"AMO, AMAS, AMAT . . ."

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Through the kindness of a Harvard colleague I have seen a copy of the CRIMSON of 26 April. The trouble about instruction in language as an elementary subject, which properly belongs in the high schools, is that good answers have not been found to several fundamental questions, such as: what is the purpose of requiring an elementary knowledge of a foreign language of all Harvard undergraduates? What motive for learning this minimum can be made valid, and therefore effective, to the undergraduate himself? What foreign language or languages should be required, and why? What alternatives should be permitted instead of the approved languages? Or instead of the requirement of a foreign language? What degree of reading and speaking knowledge should be considered proficent? What are the best ways of acquiring this proficiency? What kind of examination best tests it?

Agreement about the answers is prevented because interests conflict. Not until this conflict is resolved will there be agreement. Tum demum. Most questions of educational, as domestic and foreign policy, are apt to end in some sort of compromise. This question is pre-eminently one which, in my opinion, calls for compromise based not on tradition but on the actual situation. Joshua Whatmough,   Chairman, Department of Linguistics