The paper analyses the use of the Romani language in the Slovak educational system. It focuses on the informal use of Romani in schools, as about 10% of all pupils speak Romani as their mother tongue but there are no schools that use Romani as the language of instruction. The theoretical framework draws mainly on the work of P. Bourdieu and S. May on the symbolic power of language. The empirical chapter is based on qualitative data collected at ten primary (...) schools in different parts of Slovakia, as well as interviews with decision makers and experts. On the basis of the empirical research, three questions are posed. (1) Is Romani used in schools and if so how? (2) What attitudes do school staff have on the use of Romani? (3) Is the theory of Stephen May applicable to Slovakia and is Romani perceived to have merely sentimental value while Slovak is considered to have instrumental value? The article concludes that the perceived value of Romani in Slovakia is very low. From the point of view of school staff, it has no instrumental value and is perceived as a barrier rather than a benefit. (shrink)

This article argues that linguistically endangered minority groups often face endangerment due to structural linguistic injustice that arises from past injustices and ongoing unjust social processes. Language revitalization is often a justified way of reforming unjust social structures. I connect this discussion to another debate, namely, whether historical injustice (and the requirement for its correction) may be superseded. I ask: which changing circumstances might lead to the supersession of structural linguistic injustice? Of the many reasons to reform unjust social structures, (...) I focus on dignity-based concerns. Historically-sensitive dignity-based concerns are relevant for judging whether supersession of structural linguistic injustice has occurred. My view is largely present-oriented, but history still plays a role in deciding the strength of justificatory bases for structural reformation. (shrink)

One of the challenges that liberal neutrality faces in diverse societies is how to maintain neutrality towards conception of the good life, when establishment of a particular conception of the good and exclusion of other conceptions is inevitable, as in the case of language regulation. A possible solution is to justify this establishment by appealing to universal reasons, thus refraining from endorsing the intrinsic value of the established conception. This paper argues that such a solution is limited, as it does (...) not cover all inevitable-establishment domains. This is because there is a distinction within inevitable-establishment domains: domains in which rival options can coexist, such as language policy, and domains in which options are mutually exclusive, such as land-use policy. The paper argues that language policy is a coexistence domain, since it allows for a degree of personal agency, and it can refrain from making value judgments about the language that is endorsed by the state. Spatial organization and land-use policy, on the other hand, must rest on value judgments about the good life and cannot accommodate neutral justifications. The distinction has important implications for the scope of neutrality: neutrality turns out to be applicable in coexistence domains, and inapplicable in mutually-exclusive domains. Ultimately, it may be the case that neutrality may not be applicable even in language policy, since language policy exhibits characteristics of a mutually-exclusive domain. (shrink)