understand one another without the cumbersome and expensive intervention of translators and interpreters; ideological, because it protects our strongest bond to one another. In this, the third century of our independence, many believe that the time has come to designate English, our common language, as our country's official

one.

We may well ask why this was not done before. There is indeed a belief that it was done before, and many people believe that we have an official designation and that the Continental Congress dealt with this issue and that English won out. However, that story, it seems, is apocryphal. Most likely, the Founding Fathers did not foresee the diversity which has come to characterize American society and saw little need to designate a national language. You may remember that the case for political union of the former colonies was made most passionately by John Jay in the Federalist Papers, precisely on the basis of the homogeneous character of the people who would make up the proposed nation. Jay spoke of a connected mass of land for the new country and of a union, I quote:

people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side-by-side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

Later writings by Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson indicate greater awareness and concern about geographic concentrations of non-English-speaking people. Still, as far as we can tell, there was no attempt to specify the language of the country. Some believe this was avoided so as not to discourage would-be immigrants who were so urgently needed as settlers and workers.

In time, new institutions and changed laws helped assure the integration of newcomers into the host society. After the great immigration waves began following the Civil War, the public schools played an ever more decisive role in Americanizing the immigrant child. Still later, requirements that immigrants be literate and applicants for U.S. citizenship know some English were added, to discourage the formation of entrenched language ghettoes, and to speed integration into the larger society. But most of all, a dynamic economy that rewarded those who learned English served as a powerful inducement to the quick acquisition of our language. And while Jefferson and Franklin in their day worried most about the increasing concentration of German speakers, later immigrants spoke such a profusion of very different tongues that learning English was the only practical option for everyone.

In the interest of speeding this up a bit, I will go straight to a review of what John Jay at the time thought made for national unity, and see how we fare today.

John Jay spoke of a large expanse of connected, contiguous territory; descent from common ancestors; a common language; a common religion; attachment to the same principles of government; similarity of manners and customs; a long and common history of war, suffering and a happy outcome; and finally, readiness to forget past intergroup conflicts.

7

4

This last component is not from John Jay, but, rather, it is a very original contribution by Ernest Renan, the 19th century French philosopher, who has written on nationhood. He believed that a willingness to forget past hurts inflicted by one group upon another, a sort of historic forgetfulness, is essential to a cohesive nation. We have changed since this case was made for homogeneity. We are no longer a contiguous Nation, but one spread out far into the Pacific isles and beyond the Canadian north. We no longer share common ancestors, and our common spiritual ancestors, the heroes of American history, have been kicked off their pedestals. We speak a multitude of languages and insist on voting in them and on educating our children in them. Religion is no longer a common tie. We have remained steadfast in our belief in democratic government, it is true, but the emphasis has shifted entirely to assertions of individual rights, and the individual's obligations to the collective seem all but forgotten. Manners, customs, and lifestyles have never been so varied. The criterion of a common history of war and suffering followed by a happy outcome, so meaningful to the generation that fought the Revolutionary War, means little to Americans who mostly remember only unpopular wars with confused outcomes. And finally, far from forgetting past wrongs, we resurrect every hurt, every past injustice, to every group in American society, and each group makes sure that these are magnified and used to political advantage, rather than forgotten.

Now, I think we have, as a Nation, done very, very well, because as we became more varied, we also became more tolerant. In fact, we came to value diversity for its own ends. We did well with it. We allowed it to enrich our lives, yet without letting it overwhelm

us.

The miracle of America has been that we have managed together so well with so few of the commonalities believed essential for nationhood. But now, when we review this list, we note that only two still apply, perhaps only one and a half the common language, which still pulls most of us together, and we still share a commitment to democratic governnance. However, we have become selective in this latter commitment-passionate about our personal rights, and now, about group rights-but dispassionate about broader social responsibilities.

Language is no longer a bond between us; I would say it is the bond between us. And I would think, just briefly, the question comes up: How few common ties can we cope with? Isn't there some strict minimum below which we truly cannot go, and what role does language play in all that? Could America survive if the English language were to erode?

I think I will stop my testimony here, so as to give Mr. Torres an opportunity to speak.

[Material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERDA BIKALES

Senators, we appreciate the invitation to participate in this historic debate on the language future of our nation.

It is fitting that we debate the English Language Amendment at this time. The year is 1984, and in three years we shall be celebrating the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. This occasion calls not only for rejoycing, but also for a philosophic reexamination of this durable document, of those inspired words that so eloquently articulate the American credo of individual freedom under the rule of law. The ideas they express are imprinted in the psyche of our people, and they are our permanent guarantee that as Americans we shall never live under arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rule. It is hardly original to state that the reason the Constitution has served us so well is that it is not a collection of mere phrases on parchment, but a living instrument that can accomodate adjustments to suit the times, without loss of its overall noble purpose. Adjustment iscontinuous through judicial reinterpretations, or, when necessary, through rare amendation of the

Constitution itself.

In their wisdom, the drafters of the Constitution made the amendment process difficult. They saw to it that our national charter would not be changed frivolously, but only for reasons of genuine national need, through a process of public debate and consensus-building. In nearly two hundred years, we have completed this process seventeen times. Most will agree that we used it unwisely once, to prohibit the manufacture and consumption of all "intoxicating liquor", which some years later necessitated another amendment to repeal that prohibition. We used it well to achieve greater efficiency in the workings of government, as for example in the 16th amendment, which allows the levy of an income tax; the 17th amendment, which changed the method of electing U.S. Senators; and the 25th amendment, which formulates the way to replace the Vice-President of the United States in case of vacancy.

We used it most, however, for ideological reasons, to reflect an evolvingphilosophy of guaranteed rights for ever broader segments of our society. The first ten amendments, ratified together as the Bill of Rights,

are the cornerstone of our system of individual rights. We marked the end of involuntary servitude with the 13th amendment, we guaranteed equal protection of the laws in the 14th amendment; we moved toward universal sufferage with the 15th amendment, which eliminated discrimination by race; with the 19th amendment, which opened political participation to women; with the 24th amendment, which removed property ownership and tax contribution as a requirement for voting; and with the 26th amendment, which extended the right to vote to younger Americans.

Now we are coming together in this prestigious forum to consider another amendment, one that is both practical and ideological. Practical, because it will assure that we'll continue to understand one another without translators and interpreters. Ideological, because it protects our strongest bond to one another. In this, the third century of our Independence, we are again adjusting to change by considering an amendment to designate our traditional language, English, as our nation's official one.

We may well wonder why this has not been done before. There is, in fact, a widespread belief that the language issue was taken up by the Continental Congress (or, in some versions of this story, by an early Congress) and that English won out over German by a single vote. But though the records of the Continental Congress have been analyzed carefully, no historic evidence has ever been found to support this story.

Most likely, the Founding Fathers did not foresee the diversity which has come to characterize American society, and perceived little need to designate a national language. Let us remember that the case for a political union of the former English colonies was made most passionately and optimistically by John Jay in the Federalist Papers, precisely on the basis of the homogeneous character of the people who would make up the proposed nation. Jay spoke approvingly of the connected territory of the new country, and of a union of"...people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same priciples of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

Somewhat later writings by Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson indicate a greater awareness and concern about geographic concentrations of non-English speaking people, and about the possible deleterious effects this could have on the social fabric of the new nation. Still, as far as we can tell, there was no attempt to specify the language of the United States. Some scholars believe that this was avoided so as not to discourage would-be immigrants, who were so urgently needed as settlers and workers.

In time, new institutions and changed laws helped assure the integration of newcomers into the host society. After the great immigration waves began following the Civil War, the public schools played an ever-more decisive role in Americanizing the immigrant child, immersing him unabashadly in the language and values of the new country. Still later, requirements that immigrants be literate and applicants for U.S. citizenship know some English were added, to discourage the formation of entrenched language ghettoes, and to speed the immigrants ́integration into the larger society. But most of all, a dynamic economy that handsomely rewarded those who learned English served as powerful inducement to the quick acquisition of our language. And while Jefferson and Franklin in their day worried most about the increasing concentration of German speakers, whose numbers in some places equaled those speaking English, later immigrants spoke such a profusion of very different tongues that learning English was the only practical option for everyone.

Thus, through much of our short history as a nation, many factors converged to give us one language--English--and made an official language designation unnecessary.

As we start the Congressional debate on an English Language Amendment, we must ask ourselves some serious questions. Is the situation in our country today really such that we need this high level of protection for our language? Is the primacy of English really essential for the continued well-being of this nation and its people? What would happen in our land if the primacy of this language were somehow to be lost?

These questions lead us to contemplate what was the foundation of national unity in earlier years, and what is it today. If we can pinpoint this