Final answer:
Workplace English-only requirements that are not business necessities might represent linguistic discrimination and could be opposed by groups like the ACLU for undermining diversity and violating non-English speakers' rights. Support for code-switching and diverse dialects is growing in cultural and linguistic research as a more inclusive practice.
Step-by-step explanation:
A workplace requirement that English be spoken when it is not a business necessity could be considered an example of linguistic discrimination. Such policies could marginalize non-English speaking employees, possibly infringing upon their rights, and are controversial in a diversity-conscious society. Organizations, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), oppose English-only mandates, highlighting that they could violate the rights of non-English speakers, assuming the reality of our nation's diversity, especially as debates around language use intensify in the context of increasing immigration. At the same time, some believe that English should be the de facto language to unify communication in the workplace. However, cultural and linguistic research supports embracing code-switching and the use of nonstandard dialects in professional environments as a form of cultural respect that can enhance learning and communication.
For example, workplaces that have a significant number of Spanish-speaking employees could benefit from allowing bilingual communication. This would facilitate better understanding, cooperation, and efficiency among the employees.