‘ENGLISH PRIMARILY’

Frank del Olmo’s review of James Crawford’s latest book, “Hold Your Tongue” (Aug. 23), does a good job of putting this book into the historical perspective of California’s continuing controversy over bilingual education. But Del Olmo badly misses the mark when it comes to assessing the veracity of the charges Crawford makes in this book or to suggesting the motives behind those charges.

Crawford’s book is in large measure an attack on U.S. English, Inc., an organization which is credited with founding the common-language movement in this country but which he and the author both believe to be a right-wing, racially motivated organization intent on promoting “English Only” in the United States. Crawford would have his readers believe that if U.S. English, Inc. could have its way, everyone in this country would have to speak English--and “English Only.”

By coining the phrase “English Only” and using it generically to characterize U.S. English, Inc., Crawford manages a clever and purposeful distortion of the motives and objectives of U.S. English, Inc., an organization founded by the late educator and semanticist S. I. Hayakawa, a man whom I was privileged to serve with in Congress for six years, and on whose advisory board I have served since my retirement from the House of Representatives in 1990.

In reality, Hayakawa’s primary objective was to have English designated as the sole, official language of government--not the only language of the land--and to promote opportunities for all our citizens to learn our common language.

Hayakawa believed, as I do, that a common language serves as an integrating force in a nation of diverse ethnic and cultural populations; that the great strength of our country lies in the mixture of our peoples tied together by a language we all speak. U.S. English, Inc.’s position--far from “English Only”--is, in reality, “English Primarily.”

There is incontrovertible evidence--evidence that even Crawford must agree with--that foreign-born people who learn to speak English fluently will have greater social and economic opportunity here. And today, a person who speaks two languages (including English) stands an even greater advantage in the marketplace over someone who speaks English only.

Throughout this book, Crawford attempts--through a series of half- truths, misstatements and innuendo--to develop a vogue and nefarious web of past associations which the reader is led to believe link U.S. English, Inc. to all manner of xenophobic, right-wing and/or anti-Hispanic/anti-minority groups--even including the Ku Klux Klan! And del Olmo in no way challenges these assertions.

Who would argue that all Americans should not be given equality under the law? What American would reserve citizenship to those “who speak good English”? Certainly not U.S. English, Inc. One usually stoops to sophistry and malicious slurs when no other avenue of attack exists. This is clearly the case with author Crawford.

What this book is really about is an espousal of Crawford’s personal views on the proper evolution of minority rights. “Tomorrow’s Balkanization thrives on today’s denial of minority rights,” Crawford argues at the end of his book. “This remains the essential folly of U.S. English.”

What folly? It might interest the reader to know that the majority of U.S. English, Inc.’s senior leadership are themselves foreign-born minorities, as are a significant number of its members.

Though del Olmo indirectly suggests that the organization is in decline, its membership in fact numbers over 400,000 at last count in all 50 states. And I, for one, will do what I can to foster its future growth.

NORMAN D. SHUMWAY

NEW YORK CITY