To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

An American living abroad in direct contact with Europeans in their own milieu always makes comparisons, and I am no exception. I would like to pass on one of these observations because it shows up a gross inadequacy in a very important domain of American education--language training. As far as proficiency in foreign languages is concerned, most Americans are like wet hens compared to their Dutch counterparts.

When a Dutchman enters the university he has a fair to excellent reading and speaking knowledge of three other modern languages, English French, and German. He can do a lot more than merely get himself around the streets of another country. He can communicate intelligently with a foreigner and read his literature. The number of French works in the original read by American students is infinitessimal compared to the hordes of untranslated good American novels and non-fiction Dutch students devour.

At Harvard I seldom saw joy expressed over learning a foreign language. Students swelter through a few terms of French or German to get rid of an unpleasant language requirement by pulling down 564 (?) on the qualifying exam; and that's the end. The thought of reading a book for pleasure in French or German seldom enters a Harvard man's mind. Everything "worthwhile" has been written in or translated in English, seems to be the general attitude, and it was my own until these past few months.

Abroad, that 564 guarantees bed and board but little else. More important, because not every American has the opportunity to know a foreign country really well, lack of thorough reading knowledge of at least one foreign language shuts out many stimulating and pleasurable experiences.

Here is evidence of a dangerous insularity prevalent even among many Americans who want to work for international understanding. "International understanding" frequently means molding others in the American's image of himself. A little old lady came here not so long ago to convince Europeans they should league together in a complete federated union. She was discouraged and could not understand why the thirteen colonies were able to make a nation so easily and Europeans can not. This is a special, isolated instance, but often we do think falsely that we have all the answers, not only political, but cultural as well. Almost complete reliance upon English for our cultural and intellectual food is a glaring example of this position.

Of course, small European nationalities who constantly intermingle have been geographically isolated. But there is no excuse for American students' utter ignorance by comparison. Holland's education system has its weaknesses, but lack of sound language training is not one of them.

A good part of America laxity in this area is the fault of administrators who do not accord it as important a position in the curriculum as it deserves. A good part too is the fault of teachers who make language training an unpleasant chore or merely a set of grammatical constructs. Some strides are being made in speaking the language from the start--the easiest, fastest, most thorough and most enjoyable way to learn; as the language becomes meaningful and can overcome a student's natural laziness or disinterest. It is still not enough to provide a much-needed tool for successful understanding and handling of America's role in world affairs.

I left Harvard in the midst of a controversy over the place of language training in General Education for a Free Society. I came to Europe to see so that its place was indeed very big, and for the most part unoccupied. Malcolm D. Rivkin '53   Amsterdam