Credit: Freephoto.com In a democracy, every person - old and young - has a right to refuse to change. Rarely, though, is it in the national interest for citizens to stand perfectly still as other nations around the globe race forward. Business, after all, is a marathon - not a sprint.
In Texas, state Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell, created some controversy this week by asking a Chinese American leader if it might be possible for Asian Americans to come up with names that are easier for ordinary folks to use.
"The comments caused the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday to demand an apology from Brown,” the Houston Chronicle reported. But a spokesman for Brown told the paper her comments were only an attempt to overcome problems with identifying Asian names for voting purposes.
The House Elections Committee was listening to testimony from Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans, when Ko noted that many immigrants might have difficulties getting registered because they have a birth name and a more English-sounding name for driver licenses and other documents.
Brown suggested that some of the voting problems might be resolved if Asian Americans might simply adopt names that people here can use easily.
“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown was quoted as saying in the Houston Chronicle.
While it may be tempting to blame immigrants for having names we can’t pronounce, it seems wiser if we instead ask educators and workforce leaders if they are doing enough to prepare us for today’s global challenges.
We could ask the immigrants to just change their names but then we might have to turn down those job openings overseas. Cities would lose out in the competition for all those multinational corporations that seek to relocate headquarters. America - not Asian Americans - would end up the biggest losers.
This is not a diversity issue, per se. Rather it is a moment that raises questions as to whether we are as workforce ready as we ought to be. Let’s look at this through a different cultural lens, shall we?
John sits in an aging, inner-city classroom with a well-spoken teacher fresh out of college. He is a product of the inner city where street smarts are respected and tough reputations are a form of currency. She comes from a family of means that has spent vacations abroad and summered at the shore.
They come from the same nation but different worlds. John speaks in code so the class, but not his teacher, can understand his jokes. The teacher uses long words John and his peer never hear at home.
At night, each of them goes home pondering how much better the world would be if he, she changed. It does not occur to the teacher,nor to the student, that they have the option of reaching across this cultural divide. Both end up failing because neither will stretch and grow..
.
In a global community, prosperity is the reward for a job well done. It is conferred upon nations and companies with the courage, creativity and skill to adapt to change.
Asian Americans are not the only ones who ought to be dismayed by the legislator’s statements. The growing legions of culturally competent American workers, college students, literate teachers, U.S. Army officials and American intelligence officers ought to be disappointed too.
She has so little faith in US. .
Comments