Viewpoint: A Linguistic Proposal

By Jerry Jesness

British novelist and critic Anthony Burgess once wrote that his compatriots do not trust those who speak more than one language, as they associate this ability with foreigners, waiters, and impresarios. The American attitude toward languages isn’t much different, though we might add menial laborers to the list. That view was typified not long ago by an Amarillo, Texas, judge who ordered a Hispanic woman to speak English to her child so that the girl would not grow up to be a housemaid.

So I was not surprised last year by the widespread negative reaction to a proposal made by Richard Atkinson, president of the University of California. He recommended that scores on the SAT II be weighed more heavily in the state’s university admissions decisions than those on the much more commonly used SAT I. While the SAT I tests vocabulary, reading, and general reasoning ability, the SAT II measures knowledge of English, history, science, math, and foreign languages. So, I ask: What’s wrong with that? Some voices are crying that the switch—which has yet to be voted on by the system’s board of regents—would amount to “stealth affirmative action,” a way to sneak more Hispanics and Asian Americans into California’s universities by giving them credit for command of their native tongues.

In some parts of the world, of course, a person is not considered truly cultured unless he or she has mastered at least one or two foreign languages. Even in the United States, the study of foreign languages was once considered an essential part of a liberal arts education. So it may seem unnecessary to explain the advantages that knowing other languages brings to an educated person. But I’m a schoolteacher, and it’s sometimes my job to explain the obvious. Twice, I’ve been called on to justify the teaching of literature to high school students. In that same spirit, I will attempt to explain the merits of being...