OPINION e iti- i;iy, January 21,2(XX) THE BATTALION Page 13 r Cfl| dk Speaking in tongues English as official language can unify nation I t I 'iedl : "pK-concept kglcJ olthcUnil- kaliqS- ed States ifldting poi is not : v>W-It began I n.imc a vhlii a multitude juri.irhu- >||inerent nation- : :rnv Ma ilitles came to- lus beadBier, with one mii \ ing force , Qtir . he I nglish language.The founding fa- hei constructed the government using BHl nglish language because ii was the r an, «■lative tongue of the majority. How ever, ' rduv hough most Americans would assume M ■hat I nglish is the otlicial language of hisj country, it is not. o Mgcm n iie United States has no ollieial i; (i. anguage. There is a dilVerence between uni;: ui established and and an otlicial lan- |.udv.BaM| , I he i|iicMirn is, slnmld ihe Unit- h. ^ .‘d Suites fonnally adopt I nglish as the i • jftieial language? Yes, it should it ^^■Id make a huge impact in not only k tl«" An ericans' nationalism and also in its i ' ' Doeketbooks. ■The number of immigrants has H'pkecpeitjoa ,d m recent years, and with this has come demands to print government forms and election ballots in other lan- - gua . as well as pleas to teach chil- h:ngu ’ dren in their native tongues. As politi cally correct as the ideas sound, the only i thing that comes from this tolerance is a |n Vs V big headache for the United States. Lx conncdi lInstead of aiding the utopian idea of ! a melting pot. conducting business in a l .if pap,- multitude of languages drives Ameri- plannahcan society into a state of confusion, a pla>. e v\ ithout unify ing force. 11 that l .iii 's dtx not seem possible, take a look at sTivR neighboring Canada. Quebec’s sepa- rati 'm lias spin the nalinii mlr iwo ar- b eas r| dillcicnl lanpuaccs and ciilliiics. vw-rmi jNot only will the country be in con fusion, but using a multitude of lan guages will also increase tax dollars spent on these services. It may seem a small price to pay for allowing new im migrants to cling to their original lan guage, but it is not that simple. BThe government could easily print aut a few W-2 forms in Spanish with- aut an extreme increase in taxpayer costs. But what about those citizens who speak Russian, French, Japanese ar (iennan? If our nation becomes tol- iram of one population enough to cater to its needs, it would have to do it for svery population that does not speak English. Lena. c. 1 lowever, printing out government forms and public notices would not be the biggest expense. There is a debate whether immigrants have the right to leant in their native language, [fall immi grants have the privilege of attending American schools and learning in their language, schools have a huge job ahead of them. Already, the shortage of good teachers is a problem in some areas of the country. What w ould it be like if it was necessary to find good teachers that speak several languages? This task seems unat tainable, not to mention expensive. Pushing for English as the otlicial language of the United States may seem to advocate everyone being the same, but it dix's not. Immigrants who want to utilize their old language and way of life as a secondary culture can do so. just as immigrants have done for thousands of years. Those w ho wish to move permanently to the United States should be re quired to leant and use the lan guage of the United States. “The first duty of any one who wants to become a citizen of a country is to leant the language of that country," Sen. S.I. Hayakawa said, in Citi zens Informer. Hayakawa, of Japan ese descent, is an au thor of a widely-used textbook on the English language and initiated a con stitutional amendment to make Eng lish the ollieial language of the Unit ed States in 1981. While it may seem that adopting English as our official language is un necessary considering the country has run for 200 years without it, it is not. Americans are fortunate to live ina country with much to offer. The most Americans can do for their coun try is to remain unified and proud of their home, which would show others that maybe the idea of a melting pot can work alter all. Jill Riley is a senior journal ism major. Diversity in language part of U.S. culture I t is difficult to believe that in these times of tolerance and diversity there still exist supporters of out-dated “English only†laws. “English only†laws in the United States first appeared in the’60s as a result of a sharp increase in immigration, most ly from Latin America. Many Americans felt threatened by the influx of people and began to push for the government to make English the official inguage of the United States. In the 40 years since. Amer ican society has changed radical ly, and opposi tion and dis crimination against immi grants dropped, lowever, 16 states still carry "Eng lish only†laws, a scar re maining from when racism was w idespread. More alarming still is that an Eng lish Language Amendment has been gaining momentum as immigration issues have made the news. nglish only†laws would remove courtroom translations, prohibit mul tilingual ballots and pro hibits the use of foreign mguages in government rgencies — basically an ;t to bury all glimpses to other cultures. Such an amend ment would breed ignorance and strengthen stereotypes of immigrants and non-English speak ing citizens. If the following generations of Americans grow up with no contact w itli oth- er languages. * • MARIANO CASTILLO RUBEN DELUNA/1 Hi ft \n u ion will instill in them a i sense of elit ism over those who ar rive from abroad and have not mastered the language yet. The United States has a reputation as role model for what a a modem nation should be, both technologi cally and serially. Making English the official language would be nothing more than an unnec essary nationalist de cision that will por tray the country as old-fashioned. Advocates of “English only†argue that since legal immigrants must pass an E ng lish mastery test, illegal immigrants would become discouraged aid their numbers will decrease. This line of reasoning has two major flaws. Immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for over 20 years and those over 50 years old do not have to meet the language requirement. These citizens would lose many rights if ballots and other forms were not in various languages. Many newly arrived immigrants do not know English aid others have trouble mas tering the laiguage no matter how much they try. If “English only†laws were in ef fect, these citizens may not be able to get proper care in a hospital and would snug gle needlessly if translations on public transport were removed. Another reason the movement to push English is growing is because many people misunderstand the objectives of bilingual education in schools. Bilingual education is not mean to pauper immigrants aid let them live their lives exactly as before. Moving to another culture, it is ex tremely difficult to adjust, especially for children. Instead of throwing them into a classroom aid expecting them to learn English is ludicrous. It is much more effective to have immi grant students begin study in their native language and gradually get accustomed to their new lifestyle. They would be more comfortable with their surroundings and 4 could learn about the culture from class mates who have been around longer. It is true that the world is getting small er. The right attitude to take is to accept more languages aid remain open minded. E nglish is the dominant language in the United States, aid there is nothing wrong with that I lowever, there is something wrong with pushing other languages away. It would be a terrible regression if Americans revert from an attitude of un derstanding for immigrants to an attitude of ignorance. Mariano Castillo is a sophomore international studies major College apathy exaggerated ■Low political interest speaks bad of politics, not students CALEB McDaniel A pparently, mainstream adult III \ America loves to bemoan the al- L \deged apathy of Generation X. The stereotypical image of the average college student as little more than a tree sloth in :arg< > pants has become disturbingly com- non these days. It has reached its most Jisgusting level in a currently popular fflnmercial being seen on movie screens icross the country. The ad features two young women staring catatonically at a lava lamp, and, judging from the stupid grins spread across their if ' faces, being unspeakably entertained. But just before the audi ence half-expects to see drool drop from their open mouths, the I Iffl 110 °l an online textbook company splashes into view. A sar- Jonie voice sneers that the Website can provide college students with the intelligent reading “they so desperately need.†T: This advertisement is not an isolated example of the belief that the favorite pastime of twenty-somethings is being brain Jead. (Consider Exhibit B: the marketing genius behind Old Mavy’s Performance Fleece campaign.) I Nor is the myth that college students are apathetic confined to corporate America. In fact, it is even more popular in Wash ington, D.C., where the observation that young people seldom exercise their rights to vote has become less interesting than Monica Lewinsky’s confession that she seldom exercised — before Jenny Craig. ® Two things must be made very clear in this morass ofmis- Vljiceptions. First, it is true that young citizens have a noted 1 low interest in politics. But second, this fact says something disturbing about politics, not about college students. |f: In reality, the youth of America are not slackers who could :are less about the world they live in. We watched Care Bears growing up. Captain Planet? I le's our hero. ■And scholarly research provides more concrete evidence that students are more involved than ever in community ser vice, school activities and political activism. They may not vote much, but they definitely do much. H Perhaps America’s adults have too quickly concluded that low voter turnout among college-aged citizens can be blamed on the popularity of lava lamps. The other possibility is the more likely one - political apathy is not the symptom of a general I Rithy. Instead, young people simply see politics in particular as a waste of time for their usually inexhaustible energies. IA poll reported in The New York Times on Jan. 12 suggest ed this conclusion. The survey showed 73 percent of college Students polled had done volunteer work like helping the home less and mentoring underprivileged children. Sixty-four percent ! Jffld they would consider spending some of their careers in edu cation, and 63 percent said they could work for a nonprofit or- -^ganization. But only 25 percent of the students said they would nsider time in politics. The disparity between such figures provides key insight into IND SC at the way college students think. They think helping others is im portant, but they do not think government is helping. They want to change the world, but they believe the way to do it is not as simple as changing presidents or becoming politicians. But these findings should not be interpreted as pessimistic or cynical. The poll also found that 41 percent of the students, as opposed to 27 percent of the general public, trusted the fed eral government to do the right thing at least most of the time. Polities has the tacit approval of young people. It simply fails to get their full-Iledged support. What this study points out is the important distinction Perhaps America's adults have too quickly concluded that low voter turnout among college-aged citizens can be blamed on the popularity of lava lamps. between failing to be actively involved in polities and fail ing to be active in anything. Most of the respondents stressed that they would probably be more interested in pol ities if they were not so busy with other more worthy caus es. 24-year-old Kristin Hightower’s admission that volun teering is “an influence in a more immediate way, whereas in politics it’s a little slower in getting to the individual†typified a prevailing sentiment in the responses. The lesson of these kinds of confessions is twofold. First, a lack of interest in politics does not translate into an inordinate fascination with lava lamps. There is no reason to weep and wail over the political laziness of college students, who are, for the most part, extremely energetic. In many places, they are en thusiastic activists, zealous for causes as various as the anti sweatshop movement and inner-city mentoring. Compare the average attendance at meetings of College Republicans or Ag gie Democrats with the turnout at Big Event, and the priorities of many students will become immediately evident. This realization teaches a second lesson: the way to lure young people back into politics is not by trying to make govern ment “cool†again — by gilding government with MTV glitz. Government must simply be relevant again. If leaders would step forward and convince students that their convictions are shared in the halls of power, students would see a reason to care about what goes on there. Politicians who do things that are well worth doing will find allies, not enemies, in young people. Caleb McDaniel is a junior history major President Bowen should stay In response to Jan. 19 editorial. Dr. Bowen’s pledge to resign if the administration were found re sponsible for the collapse of bon fire is indeed a noble gesture and raises the bar for personal responsibility in leadership. I would expect nothing less from a man of Dr. Bowen’s char acter and leadership experience. However, this course of action will cause more harm than good. Dr. Bowen and the rest of the ad ministration have done a tremen dous job in helping this campus heal after a horrible tragedy. While no one can ever erase the scars of the tragedy, there is no one more experienced or with more first hand knowledge of this campus who can continue the healing process. The Bonfire Commission will most likely recommend corrective measures to help prevent future accidents. Dr. Bowen should take the lead in implementing these initiatives and setting higher standards of safety if bonfire continues. This tragedy has already taken twelve valuable assets to this University — it will only be com pounded if Dr. Bowen resigns MAIL CALL and takes his unique experience with him. Tase Bailey Class of '99 ‘Sensitivity training’ draws commentary In response to Nicholas Roznovsky’s Jan. 20 column. The Constitution guarantees the right of free speech to all Americans, even if what they say may be unpopular. It does not say, however, that people have the right to not be offended by any thing they see or hear in the me dia. Rocker’s comments were stu pid, obnoxious, and offensive. They speak for themselves. Ignore him. What he said will not take away civil rights and will not change immigration laws. Peo ple in this country are entirely too hypersensitive. John Rocker had every right to say what he did. People have every right to think he’s an idiot for his remarks. Leave it at that. Dave McCaughrin Class of ’99 The movement for eradication of intolerance that has recently tak- 'aK?HO,TWS THE KIDS | HCME PROW SCHOOL FCR THE \ HCUDWS. TSittmCCfWTJlJTSifBH en this country by storm goes against the principles of which this country was founded and by which it is regarded. Intolerance is defined as being “unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression." By blasting John Rocker’s ‘intolerance’ and whomever else’s, one hypocritically commits intolerance. It is a com pletely relative term when used as society does today. Who sets the bounds for what we should toler ate as the years roll on? Until we can listen to what every one has to say (as protected by the 1st Amendment) without violence or opposition, including bigots and racists we will always be intolerant. We are guaranteed the right to this intolerance, and I would argue that none of the great religious, po litical, economic, and social changes that have made this coun try great would would have never taken place if not for intolerance. The simple fact is everything that makes this world great is motivat ed by intolerance for views of an other, and rightly so. If we all believed in the same thins this world would be a boring place. Everyone in America should support first Amendment free doms, including the right to say in tolerant things. Keith Franks Class of '00 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in clude the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com