 resident
Bush is determined to make religious organizations eligible for federal
funds. Not unexpectedly, the ACLU is militantly opposed to the very
idea. The funny thing is, if the ACLU wanted to ruin every religious
organization in America, it would insist Congress pass H.R. 7 in its
current
form.
You see, H.R.
7 contains a linguistic time bomb that can be used against any religious
organization that accepts federal money: "Nothing in this section
alters the duty of a religious organization to comply with the nondiscrimination
provisions in [T]itle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Readers of
Neil Seeman's June 20th NRO column
on linguistic extinction learned that "we are down to about
6,800 [languages] today."
But thanks
to Executive
Order 13166, a tiny church-run soup kitchen or homeless shelter
must be prepared to provide a translation into any of those 6,800
languages on demand if it receives a dime of federal money or any
donated federal property.
Quoting from
the General Services Administration Office of Civil Rights's Limited
English Proficiency [LEP] Policy Guidance: "those who serve
a few [LEP persons] are still subject to the requirements of Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 13166."
Any religious
organization desiring federal money would do well to first meditate
upon some of the "Examples of problem areas" from this
Policy Guidance:
Providing
services and/or benefits to LEP persons that are more limited
in scope or lower in quality than those provided to other individuals;
subjecting LEP persons to unreasonable delays; limiting participation
in a recipient's program(s) or activities on the basis of English
proficiency; providing services and/or benefits to LEP persons
that are not as effective as those provided to persons proficient
in English; failing to inform LEP persons of the right to receive
free interpreter services; or requiring LEP persons to provide
their own interpreter.
Keep in mind
that no actual person need show up at the organization's front door
to trigger these linguistic obligations: "Vital documents must
be translated when a significant number or percentage of the population
eligible to be served, or likely to be directly affected by the
recipient's program(s) or activities, seeks services or information
in a language other than English [emphasis added]."
"Vital
documents" are defined as any document that "contains
information that is critical for accessing the recipient's program(s)
and/or activities, or is required by law."
While the GSA
admits "that it may sometimes be difficult to draw a distinction
between vital and non-vital documents, particularly when considering
outreach or awareness documents," it still insists that "lack
of awareness regarding the existence of a particular program may
effectively deny LEP persons meaningful access." This opens
the door to all sorts of litigation based on a failure to provide
a rarely requested form in some obscure tongue at a moment's notice.
And even printing
up a vast array of documents in hundreds or thousands of languages
will not preclude legal trouble: "[T]here may be instances
where simply providing written translation may not be providing
meaningful access to persons with LEP in the same manner as that
provided to non-LEP beneficiaries."
These requirements
even extend to those "whose language does not exist in written
form." And "verbatim translation of materials" may
be insufficient, as would be interpreters who lack "sensitivity
to the LEP person's culture."
While many
religious organizations feel obligated to serve everyone and have
been more than willing to provide translations, few are equipped
to handle such sweeping linguistic mandates in exchange for a relative
pittance of federal funds.
It is also
essential to understand that "limited English proficiency"
is defined by the person demanding services and that person is the
ultimate authority on whether the federally funded program has met
its obligation.
Thus if the
ACLU were diabolically clever, it would insist that H.R. 7 be passed
as written and then send "testers" to federally funded
church-run programs. Those testers would claim to only understand
languages like Maori, Hmong, or Vanuatau. They could then file a
complaint with the federal government and trigger all kinds of costly
administrative and legal proceedings. (Complaints of this sort are
already being filed. See "Memo
to John DiIulio".)
Of course,
if President Bush really wanted to make sure his charitable-choice
proposal helped religious organizations reach more needy people,
he would repeal EO 13166. Because as long as EO 13166 remains the
law of the land, a religious organization would be foolish to accept
anything from the federal government.
|
