The case study of Mandarin language policy shows how language planning shapes social and racial boundaries within national institutions. Dr. Mena emphasized that language planning is a form of social planning. The cases of Lum v. Rice (1927) and Lau v. Nichols (1974) illustrate that institutions first excluded linguistic minorities, then adopted an inclusive stance while keeping English dominant. The Lau Remedies introduced bilingual education, but English-only requirements prevented bilingual rights from being constitutional. Mandarin sociolinguistics demonstrates language as a resource for national pride and as a force creating social distinctions. Chinese heritage speakers often see Mandarin as an identity symbol, yet are still racialized as foreigners. These dynamics show that educational and social policies must change for linguistic justice.
From another group’s presentation, I was especially struck by the Spanish Heritage group’s analysis of Spanglish and translanguaging. The speakers showed their capacity to manage the conflict between official language requirements and their traditional cultural speech. The examples of Spanish maintenance in bilingual households from their research showed similarities to the difficulties Mandarin-speaking families encounter at Chinese complementary schools. The two groups showed bilingualism functions as an effective tool to fight against assimilationist standards and language preservation helps protect cultural identity.
After this project, I plan to study how political changes shape language policies and how heritage schools protect linguistic diversity without federal support. My research examines how immigrant communities develop bilingual education based on their experiences preserving native languages despite institutional resistance.