Final answer:
Commanders may issue an English-only order in the workplace for operational efficiency, but it is subject to scrutiny for ethical and legal reasons. The controversy surrounds issues of diversity, discrimination, and the intersection with social mobility and professional standards.
Step-by-step explanation:
Commanders can issue an order that only English be spoken in the workplace under specific circumstances where it is necessary for the efficiency of operations. This scenario often pertains to military and governmental organizational structure. However, the implementation of such an English-only policy is subject to legal and ethical scrutiny. While proponents of English-only laws argue it can save on translation costs and encourage assimilation, opponents, including the ACLU, believe it violates the rights of those who are non-English speakers, denying the nation's diversity and potentially leading to discrimination.
The debate around English as the official language has heightened with the demographic shifts stemming from immigration. Certain states, like Arizona, have enacted laws to adopt English as the official language, which to some is seen as a means to enforce acculturation to a European-centric American culture. At the heart of these discussions are concerns about social mobility, professional opportunity, and the experiences of people who navigate between standard English and other linguistic variations in their communities.
Furthermore, laws and executive orders such as the Plain Writing Act of 2010 and Executive Order 9981 have addressed language and communication issues, focusing on clarity and equality, respectively. As a result, the appropriateness of an English-only policy in the workplace must consider legal governance, practical implications for operational efficiency, and the broader socio-cultural impact it may have.