column (April 25) defending it, I feel a duty and responsibility to respond. Let me be clear: I am an enthusiastic supporter of bilingual education, a consultant in the field of special education and a former journalist, complete with a degree in journalism. Further, when I earned my doctorate in education at UMass-Amherst, Dr. Sonia Nieto was my mentor. She is a brilliant writer and researcher and an inspiring teacher.

No hidden agendas, here. Can you or the Advocate say the same?

First, the article is pure propaganda. A public relations firm that [English for the Children Chairman] Ron Unz hired couldn’t have done a better job. I kept searching all over the pages looking for a disclaimer that read “paid advertisement.”

What Mary Bagg produced only marginally can be called journalism. It is more like what real journalists would call a “puff piece,” a one-sided story meant to promote a person or position, usually at the direction of an unethical editor or publisher. Most journalists at one time or another have had to grit their teeth, bite their tongues, hold their noses and write one. I had to do it once early in my career and it was thoroughly embarrassing. If Ms. Bagg was forced to write what she did, she has my condolences. And shame on you if you made her do it.

Your column defending the propaganda piece and your attack on those who wrote letters in response was even more bizarre. Real newspapers usually don’t insult those who write letters to the editor to them. I read the letters in the Union-News every morning and rarely a day goes by when someone doesn’t lambaste the newspaper management about something or other. The paper usually doesn’t accompany the letter with an attack on the letter writer.

You criticize Dr. Nieto and others because they objected to the article and its inaccurate portrayal of bilingual education, promotion of the anti-bilingual movement and the near canonization of Rosalie Porter. You accuse them of name-calling and insulting. Then what do you do? You name-call and insult. Some might call that hypocrisy.

For example, you say you’re glad Dr. Nieto doesn’t teach journalism. In fact, you are “damn glad.” Wow, you are one tough dude! Frankly, I hope you never teach journalism. It’s better if you stay at the increasingly irrelevant Advocate.

What really is hilarious about this whole thing is that you like to put yourself and the Advocate on a pedestal and look down upon the rest of the media in the Valley. You think the Advocate represents true journalism, working tirelessly to find the real story while everyone else is in cahoots with the people they should be covering, right? With this drivel that Mary Bagg produced, and the insulting manner in which you defend it, you proved otherwise.

Tom Hidalgo

Springfield

I very much appreciated your long and detailed cover story on our initiative campaign to dismantle bilingual education in Massachusetts, which focused on our campaign Co-Chair Rosalie Porter.

By this coverage, you are following the tradition of the progressive and alternative weeklies in California, such as New Times Los Angeles and LA Weekly, which have also run numerous devastating cover stories on the disastrous damage that wrong-headed bilingual programs have inflicted upon the education of immigrant children. Publications such as yours appear more willing than the mainstream media to take on powerfully entrenched special interests in the political establishment.

I was hardly surprised that your reporting provoked a flood of critical letters, nearly all of which appeared to come from present or prospective employees of the bilingual education industry. I also very much appreciated your strong editorial reaction to those letters.

Continue to stand your ground. Back in 1998, California’s own bilingual advocates made very similar wild charges about our “English” initiative, but have been completely discredited now that the statewide test scores of California’s young immigrant students have nearly doubled in just three years. Some erstwhile bilingual advocates have been willing to concede their error, with the founder of the California Association of Bilingual Educators now admitting that he was wrong for 30 years, and becoming one of our strongest current supporters.

But while many of California’s bilingual education activists have still remained loyal to their failed doctrine, they are now widely regarded by most others almost as members of a fanatic religious cult, troublesome to those who question their faith but not to be taken seriously. And, as you have discovered, any journalist who carefully investigates the failings of that cult provokes a flurry of angry letters.

Ron Unz, Chairman

English for the Children

Palo Alto, Calif.

Tom Vannah can be reached at [email protected]



Comments are closed.