A Nov. 5 ballot initiative proposed by the English for the Children Committee in Massachusetts would replace the state's existing system of bilingual education with a program of intense English immersion. The 1968 Bilingual Education Act, with its goal of removing the language barrier to an equal education, was a well-intentioned solution to America's growing spectrum of language abilities. Yet, 30 years of experience have shown its impotency in ensuring immigrant children actually learn English, and therefore necessitates a "yes" vote for Question 2 this fall.Bilingual education is meant to be a stepping-stone for immigrants to join American society. It is supposed to ease the transition into an English speaking school by supplementing a curriculum taught in the child's native language with gradually developed English literacy. A recent poll from the New York Times, however, indicates that 30 percent of the students involved in bilingual schools remain so for more than the allocated time of three years, undermining the transitional nature of the program. While this is attributable partly to errors within bilingual education, the very concept of such a program should be held just as liable.

When the average child is immersed in a foreign environment, he undoubtedly experiences shock and anxiety. However, after an intense adjustment period, his grasp of the language, and comfort in the environment, eventually increases. The alternative to this sink-or-swim immersion method is bilingual education. While it removes the stress of the sudden change of atmosphere, it proportionally slows the child's naturally endowed ability to adjust. Not only does the student of bilingual education learn English more slowly, but he is allowed to rely on her native language as a crutch, thereby decreasing his incentive to participate in the English-speaking world beyond the classroom.

My preference for rapid English immersion is not only a product of objective analysis, but of personal experience with the method's success. Having immigrated to this country like many other Americans, I was placed in an English speaking school at the age of eight, with no more than two or three words under my belt. The period of confusion and stress, which advocates of bilingual education so nobly seek to eliminate, was rapidly followed by a thorough understanding of the language. The result was a smooth integration into American culture.

Enduring a few months of discomfort in order to produce a more rapid and intensified integration does not only eventually benefit the child (rather than harm him, as some bilingual education theorists assert), but also allows the child to benefit society. To choose and accept America as one's home, not only stipulates obedience to its laws, but requires an ability to fruitfully interact with its society. Interaction necessitates communication, and communication in America requires fluency in English.

By allowing immigrants to dawdle in non-English speaking classrooms for the sake of minimizing initial stress and confusion, bilingual education is harming the country to which the immigrants are meant to contribute. Programs like English as a Second Language (ESL) and the profuse use of street and transportation signs in other languages (mainly in multicultural cities) indicate that immigrants will never be allowed to drown in complete bewilderment. This help should be only temporary, however, and never allow a manufactured isolation from English speaking society to comfort immigrants to the extent of impeding their acquisition of the English language and the skills dependent on its use.

Even at the expense of more rapid and effective English acquisition, bilingual education advocates stress its contribution to our unique multicultural atmosphere. They feel it maintains diversity, honors foreign cultures and propagates coveted bilingual abilities. America's adhesion to diversity and maintenance of its many facets is both respectable and important, partially validating this justification. Yet, while America helps prevent the decay of the cultures of its immigrants, it should not allow the stratification of these cultures to displace that of America, and what little uniformity it retains. After all, to call America the "melting pot" of the world implies a blended interaction of cultures rather than their useless and detrimental stratification.

Both statistics and rationale indicate that bilingual education is unfavorable to the students as well as to the country. It is valid to argue that it eases an otherwise turbulent transition and shelters the self-esteem of emotionally vulnerable children. The long-term consequences, however, far outweigh the initial hardships of a speedy shift into an English-speaking environment.

It is noble, and even right to encourage the maintenance of foreign cultures, given their importance to both immigrants and our country. Yet, it is unnecessary to equate the encouragement of cultural preservation with cultural stratification, especially when the successful transition into an English-based society hangs in the balance.

-- Yana Litovsky '05 submits a column to the Justice.