With the usual flood of immigrants from non-English-speaking countries, there comes a multicultural work force. Along with this

admin2015-02-12  33

问题     With the usual flood of immigrants from non-English-speaking countries, there comes a multicultural work force. Along with this diversity comes resentment felt by natives in the marketplace. Feelings of antagonism surface when accents are strong or foreign languages are used that some workers cannot understand. There is now a clash of forces in the workplace; the battle is centered around English-only policies. A growing number of workers are alleging discrimination on the basis of language.
    The federal law prohibiting job discrimination comes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. National-origin discrimination makes it illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group. A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting the business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed of when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.
    Donna Fernandez, language rights attorney at the Employment Law Center of San Francisco, finds that language discrimination is very prevalent in the workplace. Fernandez states that the biases may include "English-only policies when the employee’s primary language is other than English" or "some people may be treated differently because they speak with an accent."
    It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of language. However, the increase in language discrimination suits indicates that employers are treating employees speaking with an accent or in a foreign language differently. "Many companies don’t know they are breaking the law with the English-only policies," says Fernandez. The law in this area is still developing and many courts consider these policies to be a form of discrimination on the basis of race or national origin.(National origin refers to the country that a person, or that person’s ancestors, came from.)Employees can challenge a speak-English-only policy if: the rule is applied to employees who speak no English; they have difficulty speaking English; or the policy creates, or is part of, a work environment that is hostile toward national origin minority employees. An employer must show some "business necessity" for the policy. Even if there is a business need, the policy is still illegal if there are less discriminatory alternatives to the policy.
    Sibylle Gruber, assistant professor of English at Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz., finds that employees may feel they are viewed as less intelligent if they cannot speak English perfectly. "Workers may miss out on promotions to positions of authority if they can’t express themselves or communicate clearly," says Gruber. Often, there are subtle prejudices against some accents more than others. Speaking with a French or British accent is less frowned upon than a Spanish or Vietnamese accent. By not promoting employees because of an accent or language bias, a ghetto effect is created in the work force, keeping certain accents and immigrants in low-level positions.
This text is mainly about______.

选项 A、increased tension between native workers and immigrant workers
B、language discrimination in the workplace
C、legal repercussions of English-only policies at work
D、challenges that face immigrant workers

答案B

解析 属主旨思想题。题目考查本文的中心思想。文章第一段指出随着多种文化的融合,工作中的语言歧视现象越来越多。第二段说明要求雇员在工作时只能说英语的规定违反了禁止工作上的歧视的联邦法律。第三段引用一位律师的话,说明工作场所普遍存在语言歧视的现实;紧接着第四段进行了进一步解释论证语言歧视的非法性。最后一段用一教授的话说明语言歧视对非英语工人在工作或升职等方面的影响。通篇来看,文章是围绕着语言歧视这一中心来写的,因此,选项B正确。选项A、C(repercussions意为“反应”)D分别是第一、二、四及最后一段的内容,不能概括全文。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/1eFRFFFM
0

最新回复(0)