Bibliography (O) like Ozolins

Links to my bibliography from A to Z:

A      B     C     D     E     F     G     H        I     J    K     L     

M     N     O (this page)     P       Q       R     S     T     U     V     W/X/Y/Z

Last update: August 19, 2020

As usual, this bibliographical list is presented into two parts, PART A gives the full list which is then detailed and includes my notes (when there are any…) in PART B.

PART A: list

1. Ó Connor, Tim. 2013. “Keynote remarks at Interdependence Day.” In Dublin Interdependence Celebration and Forum, edited by Benjamin Barber. Dublin Castle.
2. Ó Cuirreáin, Seán. 2013. “An Coimisinéir Teanga, Eire.” In International Conference on Language Rights: Sharing best practice. Dublin Hilton.
3. Ó Flatharta, Peadar 2013. “chairman session 2 and convener.” In International Conference on Language Rights: Sharing best practice. Dublin Hilton.
4. Oberoi, Harjot. 1994. The construction of religious boundaries: culture, identity and diversity in the Sikh tradition (Oxford University Press: Delhi).
5. Obonsavin, Alanis. 1990. “Kanehsatake, 270 years of resistance.” In. Kanehsatake.
6. O’Bryan, K. , J. Reitz, and O. Kuplowska. 1976. “Non-Official languages: A study in Canadian Multiculturalism.” In. Ottawa: Supply and Services.
7. OCDE. 1987. “l’Education Multiculturelle.” In. Paris: Centre pour la Recherche et l’Innovation dans l’Enseignement.
8. OCR, Office for Civil Rights. 1995. “Annual report to Congress.” In.: U. S. Department of Education.
9. O’Donnel, Paul. 1997. ‘Language Policies and Independence Policies in Quebec’, Language Problems and Language Planning, 21: 162-69.
10. Ofran, Hagit. 2013. “visit of the legal or illegal settlements of Hebron.” In JCall trip to Israel and Palestinian Territories. Hebron: JCall.
11. Ogbu, J. 1978. Minority Education and Caste (Academic Press: New York).
12. ———. 1992. ‘Understanding multicultural Education’, Educational Researcher, 5: 24.
13. Ohmann, Tichard (ed.)^(eds.). 1996. Making and Selling Culture (Wesleyan University Press: Hanover).
14. Ólafsdóttir, Audur Ava. 2010. Rosa Candida (Zulma: Honfleur).
15. O’Laoire, Muiris. 2007. ‘Anglais et Irlandais: Hybridité dans un Espace de Transition.’ in Daphné Romy and Larissa Aronin (eds.), L’Anglais et les Cultures: Carrefour ou Frontière? (L’Harmattan: Paris).
16. Olszewski, L. 1997. ‘Oakland Teachers Put Ebonics to the Real World Test”‘, The San Francisco Chronicle, Jan.17, 1997.
17. Onishi, Norimitsu. 1996. ‘And now has come the time of the “Asiamericans”‘, The New York Times, 14 juin.
18. Oommen, T.K. 1997. Citizenship, nationality and ethnicity: reconciling competing identities (Polity Press: Cambridge).
19. Ossipow, William (ed.)^(eds.). 2005. Israel et l-Autre (Labor et Fides: Genève).
20. ———. 2005. ‘Le passage à l’Etat: Méditation d’un politologue ‘ in William Ossipow (ed.), Israel et l’Autre ( Labor et Fides: Genève).
21. Ost, Françoise. 2009. Traduire. Défense et illustration du multilinguisme (Fayard ).
22. Osuna, Juan José. 1949. A History of Education in Puerto Rico (Universidad de Puerto Rico: Rio Pedras).
23. Owens, Jonathan (ed.)^(eds.). 2000. Arabic as a Minority Language
    (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin).
24. Oz, Amos. 2004. A tale of love and darkness (Harcourt).
25. ———. 2012 “Keynote address.” In J Street: Making History, edited by Jeremy Ben-Ami. Washington D.C.
26. Ozolins, Uldis. 1988. ‘Government language policy initiatives and the future of ethnic languages in Australia’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language: 113-29.

PART B: details

Ó Connor, Tim (2013), ‘Keynote remarks at Interdependence Day’, paper given at Dublin Interdependence Celebration and Forum, Dublin Castle.

Tim worked at the Department of Foreign affairs, was Chief of Staff to the President of Ireland and is now a consultant for the Irish Diaspora, Chair of the Gathering which took place this year.
We are here in Dublin Castle, a place of great significance as in January 1022, a man, Michael Collins, came with the keys of Ireland in his pocket. The Union Jack was taken down and the journey that started from that moment is continuing to this day.
We are leading to the 100th anniversary landmark, but let’s not forget that a week after handing those keys, Collins was shot dead. His combat is still continued by his friends in Belfast today. Our Independence was achievd by blood. Without he arms struggle, we wouldn’t be independent. I was involved in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
What does this say about Interdependence? The DNA of these struggles remain intact. Reaching across boundaries. First we signed, then we negotiated the Agreement, that’s the Irish way. Extraordinary power of Irish America, most visible on St Patrick Day. The Diaspora is an obsession. The Gathering is an exercise of Hutzpah as we invited 70 millions of Irish descendants. There has been more than 5000 gatherings. We are the holders of the Homeplace. 17% of the population in 2011 was foreign born. You can be Irish by blood or by choice. How to make inclusive ways to interconnect? This should be embraced by the diaspora and inclusive in its outreach.

Ó Cuirreáin, Seán (2013), ‘An Coimisinéir Teanga, Eire’, paper given at International Conference on Language Rights: Sharing best practice, Dublin Hilton.

Previously journalist, now Commissioner serving second term
Background. Irish is the oldest written language in northern Europe but threatened despite status
41% irish speakers, 77000 up 7% daily speakers, 23,000 in Gaeltacht. Probably the only good news I bring today!

official language recognized in constitution
official language of the EU since 2007
Official policy of supporting/promoting language

wide range of official support mechanisms.
Compulsory school subject to leaving certificate, right to use in all courts, in houses of parliament, government minister and department, media, publications

Irish survives as a community language in areas in 7 counties, predominantly on western seaboard

Will language survive as community language in Gaeltacht?

Lack of correlation between language acquisition and subsequent usage, a huge disconnect
inadequate provision of state services through Irish, particularly in Gaeltacht

It boils down to « Speak Irish among yourselves but don’t speak it to us! »

Language provisions in many pieces of legislations

small office 5-7 civil servants. Annual budget 600 000 euros.

We dealt by 2012 with 5425 complaints, 82 formal investigations 198 audits.
Guidebook, annual reports and special reports. 1936 request for advice from state bodies.

Act is currently under review. Public consultation in 2011 but we don’t know the results. amalgamation of Commissioner’s office with ombudsman’s office as part of the same process but said that an independent commissioner should be implement.

clear strong legistion rather than restrict language rights.

Language rights are not favours granted in times of affluence, they are permanent rights, not privelges or favours.

Complaints resolution mechanism as a shield and not a sword.

core element of language act: too little, too late and no joined-up strategy. English as default setting for too long.

Increase in state services through Irish, language awareness, understanding of language rights and obligations, language visibility.

State services through Irish cannot be provided adequately unless staff with Irish are employed and this ought to be addressed at the recruitment stage.

Language legislation is insufficient.

To amend the legislation to create a place and space for th language in public affairs and to move it from the margins to the mainstream.

Two tests: will the amended legislation ensure that state employees serving the Gaeltacht communities are Irish speaking without question or condition and will it address recruitment in public services.

If these questions aren’t addressed, there will be problem.

No government, legislation, commissioner or state agency can of their own, save a threatened language, however all have a role to play together to create the condition to facilitate the public Do we have the leadership to address this?

Q&A
Sociologist: situation in Gaeltacht is really preoccupying.
Answer> Let me remind François’s word about the death of the last native speaker. Well, the last Native speaker of Irish hasn’t been born yet!

Ó Flatharta, Peadar (2013), ‘chairman session 2 and convener’, paper given at International Conference on Language Rights: Sharing best practice, Dublin Hilton.

cf. my page on this conference

Oberoi, Harjot (1994), The construction of religious boundaries: culture, identity and diversity in the Sikh tradition (Harjot.. Delhi: Oxford University Press).

Obonsavin, Alanis. 1990. Kanehsatake, 270 years of resistance. Kanehsatake. Film.

Film sur le Conflit Oka, Eté 1990, 11 juillet début du conflit.
Extrait du dialogue entre la SQ (Sécurité du Québec) et les Mowawhks. Consédéré comme une nouvelle bataille de Wounded Knee. 155 M de dollars. Malgré cela, Ouellette, maire du coin, fut réélu:
“M(ohawk): I live here
P(olice officer): You block the traffic
M: You block the traffic. I live here! Get out the Fuck’n Road, you work for us, you work for Canadians, or do you now!
P: Could you move your car please (M: or dou you NOT, I FUC’N LIVE HERE), that’s the last time I tell you, move your car.
M: I live here
P: iF YOU DON’T MOVE YOUR CAR, I AM GOING TO ARREST YOU
M: You are going to arrest me because I live here, because I want to go to my home? Who do you work for ? For Canada or somebody else?
P: Reprenez votre voiture, Monsieur, S’IL VOUS PLAIT.
M: I don’t speak french
P: Je suis désolé, je parle pas anglais.
M. I don’t speak french, I don’t need to speak french
P: Reprenez votre voiture, déplacez votre voiture.
M: I am going home now.
P: Déplacez votre voiture, s’il vous plait.
M: I’m going home, I’m going this way.

Autre scène avec une femme de 50 ans, Margaret Gabriel, de la famille du Chef Mohawk.
M: I’m a citizen of this country, I’m a property owner in Oka, I can do what I like.
P: I know Miss, I know, Miss.
P: I don’t have the autority to say you to go. WAIT A MOMENT IN YOUR CAR FOR THE SECURITY OF OUR PEOPLE.
M; Why can’t we just leave?
P: Because you cannot, OK?
M: How long?
P: I don’t know, maybe 15 mn.
Autre M: You said a little while ago that as soon as she got down, we could go.
P: You speak too fast for me. Could you speak slowly?
M2: No.
P: I don’t understand if you speak too fast.
M1: I leased my property to these people.
P: We checked that, Madame (strong french accent). Your propriété is not… euh, we don’t… euh…appliqué (se tourne vers ses collègues qui traduisent “apply” that we refuse. We resepct for security, euh…for Oka. Allez en ville si vous voullez, allez à Kanawaukee et si vous voulez, allez à Ottawa, n’importe quel endroit, mais ici, c’et une zone controllée et ça ne passe pas.

Autre part:

I didn’t come here to kill people, I only came here to protect the land. Never more that (in Treatment Centre)
30 warriors, 1 spirit leader, one ceremonial chief, 19 women, seven children

O’Bryan, K. , J. Reitz, and O. Kuplowska. 1976. Non-Official languages: A study in Canadian Multiculturalism. Ottawa: Supply and Services.

O’Donnel, Paul. 1997. Language Policies and Independence Policies in Quebec. Language Problems and Language Planning 21 (2):162-169.

OCDE. 1987. l’Education Multiculturelle. Paris: Centre pour la Recherche et l’Innovation dans l’Enseignement.

OCR, Office for Civil Rights. 1995. Annual report to Congress: U. S. Department of Education.

Office for Civil Rights
Customer Service Team
330 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202

| General | Title VI | Title IX | Section 504 | Federal Register |

GENERAL

(1995)-(Code No. 33,35,36) (also available, Years 1990, 1991, 1992,
1993, and 1994, 38 pp). These reports attempt to provide an informative picture of OCR’s activities through anecdotes
describing the human and educational impact of the compliance, enforcement, and technical assistance activities in our
cases of alleged discrimination.

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS TO QUALITY EDUCATION. 1996, 10 pp.
This pamphlet provides an overview of the legal responsibilities of the Office for Civil Rights and how they are carried
out by resolving discrimination complaints, conducting compliance reviews, and providing technical assistance. There is
also information on the impact of the civil rights laws in improving educational opportunities for students.

HOW TO FILE A DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT. (with the Office for Civil Rights) (Code No. 09) 1992. 04
pp. This brochure outlines the process for submitting complaints to Office for Civil Rights. Anyone who believes that an
educational institution that receives Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education has discriminated
against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, or age may file a complaint.

NONDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES IN EDUCATION. (Code No. 12) 1991. 12 pp.
This pamphlet summarizes the employment requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

NOTICE OF NONDISCRIMINATION. (Code No. 13) 1991. 11 pp. This pamphlet describes the requirements
for education agencies to issue notice of their commitment to operate programs in a manner free from discrimination,
clarifies the information that recipients should include in a nondiscrimination notices, and provides a sample notice
statement.

THE GUIDANCE COUNSELOR’S ROLE IN ENSURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY.
(Code No. 23) 1991. 13 pp. This pamphlet summarizes the requirements pertaining to counseling practices contained in
the implementing regulations for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972,
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION & CIVIL RIGHTS. (Code No. 29) 1991. 16 pp. This pamphlet discusses the
Vocational Education Guidelines and how they relate to the civil rights of students and staff beneficiaries and to the
responsibilities of recipients (schools, colleges, proprietary schools, and Voc Ed centers) that receive federal assistance.

WHAT SCHOOLS CAN DO TO IMPROVE MATH AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT BY MINORITY
AND FEMALE STUDENTS. (Code No. 31) 1991. 17 pp. This pamphlet is primarily for elementary and secondary
school teachers, counselors, and administrators who serve in school systems that receive Federal financial assistance
from the Department of Education. The pamphlet reviews survey data concerning the representation of minority and
female students in math and science courses at the elementary and secondary level and attainment of postsecondary
degrees in these academic disciplines. The pamphlet also provides methods for improving interest and achievement in
math and science by minority and female students, based on existing research findings and experience.

TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (TITLE VI)

EDUCATION AND TITLE VI. (Code No. 05 & 05S) 1991. pp. 8. This pamphlet discusses Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 which protects people from discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or
activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. This pamphlet is available in English
and Spanish.

HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND HIGHER EDUCATION
DESEGREGATION. (Code No. 08) 1991. 15 pp. This pamphlet provides an overview of the historic role,
accomplishments, and challenges which face Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Also, this pamphlet
describes OCR’s involvement with HBCUs as a part of the effort to eliminate discrimination in higher education.

MAGNET SCHOOLS — (Promoting Equal Opportunity & Quality Education).(Code No. 11) 1991. 31 pp. This
pamphlet discusses magnet schools which offers specialized and innovative instructional approaches to attract students of
different racial, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds.

STUDENT ASSIGNMENT IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS & TITLE VI. (Code No.
18) 1991. 7 pp. This pamphlet was developed to assist elementary and secondary educators in their efforts to comply
voluntarily with the Title VI regulation, with respect to the assignment of students to particular schools, academic
programs, and classes.

THE PROVISION OF AN EQUAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY TO LIMITED ENGLISH
PROFICIENT STUDENTS. This pamphlet identifies procedures that school districts should use to ensure that their
programs are serving limited English proficient students effectively.

TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972 (Title IX)

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS. (Code No. 06) 1991. 11 pp. This pamphlet
summarizes Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Section 1681 et. seq.) which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department.
Athletics are considered an integral part of an institution’s education program and are therefore covered by this law.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT: IT’S NOT ACADEMIC. (Code No. 16) 1997. 10 pp. This pamphlet addresses issues
of sexual harassment of students by school employees and other students. It is intended for use by school administrators
and other employees in understanding a school’s obligations under Title IX, and by students and their parents in
understanding student rights in this area. The pamphlet answers questions about sexual harassment, including how to file
a complaint with OCR. It also provides information to be use in developing or evaluating an institution’s sexual
harassment grievance procedure.

STUDENT ASSIGNMENT IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS & TITLE IX. (Code No.
17) 1988. 8 pp. This pamphlet was developed to assist elementary and secondary educators in their efforts to comply
voluntarily with the Department’s Title IX regulation, with respect to the assignment of students to particular schools,
academic programs, and classes.

TITLE IX AND SEX DISCRIMINATION. (Code No. 28 and 28S) 1991. 8 pp. 10 pp. This pamphlet summarizes
the requirements pertaining to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which protects people from discrimination
based on sex in education programs or activities which receive Federal financial assistance from the Department of
Education. This pamphlet is available in English and Spanish.

TEENAGE PREGNANCY AND PARENTHOOD ISSUE (under Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972). (Code No.20) 1992. pp. 14. This pamphlet is for elementary and secondary school administrators, teachers,
counselors, parents, and students. It describes school retention problems associated with teenage pregnancy/parenthood
and requirements pertaining to these issues in ED’s Title IX implementing regulation. Information is included on
approaches and programs that schools have developed to address the educational needs of students who become
pregnant, married, or have children. These approaches and programs, however, are not legal requirement under Title IX.

TITLE IX GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES: AN INTRODUCTORY MANUAL. This manual assists recipients of
Federal education funds in formulating and implementing grievance procedures for individuals who allege discrimination
on the basis of sex. It also provides suggestions which recipients may find useful in establishing grievance procedures.

SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 (SECTION 504)

AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES FOR POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS. (Code
No. 02) 1991. 15 pp. This pamphlet reviews the obligations of higher education institutions under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It also includes answers to questions commonly asked by students and representatives of
postsecondary institutions.

DISCIPLINE OF STUDENTS WITH HANDICAPS IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
(Code No. 03) 1992. 12 pp. This pamphlet summarizes the responsibilities of school officials under Section 504 and the
rights of students with disabilities and their parents or guardians in situations requiring disciplinary action that could result
in expulsion from or long-term suspension of educational services.

FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION. (Code No. 07) 1992. 10 pp. This pamphlet describes what
constitutes free appropriate education for students with handicaps. The Section 504 regulation requires a recipient
operating federally funded public elementary and secondary education programs to provide a “free appropriate public
education” to each qualified person with a disability who is in the recipient’s jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or
severity of the person’s disability.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS’ RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL LAWS. (Code No. 24 & 24S) 1992. pp. 11. As
part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L.93-112), Congress enacted Section 504, the first Federal civil rights law
protecting the rights of handicapped persons. Section 504 provides that “no otherwise qualified handicapped individual
in the United States…” shall, solely by reason of …”handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” This
pamphlet is available in English and Spanish.

PLACEMENT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN WITH ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME.
(Code No. 14) 1992. pp. 11. This pamphlet describes the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, with respect to elementary and secondary school policies involving the placement of children with
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

STUDENT PLACEMENT IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS & SECTION 504. (Code
No. 19) 1991. pp. 8. This publication describes the Education of Handicapped Act (EHA), now the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which provides Federal financial assistance to states to ensure that each child who
has a disability receives a free and appropriate public education, and placement of handicapped students with disabilities
in special education programs.

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. 1991. 5 pp. This pamphlet, published by the Department of
Justice (DOJ), contains a brief overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act and lists contact information for DOJ.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF STUDENTS WITH HIDDEN DISABILITIES UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE
REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973. (Code No. 22) 1995. pp. 10. This pamphlet answers questions about the civil
rights of students with hidden disabilities and the responsibilities of ED recipients.

FEDERAL REGISTER REPRINTS

Federal Regulation, May 9, 1980, for Section 504 Regulation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 with Dec. 1990
Amendment 28 pp. Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in education programs and activities receiving or
benefiting from Federal financial assistance.

Federal Regulation, May 9, 1980, for Title VI Regulation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 19 pp.
Nondiscrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in education programs and activities receiving or
benefiting from Federal financial assistance.

Federal Regulation, March 13, 1997, Department of Education/Office for Civil Rights: Sexual Harassment Guidance:
Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties. The Summary and Guidance
provides educational institutions with information regarding the standards that are used by the Office for Civil Rights
(OCR), and that institutions should use, to investigate and resolve allegations of sexual harassment of students engaged in
by school employees, other students (peers), or third parties.

Federal Regulation, May 9, 1980, for Title IX Regulation of the Education Amendments of 1972. 11 pp.
Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial
assistance.

Federal Regulation, July 27, 1993, Department of Education, for Regulation, for Regulation for the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975. 21 pp. Nondiscrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving or
benefiting from Federal financial assistance.

Federal Regulation, December 11, 1979, Policy Interpretation – Title IX and Intercollegiate Athletics. 11 pp.
Clarifies the obligations of recipients to provide equal opportunity in athletic programs, especially with respect to athletic
financial assistance, equivalence in other athletic benefits and opportunities, and effective accommodation of students’
interests and abilities.

Federal Regulation, March 27, 1979, Guidelines for Vocational Education Programs. 14 pp. These guidelines
explain the civil rights responsibilities of recipients of Federal funds offering or administering vocational education
programs.

Ofran, Hagit (2013), ‘visit of the legal or illegal settlements of Hebron’, paper given at JCall trip to Israel and Palestinian Territories, Hebron.

She’s the grand-daughter of Jeshayahu Lebowitz, a tremendous figure of Jewish Thought and Zionism.
She spoke of the A word with great caution. It’s a question of security, not of race, but on the spot, it is still hard to absorb…kids not allowed to set a foot on their own street but only in their building property, David Stars and provocating graffitis on Arab shops which have closed down due to the curfew etc…

Ogbu, J. 1978. Minority Education and Caste. New York: Academic Press.

___1992. Understanding multicultural Education. Educational Researcher 5 (14):24.

Ohmann, Tichard, ed. 1996. Making and Selling Culture. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press.

O’Laoire, Muiris (2007), ‘Anglais et Irlandais: Hybridité dans un Espace de Tansition’, in Daphné Romy and Larissa Aronin (eds.), L’Anglais et les Cultures: Carrefour ou Frontière? (Droit et Cultures, 54; Paris: L’Harmattan).

Ólafsdóttir, Audur Ava (2010), Rosa Candida, trans. Catherine Eyjólfsson (Honfleur: Zulma).

143-144: “(…) il me demande en quelle langue je préfère parler et m’en offre un choix, ce qui me déconcerte un peu.
“Avant, je faisais de la linguistique, dit-il, les langues, c’est mon dada”. Je m’enhardis à lui demander combien il en parle. Il déclare en parler bien dix-neuf et passablement quinze autres, outre il en comprend plusieurs autres encore un tout petit peu.
“Du fait de leur parenté, dit-il. Quand on a dépassé les onze, ce n’est pas compliqué d’en ajouter une autre”
170-171: “Oui, tu n’as jamais eu de problème avec les langues, mon petit Lobbi. Même si ce n’est peut-être pas avantageux de s’appliquer à apprendre une langue que très peu de gens parlent, alors qu’il y en a si peu qui parlent ta propre langue maternelle.”
Puis il me dit avoir entendu récemment qu’il y a une langue qui meurt chaque semaine dans le monde.
“Est-ce qu’il ne vaut pas mieux alors que je rentre à la maison pour étudier la grammaire, dis-je pour mettre fin à la conversation.
– Tu es sûr de ne pas être en train de perdre ton temps à apprendre une langue menacée d’extinction?”

Olszewski, L. 1997. Oakland Teachers Put Ebonics to the Real World Test”. The San Francisco Chronicle, Jan.17, 1997.

quotation in Casey, J.W. 1998. ‘The Ebonics Controversy: Critical Perspectives on African-American Vernacular English’. The Keiai Journal of International Studies 1: 179-214.

Onishi, Norimitsu. 1996. And now has come the time of the “Asiamericans”. The New York Times, 14 juin.

Repris de Courrier International No. 293 du 13 au 19 juin 1996, p. 18
“A un moment où les manifestations d’hostilité envers les immigrés se pmultipliewnt, les Américaisn d’origne asiatique se trouvetn à la croisée des chemins, tant sur le plan personnel que politique. Beaucoup affirment toujours haut et fort l’identité de leur pays d’origine, notamment au sein d’associations très actives dans certaines villes et universités, maias le sentiment d’une appartenance asiatique globale gagne du terrain. Il a donné naissance à de nombreuses associatons panasiatiques, en particulier dans les villes comme New York (dans le Queens ou les quartiers sud de Manhattan), Los Angeles et San Francisco, où les Asiatiques originaires de différents pays n’ont commencé à se côtoyer que depuis une vingtaine d’année. Aux Etats-Unis, c’est la communauté qui connaît la plus forte croissance. Mais ses membres se considèreront-ils un jour comme Sino-Américains ou Philippino-Américains, à l’instar des Italo-Américains ou des Irlando-Américains? Ou voudront-ils qu’on les désigne par le terme d’Asiatiques-Américains comme les Noirs se font Appeler Africains Américains pour b ien marquer leur différence raciale? C’est le mouvement des droits civiques qui a provoqué cette prise de conscience.
(..)Après l’abrogation en 1965 des lois qui limitaient strictement l’entrée des Asiatiques depuis les années 20, le nombre d’Américains d’origine asiatique est monté en flèche, passant de 1 million en 1960 à 9 millions aujourd’hui. “On assiste à l’émergence de la seconde génération” explique Yen Le Espiritu, un ethnologue d’origine vietnamienne de l’université de Californie à San Diego. “Non seulement ils font des études supérieures. Non seulement ils revendiquent une identité commune, ils réclamment aussi la création de départements d'”études aisatiques-américains” dans des universités comme Columbia et Princeton. Preuve de pous que, dans le contexte socio-culturel actuel, leur action se politise. L’université joue un rôle important dans cette prise de conscience.Les Asiatiques-Américains ne représentent que 3% de la population du pays, mais 5,4% des étudiants dans l’enseignement supérieur

Oommen, T.K. (1997), Citizenship, nationality and ethnicity: reconciling competing identities (Cambridge: Polity Press,).

Ossipow, William (2005), ‘Le passage à l’Etat: Méditation d’un politologue ‘, in William Ossipow (ed.), Israel et l’Autre (Genève: Labor et Fides), 88-135.

Le sionisme est donc le discours où le peuple juif réfléchit et exprime sa visée du olitique et, d’une certaine manière, en creux, son rapport à l’autre, c’est-à-dire au non-Juif et surtout, dans ce contexte, le rapport aux Arabes.
(il cite Hannah ARENDT, « Réexamen du sionisme », in : Auschwitz et Jérusalem, Paris, Ed. Deuxtemps Tierce (Presse Pocket Agora), 1993, p 117 et Anita SHAPIRA, Land and Power. The Zionist Resort to Force. 1881-1948, Stanford, CA, Stanford University press, 1999, p. 9).
88 (in Le foyer national). La conception civiliste basée sur le consentement généralisée des acteurs concernés par l’immigratin juive en Palestine allait se heurter inévitablement à la réalité conflictuelle qui constitue le tissu de la politique, au Proche-Orient comme ailleurs. Résistence des notables arabes ; effets sociaux pervers des achats de terres effectués par les immigrés et leurs agence, dont le moindre ne fut pas le renvoi des travailleurs arabes dès lors que la terre était judaïsée ; revirement et réticences face à l’immigraiton de la part de la Grande-Bretagne, puissance mandataire. Un contention considérable s’accumule (…) Une aile politique dure va développer alors le programme d’un sionisme résolument nationaliste et orienté vers la création d’un Etat qui accepte d’assumer la violence inhérente à toute politique et au projet sioniste en particulier. Ce fut le rôle de Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), théoricien et animateur de ce courant interne au sionisme dit révisioniste. Ce fut ensuite le role de Ben Gourion de passer aux travaux pratiques et de conduire Israël vers son Etat.
Le sionisme révisioniste.
L’influence de Jabotinsky fut considérable, tant sur ses adversaires que sur ses propres amis. Hannah Arendt considère qu’ il y eut un véritable « raz de marée révisioniste » au sein de l’Organisation sioniste, que Ben Gourion lui-même avait des tendances révisionistes et que « l’Organisation sioniste avait adopté le programme de l’Etat révisioniste Juif » (Hannah ARENDT, « Réexamen du sionisme », in : Auschwitz et Jérusalem, Paris, Ed. Deuxtemps Tierce (Presse Pocket Agora), 1993, p 107).
Le révisionisme de Jabotinsky, dont les dirigeants de la droite israélienne, du Likoud, Begin, Shamir, Sharon et Netanyahou sont idéologiquement nourris, exprime avec une impressionnante netteté la vision politique d’un regroupement politique organisé autour et pour un combat contre l’autre, en l’occurrence l’Arabe. Cette manière de voir les choses rejoint en fait le réalisme politique classique qui voit en l’autre un ennemi potientiel ou actuel et où tous les moyens doivent être mobilisés pour le combattre et pour maximiser la capacité et la puissance de l’Etat.
p. 93, il cite Hanna ARENDT, OP.CIT. « l’insistance des révisionistes en faveur d’un Etat national et leur refus d’accepter purement et simplmeent un « foyer national » avaient triomphé (p. 101)
et p. 95, ce qu’il qualifie de « très beau texte de Hanna ARENDT » :

La religion juive est une religion nationale. Mais le concept du politique ne valait cependant qu’avec de grande restriction. Cette perte du monde que le peuple juif a subie dans la dispersion et qui, comme chez tous les peuples parias, a engendré une chaleur très particulière chez tous ses membres, c’est tout cela qui a été modifié au moment de la fondation de l’Etat d’Israël. (…). Oui, la liberté se paie cher. L’humanité juive spécifique, sous le signe de la perte du monde, était quelque chose de très beau (…) C’est tout cela qui a naturellement subi des préjudices extrêmement graves. On paie pour la libération » (Hanna ARENDT, « Seule demeure la langue maternelle » in La Tradition Cachée, Paris 10/18.
96 : On peut ainsi reprocher aux Israéliens d’avoir, en 1948, profité de la fuite d’environ 700 000 Arabes de Palestine. Cet exode débuta dans le chaos et l’improvisation opérationnelles de la guerre de 1948-49 contre les Etats arabes, mais il devint rapidement une politique consciente et organisée. (…)
97 : Mais n’était-ce pas là pratique ordinaire et normale à l’époque : l’Angleterre n’a-t-elle pas présidé, exactement au même moment, au déplacement de millions de personnes lors du partage entre l’Inde et le Pakistan ? L’époque aimait les partitions et ne se priva pas d’en jouer : déjà en 1920, le Parlement britannique avait voté le Governmeent of Ireland Act qui créait deux entités distinctes (…)
(Et de citer l’Allemagne, la Corée, l’Indochine, la Chine avec Formose/Taiwan)
Ce que commit Israël avec les populations arabes dans la foulée du plan de partition des Nations Unies pour la Palestine et de la guerre d’Indépendance ne fut probablement ni meilleur ni pire que l’ordiaire de la gestion infiniment méprisante des populations qui fut celle de la réorganisation du monde au lendemain de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale et à l’heure des colonialisme déclianants. Ce fut là, pour Israël, une première normalisation d’envergure, un premier alignement sur le cynisme sans fond des puissances guidées par le modèles réaliste.
109 : la création d’Israël comme Etat juif a, d’une certaine manière, étendu une des dimensions de la communauté chaude et restreinte à l’ensemble de la société. Pour échapper au mariage rabbinique et faire un mariage purement civil et laïc, les jeunes époux israéliens font volontiers le voyage vers Chypre, voyge-métaphore de la quasi-impossibilité de trouver un dehors au caractère juif de l’Etat si ce n’est en sortant purement et simplement de l’espace sociétal lui-même. Il est vrai que les Arabes d’Israël ne sont pas soumis à la législation religieuse juive, qu’ils ont leur propre droit du mariage et de la famille. Il n’empêche que l’Etat juif n’est pas le leur, ses symboles et sa langue ne sont pas leurs symboles ni leur langue, mais les ymboles et la langue d’un groupe social qui reste un groupe particulier, même si ce groupe est majoritaire.
Du temps de l’exil, le peuple juif subissait largement son rapport social et politique à l’autre. Objet de haine ou de mépris, ou alors simplement toléré (…)
117 : Déni de citoyenneté, déni de dignité
La citoxyenneté est, en effet, un concept essentiel pour comprendre le statut des indifidus dans une communauté politique et pour pouvoir apprécier la dignité politiqu et humaine qui leur est conférée par les institutions.
122 : La loi du retour concrétise, avec une visibilité éclatante, la raison d’être première du politique dans une vision hobbesienne : soustraire les hommes à la sauvagerie, leur assurer ce premier degré de la protection qu’est l’assurance de la prise en main collective de la sécurité de tous et de chacun. Il est presque superflu d’ajouter que ce modèle familial expemplaire génère un périmètre où son tinclus, au moins potentiellement, l’ensemble des Juifs vivant de par le monde ;
Conclusion
Dans un texte de 1967, l’écrivain israélien Amos Oz interprétait ainsi le sionisme : « l’action sioniste n’a d’autre justification objective que celle du naufragé qui s’agrippe à une dernière planche par laquelle il peut encore espérer se sauver : cela suffit »(Amos Oz, « La Réconciliation est-elle possible ? » in Denis Charbit et. P. 890) La métaphore cernait bien l’inquiétude irrépressible de ceux qui cherchent un abri pour eux-mêmes et les leurs, contre les pogroms, les persécutions et l’extermination ; elle exprimait l’anglisse de ceux qui pensaient que tout peut encore recommencer ; en pointant vers l’essentiel, vers l’immense et imméritée détresse de la condItion juive, elle parvenait à avoir une grande force persuasive.
Les thèmes du rescapé et du naufragé figurent parmi les métaphores les plus riches de la situation existentielle de l’homme. Noé lui-même n’était-il pas un rescapé de l’engloutissement ayant trouvé refugre sur un bateau ? Toute une littérature morale prend racine dans cette expérience de pensée centrée sur la survie des maufragés et ouvre diverses perspectives sur la condition humaine.
Dans une lutte pathétique des naufragés pour trouver encore une place sur un bateau surchargé, on peut trouver en effet les diverses variétés de comportement humain. On rencontre ainsi le sait qui laissera, dans un acte d’une minente valeur morale, la place à l’autre et qui consentira au sacrifice de soi en se laissant engloutir par les flots. Mais cette attitude qui relève de l’exception individuelle et de l’action surérogatoire, peut être suspectée à juste titre de démission et d’irresponsablilité dès lors qu’elle est transposée au niveau des enjeux collectifs et politiques. Le refus d’Israël (…) d’adopter la posture d’Abel particie de cette maturation de la responsabilité politqiue.
Parmi les attitudes du naufragé, on trouvera aussi et surtout l’homme ordinaire (…) préoccupé par sa propre survie (…). Dilemme tragique que le politique doit assumer pleinement quitte à avoir les mains sales (note : sur le thème des dirty hands, il existe une vaste littérature en éthique politique. Les assassinats ciblés ou les démolitions de milliers de maisons de civils relèvent de cette problmatique spécifique de la « morale de l’Etat » (note de bas de page, Madsen, Peter and Shapritz, Jay M. (eds.) (1992), Essentials of Government Ethics (New York: Meridian).)
La perspective de la lutte pour la vie est transposable au niveau des relations entre peuples et nations. Il s’est ainsi développé ce qu’Alain Dieckhoff a récemment appelé “le retour du complexe de Massada”

— (ed.), (2005), Israel et l-Autre (Genève: Labor et Fides) 245.

8: Il y a, dans la courte histoire de l’Etat d’Israël, une succession interminable de violences subies ou infligées. Les guerres conduites par les Arabes, puis par les Israéliens, les spoliations, les attentats, l’occupation des territoires palestiniens, les démolitions de maisons, les assassinats plus ou moins ciblés. Auant de merniers mots que les uns ou les autres tentent d’imposer. Autant de tentatives de renverser le cours de l’histoire. Autant de martyrs, assumés ou pas, des causes douteuses et perdues. La paix avancera cependant, malgré le meurtre de Rabin, malgré les lignes rouges proclamées infranchissables, malgré les attentats.
(…)
8-9: La question israélienne succède et se surajoute à l’ancienne question juive, la question de l’identité juive, du sens d’être juif, de l’étrangeté et de la fragilité de la conditin juive, de l’insertion juive dans un monde plus ou moins hostile, de la survie du judaïsme et des juves. En devenant très consciemment l’Etat Juif, Israël réunit sur ses épaules le poids de toutes ces questions qui explicitent la question juive de base (…)
Quand Israël s’expose sur la scène internationale, c’est bien le judaïsme qui s’expose en même temps.

Ost, Françoise (2009), Traduire. Défense et illustration du multilinguisme (« Ouvertures »: Fayard ) 421.

cité par Dakhli, L. (2009) “Le multilinguisme est un humanisme.” La Vie des Idées Volume, DOI:

Osuna, Juan José. 1949. A History of Education in Puerto Rico. Rio Pedras: Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Owens, Jonathan (ed.), (2000), Contributions to the Sociology of Language (83) xii+458.

Shalom J Street, God bless you for being here. J Street, there’s more than one way to be a good jew and for a zionist to stand for Israel. Zionism has always been a surname, not a first name. Israel-Palestine is a clash between right and right. A real tragedy. Sometimes, it becomes a clash between wrong and wrong. The western concept that conflicts are a misunderstanding doesn’t apply in this instance. We need a livable compromise. Not a popular concept with young idealists! The opposite of compromise is death and fanaticism. We need a fair if painful divorce: a two state solution. Divorce in the same house. 2 small apartments. One day, the Palestinian Embassy in Israel will be in walking distance from Palestine. Let’s wave no flags over the holy places and let the Messiah come and decide. The cognitive block is gone. The two state solution is within reach. The patient (Israel and Palestine) is ready for surgery, the doctors are cowards. The problem is leadership on both sides. People are open-ended (nobody expected Gorby of dismantling USSR more than they expected Sadate to make peace with Israel…). It will not be the first nations to make peace with clenched teeth then de-escalate. Make peace, not love!
It would be a mistake for Israel to launch an attack on Iran. It would be a mistake to compare Israel as Jews from Holocaust. Iran is the problem of the whole world, not Israel alone.
In Shakespeare’s tragedy, the stage is covered with dead bodies but justice prevails. In Tchekhov tragedies, everyone is disillusioned but alive. We want a Tchekhov ending!
We are living the gold age of Israel in arts and science. We need to renew social solidarity which Israel had in early years and lost in the course of years. J Street, I’ve been waiting for you my entire adult life!

Oz, A. (2012). Keynote address. J Street: Making History, Washington D.C.

Shalom J Street, God bless you for being here. J Street, there’s more than one way to be a good jew and for a zionist to stand for Israel. Zionism has always been a surname, not a first name. Israel-Palestine is a clash between right and right. A real tragedy. Sometimes, it becomes a clash between wrong and wrong. The western concept that conflicts are a misunderstanding doesn’t apply in this instance. We need a livable compromise. Not a popular concept with young idealists! The opposite of compromise is death and fanaticism. We need a fair if painful divorce: a two state solution. Divorce in the same house. 2 small apartments. One day, the Palestinian Embassy in Israel will be in walking distance from Palestine. Let’s wave no flags over the holy places and let the Messiah come and decide. The cognitive block is gone. The two state solution is within reach. The patient (Israel and Palestine) is ready for surgery, the doctors are cowards. The problem is leadership on both sides. People are open-ended (nobody expected Gorby of dismantling USSR more than they expected Sadate to make peace with Israel…). It will not be the first nations to make peace with clenched teeth then de-escalate. Make peace, not love!

It would be a mistake for Israel to launch an attack on Iran. It would be a mistake to compare Israel as Jews from Holocaust. Iran is the problem of the whole world, not Israel alone.

In Shakespeare’s tragedy, the stage is covered with dead bodies but justice prevails. In Tchekhov tragedies, everyone is disillusioned but alive. We want a Tchekhov ending!

We are living the gold age of Israel in arts and science. We need to renew social solidarity which Israel had in early years and lost in the course of years. J Street, I’ve been waiting for you my entire adult life!

Oz, Amos. 2004. A tale of love and darkness (Harcourt).

One of my favourite books!!!! I took lots of notes  but still have to enter them. If you protest, I’ll speed up the process!

Ozolins, Uldis. 1988. Goverment language policy initiatives and the future of ethnic languages in Australia (II). International Journal of the Sociology of Language (72):113-129.

In Australia, the last decade has witnessed a fascinating evolution of language policy, with significant developments in policy formulation, the activities of language professionals, institutional priorities, and the political demands of language groups.
While that future must essentially be determined by the vitality of ethnic groups themselves and their own language-maintenance and language development endeavors, we have seen a considerable growth in sensitivity of mainstream institutions toward at least some of the language needs and demands of the ethnic groups.

The changing Australian linguistic environment

Postwar migration has brought over three million settlers to Australia, over half of them from non-English-speaking countries, and they, together with their offspring, form the bulk of speakers of languages other than English (LOTEs), changing decidedly Australia’s assumed monolingualism. Approximately every eighth Australian now regularly uses a LOTE, and in the major cities this proportion rises to every fifth. To a great extent, it is this migrant influx that has created awareness of other language issues in Australia, and also governed policy response. The influence of the migrant population (and migration to Australia has always been intended for permanent settlement, not far a guest-worker situation) has been a much greater influence on language policy in Australia than have other language issues language needs for trade and external affairs, for example, or Aurtralia’s own educational tradition of teaching foreign languages, or, indeed, considerations
of Australia’s needs in English. The newer influence of the migrant population has often had to battle against previous and often implicit language policies, particularly relating to the assumption of the universality of English, and the status of other languages in Australia.
The recent developments of language policy are thus generally seen as coming under the general rubric of ‘ethnic affairs’, or even’migrant welfare’, which has given these language-policy initiatives both their strength and their current limitations: language policy has continually been hostage to wider social theories of immigrant (and Aboriginal) integration, of social cohesion, of cultural and sonal hierarchy.
Several studies have traced the change of these wider social theories from, the beginning of port-World War II migration to the present . Less well researched have been earlier Australian linguistic environments, particularly in relation to LOTES, but such studies as do exist are instructive in demonStratinG that the fact of a multilingual society does not, in itself, guarantee the continuance of such a society: government policy played its part, as did reflected social attitudes, in putting severe constraints upon languages, and it needs to receive adequate recognition in studies of language vitality or language death.
While 19th century Australian society was characterized at various times by the influx or several multilingual populations, the decrease of non-British immigration alter the 19th-century gold rushes bmiight a weakening of this influence, and through a combination of population structure and oven political controls, the place of LOTEs in Australian society between the beginning of the 20th century and World War II war a very minor one. Such languages (Aborigmal languages, languages of small, usually scattered migrant groups) tended to be at best ignored or at worst treated with suspicion and eradicated. Prevailing assimilationist attitudes saw little value in maintaining other languages and regarded with mist rust at tempts to publicly use, identify with, or promote other languages. As some countcrpoint to the general suspicion of other languages, were taught in Australian schools, but then only for the academie elite, and only in secondary education, with’foreign’ or classical’ language requirements (overwhelmingly French or Latin) often governing entry into universities.
The languages were taught far the ancient purposes of intellectual development and discipline and were seldom used by their students in any communicative context.
Postwar migrants of non-English·speaking background arriving in Australia felt the strength of these prevailing social assumptions, which in particular
cases were enshrined in legislation and active government intervention: There were, for example, strict controls over foreign-language newspapers and radio broadcasting, and in some states it had been forbidden to use LOTEs as the language of instruction in schools since anti-German feelings led to these bans in World War 1. Most generally, the postwar migrants felt the explicit and implicit assumption that they were and should be assimilable, that they would blend into an ovewhelmingly monolingual and Anglo-conformist society. The teaching of English to adult migrants was considered to be the one postarrival service worth providing to hasten this process, and it was assumed that even this measure of assistance was not required for migrant children, who would pick up the language naturally in the monolingual Australian playground and classroom. Ethnic languages in this period were maintained in spite of official and civil policy and ideology and could not in any way look to support from their environment.
A gradual shift occurred throughout the 1960s from the view that migrants were (or at least should be) easily assimilable. The heavy concentration of migrant settlements in inner-urban areas, their generally economically disadvantaged condition, and in respect of languages the clear refusal of migrants to abandon their languages gradually brought changes to official treatment of the migrant population. Restrictions on institutional use of other languages were relaxed (though not always totally given up), and a new policy orienta-
tion, that of focusing on the social disadvantage of migrants, and on government efforts necessary to overcome such disadvantage, began to be asserted in the mid-to-late 1960s.
Slowly, assertions of the value of ethnic languages themselves began to be raised: official suspicion of ethnic schools (after·hours schools operated by ethnic communities to reach the language, culture, and often religion of the homeland) and of other language·maintenance activities had made the migrant communities reluctant to assert their language rights in the 1950s and 1960s, but increasing activism on the part of migrant groups themselves, and the social welfare and political groups supporting migrant rights in the early 1970s, now argued the positive worth of migrant languages in terms of social cohesion and sell-esteem, and thev relevance to Australia’s wider language
needs. Both major political parties’discovered’ ethnic-affairs issues in the years l972-1975, bringing an ideological redefinition of official stances toward migrants, from assimilation or integration perspectives to an active (if vague) espousal of multiculturalism, which since that tune has become the prime ideological motivation for most considerations of languages and language policies. This war the rationale for the quite radical introduction in 1975 of broadcasting stations using LOTEs, a dramatic turnabout from previous policies which had tried to limit their use. Through both a general expansion of public broadcasting stations, several of which devoted considerable airtime
to ethnic programs, and the setting up of two specifically ethnic-language stations (ZEA in Sydney and 3EA in Melbourne), new elements were introduced into Australian broadcasting, with government seeing its role as having changed from the censoring of other languages to a degree of facilitation of ethnic community communication.
Here again, specific language policies were introduced under broader social headings: the expansion of public broadcasting was undertaken for reasons quite unrelated to ethnic affairs, but as public groups organized to take advantage of new opportunitieS, ethnic groups with already·established ethnic community structures came to assume a prominent place among the broadcasters. Ihe 2EA/3EA initiative began as an endeavor to broadcast government information to ethnic communities to assist them into settlement in Australian society, but quickly this move was also given impetus from cultural ideology and turned to the involvement of ethnic groups themselves; in programing and broadcasting. With these achievements in radio, the demand for ethnic television was raised, with both parties promising this to their’
constituents in the 1977 federal election.
For the ethnic groups, this period of the mid-1970s was a time for intense organization and activism to enable more effective representation at the policy level and to take advantage of shitt in government rhetoric. Before this time it is hard to talk of any effective representation on the part of ethnic groups, with individual ethnic figures occasionally having the ear of politicians or particular government departments, or the interests of ethnic groups essentially being represented tar in a welare model) by mainstream spokesmen, often those closely connected to services for migrants. The activism of the ethnic minorities reached a significant new peak in 1973, with the organization of the first Migrant Workers Conference in Melbourne. Organized by migrant and nonmigrant unionists and having delegates elected by migrants
on the shopfloor, the conference not only covered industrial issues but debated (in language·specific workshops) other aspects of social policy eluding the place of migrant languages and cultures. The conference produced a ‘Statement on Migrant Languages and Cultures’ which set out what became the enduring demands of ethnic language groups over the next decade or more: language-maintenance efforts to be supported by mainstream institutions particularly the education system): the establishment of effective; professional language services, the expansion of language offerings and the teaching of languages and cultures to all students in the education system, not only migrant students; the recognition of Australia.s diverse internal and external language needs (Migrant Workers Conference 1974).

In this period, language issues emerged in the context of broader struggles for migrants` rights and against exploitation of migrants in the labor force. As demonstrated by the Migrant Workers Conference, issues of equity were now continually joined by, and became associated with, issues of cultural identity and the value of cultures and languages. Migrant activism from this time was always characterized by this essential duality, linking issues of equity to those of culture. In education, the Migrant Workers Conference in turn spawned,in Victoria,
Migrant Education Action, a coalition of migrant and other organisations concerned with pressing these demands in schools and at the policy level, through a series of conferences, publications, and lobbying activities. At a more general level, migrant representation finally achieved a central focus in 1974-1975 when Ethnic Communities Councils were established in Victoria and New South Wales, providing a general representative forum for ethnic groups, which devoted themselves to the monitoring of government policy in ethnic affairs and seeking input into policy decisions on a variety of issues, language issues being among the most prominent.
The preconditions for a national language policy

Discussion of’language policy’ is a phenomenon of the post-1975 period, with the term used only rarely before this. While the broader social and political initiatives relating to ethnic affairs set underway in the early 1970s continued in the subsequent decade, language issues now began to be identified at least partly in their own right, culminating in an official inquiry into language policy (which attempted to go far beyond an ethnic-affairs perspective) and the evolution of policies in a variety of areas related to language issues.
The late 1970s were a period when a more detailed and comprehensive approach began to be taken to postarrival services, to reflect the government’s concern far promoting multiculturalism. While previous policy initiatives had slowly extended the range of postarrival services (Child Migrant Education was introduced in 1970, providing mainly ESL teachers, and the Telephone Interpreter Service began in 1973 as a permanent community communication facility), they were far the first time systematized and coordinated in the Galbally Report of 1978 (Australia, Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants 1978) and informed by a concern for multiculturalism
and the realisation of a society which not only was seen as responding to migrant settlement needs but which also treated with respect the variety of cultures which weie now enriching Australian society.
Under the rubric of developing multiculturalirm the”Galbally Report” recommended the strengthening of ethnic media and moving toward ethnic television, the consolidation of language services:the more extensive teaching of migrant languages (now usually termed ‘community languages.) in schools and tertiary education, and the promotion of multicultural education to have a more general impact upon school curricula. To underline the symbolic importance of Galbally, the report was presented in several community languages, becoming the first Australian report to have a multilingual readership. The Prime Minister of the day, Malcalm Fraser, who commissioned and presented the report personally, also ensured that detailed attention was given to implementation, giving the report considerable penetration of government institutions: an elaborate system of accountability was established to follow the various recommendations, with ‘Galbally desks’
bringing ethnic-affairs considerations into the detailed workin g of public administration.
Moves for a national language policy were to come essentially from a coalition of social groups concerned with quite disparate language issues, and it was the ability of these groups to cohere and provide a more rounded, comprehensive perspective on language issues that enabled these issues to be identified as being a distinct concern, related to but not exhausted by concerns of ethnic affairs. The favorable reception of Calbally paved the way for a more comprehensive approach to postarrival services, and the language policy issue was interestingly to reflect this mode of policy making: when the language lobby itself could adopt the stance of essentially arguing for the
coordination and systematization of a range of disparate policies, it could begin to get the ear of government.
This coalition of language interests slowly developed in the late 1970s;
Its constituents came, apart from ethnic-affairs interests, from the following groups:
1, Those concerned with Aboriginal languages, a field that had grown in importance both in the Australian linguistics profession and even more unportantly through the activism of Abonginal groups themselves. The first bilingual education programs systematically established in Australia were in Aboriginal languages i nthe early l970s
2. English teachers, both those concerned with ESL teaching and, more generally, there concerned with English as a mother tongue. In the 1970s there had been a phase of innovation in English teaching with significant development of theory and practice affecting curricula and bringing language education to the fore of curriculum debate in both primary and secondary
3. Other English-related groups, such as those concerned with adult literacy, or with the teaching of English in the Asian region as an aspect of Australian foreign affairs.
4. The traditional language professions, which almost since World War II had been in a continual state of crisis, particularly in the face ofa general decline in established areas of language study in secondary and tertiary education, only partially offset by increased study of newer community languages.
5. Some nascent interests in developing Australia’s language resources for international purposes of trade, diplomacy, and communication.
6. Those concerned with a broad range of language services (for example, interpreting/translating. bilingual staffing) and with their development, training, and accreditation.
7. Groups concerned with various language handicaps. It is important to note that this coalition of interests covered all languages;
the diversity of interests made this coalition and its demands quite different from, say, the interests that pushed in the USA for the Presidential Commission on foreign languages: there was a commitment in Australia at all times to the inclusion of all languages and language interests in a national policy, so as not be identified with any one sectional group or restricted range of languages. This broadly based approach to language policy is perhaps the distinctive feature of this Australian initiative. The concern for a national
language policy thus covered a far greater range of language issues than ethnic groups alone could claim to represent.
An organisation of professional language associations and a govermnent bureaucracy- the Department of Education were particularly crucial actors in focusing broader community initiatives into a specifically policy focus. professional language associations had greatly increased their political activism in the late 1970s, particularly on language education issues, and in 1981 associations representing linguistics, applied linguistics, Aboriginal languages, English, and modern language interests came together as the Professional
Language Associations for a National Language Policy (PLANLangPol) PLANLangPol was influential in making repeated representations to government bodies for a comprehensive approach to language policy, and, with the support of the Department of Education, they targeted the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts as a suitable vehicle to launch an enquiry into national language policy. This Committee decided to take on this issue in March, 1982, and began a series of public hearings and other deliberations that finally resulted in their report, A National Longuage Policy in October, 1984 (Australia, Senate standing Committee on Education and the Arts 1984).
The Department of Education supported the thrust of the language asso-
ciations, itself producing a seminal discussion paper, Towards a National Language Policy (Australia, Department of Education 1982) that summarized the set of interlocking issues that a national language policy must address. Its range of suggested issues, and that of PLANLangPol, were clearly reflected in the Senate inquiry’s extensive terms of reference. This coalition of interests continued its work after the establishment of the Senate inquiry, and in late 1982 the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils, together with other bodies, staged a National Language policy conference to develop and coordinate submissions to the Senate inquiry and also to focus an related language-policy developments at both state and federal levels.
While these forces were important in promoting debate on language policy and persuading the Senate to take on this issue, this particular initiative did not go uncontested. Within the Australian policy context, initiatives in ethnic affairs are still often controversial and can easily arouse public debate: with the announcement of the Senate inquiry mto a’National Language Policy’, there war some media watchfulness over what this might imply was this to imply that languages other than English would be given the status of official : languages? What would be the place of Englisht Conservative commentators were cautious regarding any initiatives in language policy and wrote against
several aspects of the Senate inquiry both before and after if published its report (KnopTelmacher 1982;Chipman 1985).

A national language policy and related initiatives

The Senate Committee investigating language policy spent some two and a half years in its deliberations, embarking on an ambitious series of public sessions all over Australia to hear submissions and taking considerable care in its final recommendations. By the time the Committee released ifs report (Australia, Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts 1984), some of its conclusions had already been overtaken by other language·policy developments, particularly in education initiatives in some States, for the coalitions that worked to have the Senate inquiry were also active in local policy.
The Senate inquiry attempted first to establish principles that should underpin overall language policy, defining there as a set of objectives that would guarantee the following to all Australians:
*competence in English,
· maintenance and development of languages other than English;
* provision of services in languages other than English;
· opportunities for Learning second languages
(Recommendation I).

In elaborating these principles the report covered its variour terms of reference in a somewhat uneven fashion: the sections on Aboriginal languages wore the most exhaustive, revealing the’Committee’s considerable concern with this issue and its urgency in addressing the potential loss of unique Australian languages. Recommendations were made for the support of a wide range of language-maintenance initiatives here, particularly the use of bilingual education and the better representation of Aboriginal interests in media planning. Curiously, considering the stress laid on English by the initiators of the inquiry and by its terms of reference and enunciation of principles, the sections on English struggled to come to grips with the diffuse and complex issues involved and trod lightly over the crucial questions. There was no attempt to make this report into Australia’s Bullock Report.
The section on migrant languages, which concerns us most directly, was mild and rather cautious in its conclusions considering the numerous and extremely detailed submissions that had been made in this area. While generally supporting moves to increase language learning in schools, and recognizig the importance of language maintenance to ethnic communities, the Committee was uncertain how far to go in recommendations on bilingual education and the desired extent and scope of second-language programs in schools. Regarding bilingual education, the Committee had received a range of submissions that revealed important differences in attitudes to the desirability and practicability of bilingual programs in AustraBan schools. government departments and agencies tended to be cautious in their support for such programs, arguing that this could be a suitable form of education for Aborigmal children and for recent arrivals particularly adolescents), but that the aim of such programs would be essentially transitional. For example the Schools Commission (a body charged with allocating federal monies to the vanour rehaul systems) in appearing before the Committee stressed that transitional programs were the only ones feasible in the Australian context and dismissed the possibility of bilingual maintenance programs. This view was strongly
contested by other submissions, particularly from the Ethnic Communities Councils and other representatives of the few bilingual maintenance programs that had been established in Australia. With a number of other organizations weighing in on both sides of the debate, the Committee war cautious in its eventual recommendations. Contrasting with its emphatic support for bilingual maintenance programs for Aborigines, in relation to the migrant languages it pointed to the noted disagreements and urged slow development: it praised the few bilingual maintenance programs that existed but was daunted above all by the diversity of languages in schools and pointed to substantial :
organizational problems that made such programs impractical.
A similar caution undErlay its recommendations on second-language programs in schools. It enthusiastically supported primary·school language courses (which had appeared in considerable numbers in the previous decade) and recommended that such courses be ‘substantially increased to give more children the opportunity to maintain their home language or to acquire other languages’ (Recommendation 78) In secondary education, the Committee noted that language learning was not made avallable to large numbers of
students (across the country some 60% of year 7 students studied languages, reducing to 12% by year 12) and sought to ertabLIsh a minimal language learning for all secondary students, arguing that’all secondary students should experience language for a minimum period of one year, at levels suitable to their abilities (Recommendation 80). The Committee explained that it would be ‘hesitant to go beyond this position, at least in the context of the present state of development of language teaching techniques’ (paragraph 11.62). In particular, it rejected some still-extant views that language study should be made compulsory for all, or far all those wanting to enter higher education, noting the inevitable failure this would bring to many students and recommending instead that’secondary students of lesser academic ability should not be required to continue language learning for periods longer than a year until language programs suitable for students of all ability levels have been fully developed and shown to be operating successfully’ (Recommendation 81). This represents a pointed reference to the persistence of older views of language study which saw such study as having a curriculum, pedagogy, and objectes still best suited to the education of an elite. In reference to teacher training, the report urged long-term planning to ensure adequate numbers of language teachers, particularly in the developing field of primary language education. The report also strongly supported the work of ethnic schools, a field where official attitudes had changed markedly in the late 1970s, leading to the beginning of financial support to the work of
these after-hours schools. While the majority of the Committee’s recommendations dealing with ethnic languages concerned educational matters, non educational areas were also dealt with. There had been, for instance, a rapid reorientation of libraries in Australia toward their multilingual clientele, with increasing holdings of books and nonbook materials in LOTEs and active programs for the development of these library services. The establishment of SBS in 1978 and the introduction of a multicultural television service from 1980 were praised as
a means of exposing a significant proportion of the Australian population (of whatever language background) to different cultures and languages. The contribution of ethnic radio broadcasting to language maintenance was also examined. The Committee recommended that the introduction of future communication technologies (for example, satellites) should consider language needs and language demands of the populations affected.

As previoudy mentioned, the coalition of interests that shaped the Senate inquiry were also active at the state level, where initiatives in some cases had overtaken the Senate report, particularly in relation to the detailed elaboration of language objectives in school systems
In Victoria in 1983, the state government an the recommendation of its Advisory Committee on Migrant and Multicultural Education initiated plans to introduce up to 100 supernumerari community language teachers into primary schools, to accelerate the teaching of languages to lower age groups than had been the nonn. LOTEs were guaranteed a significant place in a series of planning and curriculum documents in the next few years. A Ministerial Paper on curriculum asked each school to ensure that its program enables students progressively to … acquire proficiency in another language used in the Australian community’ (Victoria, Education Minister 1984: 17),
thereby signaling that, in Victoria at least, the teaching of languages had significantly broken away from elitist models which reserved such study for the academic elite and particular ability levels. Detailed implications for staffing, support, and resources were spelled out
in a 1985 paper on The Place of Languages Other Than English in Victorian Schools(Victoria, State Board of Education and MACMME 1985), which gave an extensive rationale for the teaching of LOTEs. Language maintenance as one important objective was linked to other objectives of supplying language resources to meet a range of Victoria’s language needs, both internal and external, and the paper broke new ground in laying down what it considered to be minimal acceptable levels of language teaching in schools (at least three hours per week in primary schools) to make language studier of more than token significance. Bilingual maintenance programs were described in detail
and were promoted as desirable for a variety of school populations. While Victoria was the most active State in promoting such language
policies, similar moves in 1985 also came from South Australia and Queensland, and the spread of primary language programs and attention to teacher training were apparent in all states. Language-policy Implementation, certainly in education, thus demonstrated far more impetus at the peripheries than at the center.
Since the release of the Senate Committee’s report in October, 1984, attention has shifted to the implementation process, which has had to be attempted in circumstances not always propitious to the prosecution of language policies Indeed, the broadness of sweep of the Senate report has become a problematic element at this stage, with any effective implemen.
tation strategy essentially straddling and uniting a range of different (and perhaps competing) government departments and policy concerns. Cabinet, after discussion of this issue, asked government departments to wort toward establishing language policies and passed control of Implemen~ation to the Minister and Department of Education, which was so crucial in establishing the ong~nal Senate inquiry. However, this implementation stage relies very much upon the Department of Education’s being able to convince other departments of the worth of language policies. So far by late 1986, the Department of Social Security has been the foremost department in developing its own language policy, a policy made imperative by that department’s wide involvement in language services in its relations with its large non-English-speaking clientele.

Ethnic languages and the broadcasting system

Policy in regards tobroadcasting has been among the most politically salient of all ethnic-affairs issues, reflecting not only the sensitivity of ethnic affairs per se but also that of broadcasting policy, which in Australia has always involved considerable government intervention.
Australia’s broadcasting system, until the middle 1970s, reflected British traditions in having two distinct sectors national broadcasting in the shape of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) on the model of the BBC, directly supported from taxation; and commercial broadcasting, itself carefully monitored by government regulatory agencies in respect of program standards, technical operations, and ownership. As mentioned earlier, ethnic broadcasting came as part of a third stream of nonprofit pubhc broadcasting in 1974-1975, and ethnic groups showed their considerable organizational skills in becoming prominent in several pubsc broadcasting stations. Finally, the fourth stream of specifically ethnic radio broadcasting came wah the establishment of the 2EA/3EA network.
Given the political attention paid to aLL developments in broadcasting in Australia, moves in ethnic broadcasting have always been closely scrutinized and have reflected often hardlought policy battles. The establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service in 1978 institutionalized ethnic broadcasting and tested government commitment to its development. Although providing only radio broadcasting through the 2EA/3EA network at that time, SBS also had powers to develop multilingual television and, urged on by the Galbally Report and supported by the election promises of both political parties, this became a reality with the advent of Channel 0/28 in 1980, broadcasting multilngual materials with English subtitling of materials in LOTEs.
Importantly, however, in the time between the establishment of ethnic radio broadcasting in 1975 and 0/28 in 1980, significant shifts had occurred in government rhetoric and policy perspectives. While’ethnic television’ had been repeatedly pronmised to supplement ethnic radio, in fact 0/28 was created not as’ethnic television’ but as’multicultural television’, a crucial distinction: while ethnic radio drew its broadcasters from the ethnic communities themselves, broadcasting to those communities, devising their own programs with only the most general legal rest rictions on programing, multicultural television was not to provide a forum for the ethnic comnlunities or to focus on issues relating to those communities; rather its mode of operation was to bring multicultural materials largely from overseas and direct them to as broad an audience as possible. A much smaller proportion of material was produced locally. In respect of ethnic communities and their languages in Australia the role of 0/28 has never been clearly defined, but its influence should generally be seen in macro-terms: giving status to languages other than English, providing a multicultural medium that reflects a more diverse world than do the
other, more British-, American-, and Australian-centered broadcasting networks, and providing an input of contemporary language that can perhaps assist in language maintenance and development, without having this as an explicit goal.
Ethnic radio broadcasting, on the other hand, whether through public broadcasting or SBS, has clear language-maintenance aims in its generally close links to its listening communities. In some cares, the development of ethnic radio has had a dnect role in promoting other language activities, for example as described in a 1980 report on multicultural education.

Moreover, there has been concern on the part of many broadcasting groups to include younger broadcasters, attempting thus to introduce materials that could be attractive to a younger audience, ensuring both an audience and a cadre of broadcast ers for the future. Ethnic groups in the SBS netbworl have also pressed for increased training and for adequate remuneration for broadcasters, which have slowly been achieved after several early years of virtually volunteer broadcasting.
Financed by the public purse and to an extent controlled by the broad-casting communities, the EA network represents a quite unique attempt to support ethnic communities and Languages. Equally unique, though with a rather different relation to the ethnic communities, is multicultural television 0/28, representing perhaps most clearly the attempt to make a multicultural initiative accessible and relevant to the whole Australian population. Yet while serving as a highpoint of developing language policy in Australia, very recent developments have again embroiled SBS in a not·uncommon political
turmoil over broadcasting and shown a measure of restraint or even turnabout in pursuing multicultural goals on the part of the federal government in the 1986 budget, ostensibly on cost-cutting grounds, the govermnent declared its intention to have SBS amalgamated with the ABC, though it was argued that SBS would continue to return a separate entity and broadcasting policy, sharing mostly administrative and technical services. A storm of protest was aroused by this announcement, and its political future will need to be closely followed.
Also in the same budget, money for migrant education (which by now encompasses not only ESL teaching but also some bilingual programs) was severely cut, and the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, established by Fraser as an independent policy advice body, is to be brought under the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Of the proposed cuts, it is the SBS/ABC amalgamation that has provoked the strongest opposition. The future of ethnic and multicultural broadcasting, and their relation to ethnic languages, could depend greatly upon this decisive turning point.
Implementing policies far the future of ethnic languages.

Part of the concern about recent threats to ethnic-affairs interests has been the notable absence at the very highest political levels of interest in this field.
Compared to the close attention that Fraser paid for example to the implementation of the Galbally Report, there has been negligible interest shown in language issues (and more generally ethnic-affairs issues) by the present Prime Minister Hawke.
While it is still possible for some politicians to see ethnic affairs pohcy and related language issues as marginal to the central concerns of Australian polities, the substantial government allocations and the increasingly sophisticated political voice of migrant representation would indicate that a marginal status is wrongly ascribed. To an extent policies relating to ethnic affairs and ethnic languages have now tagen a place in tile mainstream of Australian politics, and with consequences that at mst may seem ironic: moving from a residual welfare position of relating to disadvantaged migrant groups to the main-
stream has meant that ethnic affairs and language policies must now engage in standard battles over resource allocation. party prioritied, and institutional wranglings that affect other parts of government policy. Indeed, the relatively ‘straight-line’ history we have drawn of steadily increasing support and resources for ethnic-related policy, for various language policies, and for ethnic broadcasting must be tempered by consideration of the particularly difficult economic and political climate that has developed in Australia in recent years.
Wider social and political attitudes have also played their part, for example in 1984 a protracted and bitterly sustained public struggle over the desirability of Asian migration and the costs of migration, which has left enduring scars both on ethnic relations and on the willingness of at least some governments to vigorously pursue ethnic-affairs policy. Rather than being in their historically familiar role of protesting at the lack of government policy initiatives, ethnic groups are now in the position of defending previously won but now threatened institutions SBS, niigrant education, tile Australian
Institute of Multicultural Affairs, and others.
The policy directions which can be glimpsed now, however, reveal a cornplex set of posabilities. While there is certainly a recent marked cooling-off of enthusiasm for ethluc-affairs issues, at least on the part of the federal government, many of the policy initiatives we have mentioned at both Federal and state levels are continuing and, in many ways, are begmnirig now
to provide an essential infrastructure for language-maintenance activities on the part of ethnic groups, and more broadly for the status of languages other
Than English m Australia. Among such essential infrastructure building we can cite the lollowmg: I, The begmnmg of an effective system of teacher training for language teachers in primary schools, including potential bilingual teachers. Even within a highly constrained teachcr-traming scene, such language training has received some prionty.
2. Increasmgly elaborated (state) education department pohcles on language education, ensuring a future for traInee teachers and providing, often for the first time, a reasonable opportunity for students of non-English-speaking background to have at least some education in their mother tongue, as well as making the teaching of LOTEs available to a greater proportion of the whole school population.
3. Some degree of support for ethnic schools, including a start to direct government funding, and increasing attempts to coordinatelanguage-teaching activities between ethnic schools and mainstream school systems.
4. The professionalilation ollanyage services, particularly concern for the accreditation and tralnlng of interpreters/ translators, the availability of bilingual officers m areas of public contact in government departments, and the
beginning of government deparfments and other autlrorities developing their own language policies.
5. The increased professionali~ation of etlmje radio broadcasting, including the training of community broadcasterr, n,ore adequate remuneration, and the beginning of a career structure.
6. An increased commitment to research and data collection on languages and ethnic communities, undertaken by an increasblg number of institutions including State Ethnic Affairs Comrmssions and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (including the return of a language question in the 1986 Census).
There crucial infrastructure initiatives continue even in a climate were broader support for multicultural perspectives may be less forthcoming, thus making the relation between ethnic community vitality and government policy in the future difficult to predict. Clearly, macro-effects (the general climate of language attitudes, overarching government policy orientations) can have a crucial bearing on the wider status of LOTEs in Australian society;
micro-infrastrueturc effects can have an equally crucial bearing on the detailed operation of language-maintenance institutions and practicer, and on the ability of languages to be sustained and reproduced. In Australia, in late 1986, these forcer are delicately poised.

language policies Indeed, the broadness of sweep of the Senate report has become a problematic element at this stage, with any effective implementation strategy essentially straddling and uniting a range of different (and perhaps competing) government departments and policy concerns. Cabinet, after discussion of this issue, asked government departments to wort toward establishing language policies and passed control of Implementation to the Minister and Department of Education, which was so crucial in establishing the original Senate inquiry. However, this implementation stage relies very
much upon the Department of Education’s being able to convince other departments of the worth of language policies. So far by late 1986, the Department of Social Security has been the foremost department in developing its own language policy, a policy made imperative by that department’s wide involvement in language services in its relations with its large non-English-speaking clientele.

Ethnic languages and the broadcasting system

Policy in regards to broadcasting has been among the most politically salient of all ethnic-affairs issues, reflecting not only the sensitivity of ethnic affairs per se but also that of broadcasting policy, which in Australia has always involved consid-erable government intervention.
Australia’s broadcasting system, until the middle 1970s, reflected British traditions in having two distinct sectors national broadcasting in the shape of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) on the model of the BBC, directly supported from taxation; and commercial broadcasting, itself carefully monitored by government regulatory agencies in respect of program standards, technical operations, and ownership. As mentioned earlier, ethnic broadcasting came as part of a third stream of nonprofit pubLIc broadcasting in 1974-1975, and ethnic groups showed their considerable organizational
skills in becoming prominent in several pubLIc broadcasting stations. Finally, the fourth stream of specifically ethnic radio broadcasting came wah the
establishment of the 2EA/3EA network.
Given the political attention paid to aLL developments in broadcasting in Australia, moves in ethnic broadcasting have always been closely scrutinized and have reflected often hardlought policy battles. The establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service in 1978 institutionalized ethnic broadcasting and tested government commitment to its development. Although providing only radio broadcasting through the 2EA/3EA network at that time, SBS also had powers to develop multilingual television and, urged on by the Galbally Report and supported by the election promises of both political parties, this became a reality with the advent of Channel 0/28 in 1980, broadcasting multilIngual materials with English subtitling of materials in LOTEs.
Importantly, however, in the time between the establishment of ethnic radio broadcasting in 1975 and 0/28 in 1980, significant shifts had occurred in government rhetoric and policy perspectives. While ‘ethnic television’ had been repeatedly promised to supplement ethnic radio, in fact 0/28 was created not as’ethnic television’ but as’multicultural television’, a crucial distinction: while ethnic radio drew its broadcasters from the ethnic communities themselves, broadcasting to those communities, devising their own programs with only the most general legal restrictions on programMing, multicultural television was not to provide a forum for the ethnic communities or to focus on issues relating to those communities; rather its mode of operation was to bring multicultural materials largely from overseas and direct them to as broad an
audience as possible. A much smaller proportion of material was produced locally. In respect of ethnic communities and their languages in Australia the role of 0/28 has never been clearly defined, but its influence should generally
be seen in macro-terms: giving status to languages other than English, providing a multicultural medium that reflects a more diverse world than do the other, more British-, American-, and Australian-centered broadcasting networks, and providing an input of contemporary language that can perhaps assist in language maintenance and development, without having this as an explicit goal.
Ethnic radio broadcasting, on the other hand, whether through public broadcasting or SBS, has clear language-maintenance aims in its generally close links to its listening communities. In some cares, the development of
ethnic radio has had a dIRect role in promoting other language activities, for example as described in a 1980 report on multicultural education.

Moreover, there has been concern on the part of many broadcasting groups to include younger broadcasters, attempting thus to introduce materials that could be attractive to a younger audience, ensuring both an audience and a cadre of broadcasters for the future. Ethnic groups in the SBS network have also pressed for increased training and for adequate remuneration for broadcasters, which have slowly been achieved after several early years of virtually volunteer broadcasting.
Financed by the public purse and to an extent controlled by the broadcasting communities, the EA network represents a quite unique attempt to support ethnic communities and Languages. Equally unique, though with a rather different relation to the ethnic communities, is multicultural television 0/28, representing perhaps most clearly the attempt to make a multicultural initiative accessible and relevant to the whole Australian population. Yet while serving as a highpoint of developing language policy in Australia, very recent developments have again embroiled SBS in a not·uncommon political
turmoil over broadcasting and shown a measure of restraint or even turnabout in pursuing multicultural goals on the part of the federal government in the 1986 budget, ostensibly on cost-cutting grounds, the government declared its intention to have SBS amalgamated with the ABC, though it was argued that SBS would continue to return a separate entity and broadcasting policy, sharing mostly administrative and technical services. A storm of protest was aroused by this announcement, and its political future will need to be closely followed.
Also in the same budget, money for migrant education (which by now encompasses not only ESL teaching but also some bilingual programs) was severely cut, and the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, established by Fraser as an independent policy advice body, is to be brought under the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Of the proposed cuts, it is the SBS/ABC amalgamation that has provoked the strongest opposition. The future of ethnic and multicultural broadcasting, and their relation to ethnic languages, could depend greatly upon this decisive turning point. Implementing policies far the future of ethnic languages

Part of the concern about recent threats to ethnic-affairs interests has been the notable absence at the very highest political levels of interest in this field.
Compared to the close attention that Fraser paid for example to the implementation of the Galbally Report, there has been negligible interest shown in language issues (and more generally ethnic-affairs issues) by the present Prime Minister Hawke.
While it is still possible for some politicians to see ethnic affairs policy and related language issues as marginal to the central concerns of Australian polities, the substantial government allocations and the increasingly sophisticated political voice of migrant representation would indicate that a marginal status is wrongly ascribed. To an extent policies relating to ethnic affairs and ethnic languages have now taken a place in the  mainstream of Australian politics, and with consequences that at mst may seem ironic: moving from a residual welfare position of relating to disadvantaged migrant groups to the main-
stream has meant that ethnic affairs and language policies must now engage in standard battles over resource allocation. party prioritized, and institutional wranglings that affect other parts of government policy. Indeed, the relatively
‘straight-line’ history we have drawn of steadily increasing support and resources for ethnic-related policy, for various language policies, and for ethnic broadcasting must be tempered by consideration of the particularly difficult economic and political climate that has developed in Australia in recent years.
Wider social and political attitudes have also played their part, for example in 1984 a protracted and bitterly sustained public struggle over the desirability of Asian migration and the costs of migration, which has left enduring scars
both on ethnic relations and on the willingness of at least some governments to vigorously pursue ethnic-affairs policy. Rather than being in their historically familiar role of protesting at the lack of government policy initiatives, ethnic groups are now in the position of defending previously won but now threatened institutions SBS, migrant education, tile Australian
Institute of Multicultural Affairs, and others.
The policy directions which can be glimpsed now, however, reveal a complex set of possibilities. While there is certainly a recent marked cooling-off of enthusiasm for ethnic-affairs issues, at least on the part of the federal government, many of the policy initiatives we have mentioned at both Federal and state levels are contIumg and,  in many ways, are beginning now
to provide an essential infrastructure for language-maintenance activities on the part of ethnic groups, and more broadly for the status of languages other than English m Australia. Among such essential infrastructure building we can cite the following:
I, The beginning of an effective system of teacher training for language teachers in primary schools, including potential bilingual teachers. Even within a highly constrained teacher-training scene, such language training has received some prionty.
2. Increasingly elaborated (state) education department policies on language education, ensuring a future for trainee teachers and providing, often for the first time, a reasonable opportunity for students of non-English-speaking background to have at least some education in their mother tongue, as well as making the teaching of LOTEs available to a greater proportion of the whole school population.
3. Some degree of support for ethnic schools, including a start to direct government funding, and increasing attempts to coordinate language-teaching activities between ethnic schools and mainstream school systems.
4. The professionalization of language services, particularly concern for the accreditation and training of  interpreters/ translators, the availability of bilingual officers m areas of public contact in government departments, and the
beginning of government departments and other authorities developing their own language policies.
5. The increased professionalization of ethnic radio broadcasting, including the training of community broadcasters, more adequate remuneration, and the beginning of a career structure.
6. An increased commitment to research and data collection on languages and ethnic communities, undertaken by an increasing number of institutions including State Ethnic Affairs Commissions and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (including the return of a language question in the 1986 Census).
There crucial infrastructure initiatives continue even in a climate were broader support for multicultural perspectives may be less forthcoming, thus making the relation between ethnic community vitality and government policy in the future difficult to predict. Clearly, macro-effects (the general climate of language attitudes, overarching government policy orientations) can have a crucial bearing on the wider status of LOTEs in Australian society; micro-infrastructure effects can have an equally crucial bearing on the detailed
operation of language-maintenance institutions and practicer, and on the ability of languages to be sustained and reproduced. In Australia, in late 1986, these forcer are delicately poised.