Latina Lista is reporting that Ana Mateo, a bilingual school secretary, has filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, claiming that her civil rights were violated after she was allegedly fired for continuing to speak Spanish to parents. Charlotte’s WSOC broke the news:

The lawsuit against Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools is now in federal court because a former employee said the CMS violated her civil rights because she spoke Spanish to parents even though she was hired to be the school’s bilingual secretary…

She claims in September of 2008, when a new principal came to the school, a new rule was given to all staff members to not speak Spanish to parents. The lawsuit claims Mateo, a bilingual secretary, continued to speak Spanish to many parents, after all, the school is more than a third Hispanic, well above the district average…Within a month of the alleged new rule, Mateo was told the school accepted her resignation, even though she says she never offered to resign.

Mateo filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which issued a response indicating that there is evidence that supports her allegations. While the school district claims it does not have an official English-only policy, WSOC also found that school staff members were telling parents that they could not even speak Spanish to one another on school grounds.

In the past, the National Education Association (NEA) has slammed English-only initiatives in schools as “government-sanctioned bigotry” that only makes it more “difficult for schools to prepare students for jobs of the future.” A study posted on NEA’s website states that school administrators “must have skills and the means for communicating with Latino parents and enlisting them as allies.” “There is a critical role for teachers and schools in helping parents to support their children’s schooling,” concludes Patricia Gándara of the University of California–Los Angeles.

I recommend Juan Cole’s analysis of yesterday’s Revolution Day demonstrations in Iran, which the government seems to have had well in hand. Internet access was shut down, preventing pro-reform demonstrators from employing the real-time protest strategies they’d developed over the past months, and security services were out in force to intimidate, beat and arrest the anti-government crowds that did gather.

I have to disagree, though, with Cole’s suggestion that the regime “checkmated the Green dissidents.” Check, more like. It was clearly a discouraging setback for the Greens, who appeared to have some momentum coming out of the Ashura demonstrations that they were not able to capitalize on yesterday, but it’s a long game. I think the Greens continue to represent a credible challenge to the system, but I don’t know of anyone, apart from the usual neocon hallucinators, who says that the Islamic Republic is in imminent danger of collapse. Based on statements both from movement leaders and street activists, I think the Greens themselves understand that this process is going to take a while, and has a range of possible outcomes, and so should we.

As for the best policy on Iran going forward, on Wednesday I did a bloggingheads with Eli Lake of the Washington Times, we discussed this among other things. I described my view that the “realism” versus “regime change” narrative that seems to have taken hold among some in Washington is not productive, and the Obama administration should perhaps take a page from the Cold War (the actual Cold War, not the comic book version that conservatives peddle) and continue to seek some accommodation with the Iranian regime over its nuclear program (and keep the onus on the regime through continuing engagement), but which also puts human rights solidly on the agenda.

Watch it:

As I note, based on past U.S. treatment of Middle East peoples as disposable instruments in the maintenance of regional power balances (aiding both sides in the staggeringly destructive Iran-Iraq War, for example) Iranian democrats have a lot of reason to believe that the U.S. would sell them out in favor of a chance to resolve the nuclear impasse with the regime. I hope the Obama administration will make it clear that we won’t.

Even though I’m skeptical for a number for reasons that a nuclear deal is still possible, understanding that domestic Iranian nuclear enrichment is broadly supported by the Iranian public, even the Greens, I think it’s worth considering offering an explicit recognition of Iran’s right to peaceful domestic enrichment, as opposed to the implicit recognition of already-enriched uranium contained in the Tehran Research Reactor deal. But rather than presenting this as simply an attempt to sweeten the pot, it should be accompanied by a demand that Iran commit to abide by its international human rights obligations, and the creation of some sort of verification regime along the lines of Helsinki Watch. This won’t provide the soothing satisfaction of an Iranian capitulation, but it could possibly bring Iran’s nuclear program under control, while also helping to create space for Iranian reformers to continue their work.