308 ANALYZING DATA
premised on the assumption that the United States is an English-speaking country, and that equal
justice requires the protection and even the promotion of multiple languages through public policy.
Once again, the question is too complex to be fully summarized here, but assimilationists gener-
ally accept “toleration”-oriented language rights (that is, they agree that the government should
not be allowed to deny individuals the right to speak in the language of their choice or to teach
their children languages other than English). Assimilationists insist, however, that these are “pri-
vate” rights of individuals, and they are deeply opposed to so-called promotion-oriented rights in
which the government is obligated to “promote” the use of non-English languages in American
public or civic life. And once again, my analysis argues that this cannot be seen accurately as a
simple or straightforward question of what is required for “equal rights.” Rather, the answer to
this question hinges on one’s interpretation of the relationships among “identity,” ethno-linguistic
memberships, and the meaning of U.S. nationality.Argument 3 (“common good” issue): What kind of language policy is necessary to promote
social harmony and national unity?It is assimilationists who raise this question most fervently, believing that pluralistic policies in
the U.S. foster conflict and division in that society and undermine our national unity to the detri-
ment of the common good. Assimilationists argue that attempting to provide “equal respect” to
multiple languages and cultures, especially in a context where they are manifestly not equal in
terms of constituting our national identity, can only result in endless rounds of contention and
argument, sapping the country of energy and goodwill. Pluralists, in contrast, again make the
argument that the assimilationist position is premised on the false assumption that it is the non-
English speakers who are trying to create dissonant change by insisting on a pluralist policy. In
reality, they continue, the United States has never been a monolingual English-speaking country,
so it is manifest that insisting that it become one is the real source of dissonant change that is
generating the political conflict and internal division. After summarizing each of these arguments
in greater detail, my analysis claims once again that it is the underlying conflict over U.S. national
identity that lies at the heart of the language policy conflict, and this is not an issue that can be
resolved through a positivist social scientific method of policy analysis, such as cost-benefit or
systems analysis. Rather, a value-critical analysis is needed to illuminate just what is at stake in
the conflict over U.S. language policy.Step Four: Value-Critical Analysis of the Core Arguments and ValuesThe fourth step in this form of policy analysis is to explicitly subject the value arguments of the
key protagonists to critical analysis. There are a variety of fruitful ways in which this might be
done. My own approach is to begin by reexamining the lines of agreement and disagreement
between the protagonists, and to recontextualize their conflicts, before narrowing my focus to a
critical analysis of their respective positions. That is, after summarizing the protagonists’ core
arguments and value commitments as accurately and fairly as possible (step three, above), I think
it is useful to review the nature of their disagreements, looking for areas of agreement as well as
disagreement, distinguishing between factual and value conflicts, and looking for an illuminating
way in which to contextualize the conflicts that remain. Taking that step of review and reorienta-
tion helps in determining what needs to be done to critically assess the protagonists’ respective
arguments. And that is the core of what needs to be done in this fourth step of value-critical policy
analysis: critically interrogating each protagonist’s value-based arguments, finding and articulat-
ing the relative strengths and weaknesses in each case.