First transparency for critics, not that it is owned to them but just to keep critics from plaguing me with what can be answered now. In the book is mentioned my (sergeant E-5) litigation against a staff sergeant (E-6—with an E-9 being the highest enlisted rank) who cried that we were not allowed to speak any language other than English when in uniform. “Wrong answer sergeant!” was my reply. My reply in English, of course, so that he would understand me. Then I went on to explain to the staff sergeant the facts, unlike activist who embellished the same facts.
According to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity [EEO] Commission) an employer may not prevent anyone from speaking any language while employed. Thus, me, winning that suit and the staff sergeant reprimanded by the chain-of-command, which included the staff sergeant having to attend remedial EEO training, write a formal apology that was added to his records—in the Army a negative letter in your records is never a good thing, and the staff sergeant also had to apologize in public to those he violated. That was in 1993. Nothing has changed. That was the law then and remains the law today, 2016.
More transparency, because of that suit I was asked, better yet told, to be the company EEO representative, which included an 40-hour course to earn such certification. In a nutshell, those responsibilities included being the company’s subject matter expert with regard to EEO, what I call, being a custodian, not an advocate, for what others puts in their mouth, which as far as I am concerned covers race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, gender, creed, orientation, and any other grouping under the sun or moon. The EEO representative’s additional duties included EEO awareness and sensitivity training and EEO complaint or violation investigations, the latter the most challenging.
However, and a BIG HOWEVER, with regard to the mentioned article’s theme that liberty, of speaking other than English at work, and anywhere else for that matter, DOES NOT, again, DOES NOT extend to an employee who is engaged in their duties, such as, and in the mentioned article’s case, exchanges with customers. Again, the law has not changed.
However, despite NOTHING has changed, LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) NEVER misses the opportunity to exploit and embellish the intent of the law for their RACE BAITING agenda of getting their constituents all roused up. In this case, protesting to intimidate a legitimate business into submission, conforming, and/or causing that business to close their doors. Despite that business had done NOTHING illegal. The extortion from LULAC, and others like LULAC, just because a customer thought his “rights” were violated and LULAC was unsuccessful in subduing the business into submission despite LULAC’s strong-arm attempt in their initial cry of racism.
More transparency, again for critics, not that they deserve it but to keeping them from trolling me, my Master’s thesis’ theme highlighted the poor outcomes in healthcare when patients and their healthcare providers are not conversing in the same language. In my thesis the language was Spanish as it is what I know best but would be the same for any language. And although the thesis recommendations included implementing systems to facilitate those conversations the end and most cost effective solution would be to have the population speaking a primary language for a number of reasons but most important, in healthcare, for better outcomes.
More transparency for critics, when I travel outside the U.S.A. I primarily speak either English or Spanish. However, in those instances, like Germany, France, Italy, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and even in the U.S.A., if I cannot communicate with a business because that business does not speak either of the languages I am fluent in it is the business’ loss for not doing so thus they lose my business. But for no reason do I get all worked up and call them racist, xenophobes, or the likes as it is I who does not speak their language, even if in the U.S.A.. That is their business. They can speak whatever they want or not want. They have their reason, even if just one reason, for not speaking the languages I speak. As the market will either permit their existence or not for not catering to me.
On the other hand, any business looking to improve their customer volume can and will exploit businesses that only do business in English as other local businesses in this story have morphed into. And there is nothing wrong with that either if others want to cater to the EXAGGERATED UNREALISTIC EMOTIONAL EXPECTATIONS of a few. The issue is at what cost? Not only at what cost to the business but to society. And not just the legitimate society but more so to the underground society as well. But that is another story and not the scope here.
More transparency, after asked to resign from my first nurse practitioner job because I would not cater to a Spanish-only speaking mother I wrote a letter to LULAC where I pointed out the disservice the idiot-ology [sic] of catering to those who did not speak English. In the letter I pointed out that at the time I was one of three providers on staff who were fluent in Spanish and now after my dismissal there would only be two to serve LULAC’s community.
Of course, critics will point out that I had not been serving the community thus where I found myself. However, and a BIG HOWEVER, when an only-Spanish speaking patient came in with an emergency and I was present I had no hesitation with assisting to translate. I declined when there were no emergencies. A story in the book describes me asking a patient with chest pain that the moment was not for the patient to practice his English. As the patient wanted to speak English despite his command of English was very limited and time was not in his corner. That patient, who was adamant of speaking English despite his command of English limited, was moved to the operation room shortly after our interaction due to the patient had a bleeding thoracic aorta aneurysm and time was against him.
In the letter to LULAC I also pointed that out that my writing was not to get LULAC on my side but instead to point out how those idiot-ologies, of catering to EXAGGERATED UNREALISTIC EMOTIONAL EXPECTIONS are counter productive, like cutting your nose to spite your face. LULAC never replied. Imagine that!
My primary point to LULAC, which is outlined in the book as well, is that there is nothing to gain for anyone living in the U.S.A. to not speak English. On the contrary, those individuals are being kept down by those who claim to be their advocates, like LULAC and Jorge Ramos, to name JUST two of the SO MANY! The other point to that is that no one, NO ONE(!), has EVER made it to the top rungs of society in the U.S.A. without a good command of the English language, regardless if their native language is Spanish, Korean, Swahili, Gibberish, or any other language . In other words, if advocating, LULAC and Jorge Ramos to name BUT two of the SO MANY, then why are they keeping their boots are on the neck of those they are advocating for. Advocating is to help others up rather keeping them down. Instead, ladies and gentlemen, LULAC and Jorge Ramos alike, that of keeping other down is exploiting them for your gains and NOT advocating.
That said, a second point, what do LULAC and Jorge Ramos, again, to name JUST two of the SO MANY MORE, what do they say to those who speak English but chose to no longer speak their grandparents’ native language? As those persons have chosen to dismiss their heritage by not speaking the language which links them to their culture. Unless, of course, it is to their convenience and when they jump up and down and wave their flag to make such claims. This point, to those who have chosen NOT to speak their grandparents’ native language, how can you jump up and down and DEMAND that someone else speak your language when so many of your own will not speak the language of their grandparents, at least until it is convenient for them to make a claim.
In closing, with regard to this ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY ABSURD demand. Not only is it absurd that a business is bullied into catering to the EXAGGERATED UNREALISTIC EMOTIONAL DEMANDS of the few. But more significant, if LULAC is successful in causing this business to close not only will the laws of our great nation be undermined but the employees, regardless if they speak Spanish or not will have to go find jobs elsewhere as they will be unemployed because LULAC, and others, thought their race-baiting agenda was more important than the jobs of those working at the ice cream business. Again, MORE IDIOT-OLOGY just because someone complained.
Just my two sense [sic].