Sections

English-only law fosters national unity

TO THE DAILY:

The author of "Linguistic Diversity: Court must strike English-only amendment" (4/1/96) ignores at least three critical pro-English arguments in what amounts to a sorry apologetic for the pro-diversity side of a very tough issue.

First, the numerous examples (Bosnia, Chechneya, Sri Lanka, Canada, yes, Canada, etc.) where the effort of a group to resist assimilation and steadfastly maintain its own cultural identity have lead to distrust, hatred and war have been omitted.

However, the editorial includes what it believes is an example of successful diversity: "As a nation of immigrants, the United States has seen waves of immigrants who know little, if any, English upon arrival. The United States has not disintegrated, but has been enriched by allowing immigrants to feel as comfortable as possible."

Once again, the author omits important information. Until recently, many in those "waves of immigrants" worked very hard to assimilate: The older generation encouraged the younger to learn English and many "Americanized" their names. They did this not because they were ashamed of the culture into which they were born, but because they wanted to be part of a new culture. Why would anyone decide that the American culture is so desirable that they are willing to leave family and friends and then ask that culture to change?

Lastly, I cannot be enriched by your culture if you and I cannot communicate! I certainly do not know the future and cannot say for certain which is the best path to take on this complex issue.

However, I know that any discussion of a topic like this that ignores important aspects is counterproductive and irresponsible.

SCOTT SHAW