Esperanto at Harvard?

The following remarks are not intended to imply that the complex of issues referred to for convenience as "Esperanto" is of more importance for Harvard humanists than such things as conservation, or a woman's right to choose. I do maintain, however, that the attempt to develop and establish a universal second language is more than casually interrelated with humanism, that the selection and use of such a language remains an item of unfinished business for humanists at large, and that the issue is particularly relevant to humanist students at Harvard.

We may first consider some of the criticisms and reservations. First among these we may take the view of Esperanto as a so-called "back-burner" issue, which might be of some interest, but upon which people would generally not be moved to action. But then, what isn't a back-burner issue, at least in general practice? That is, even among the clearly critical issues such as stemming of the population explosion or conservation of the environment, who among us really does anything about them on a day-to-day basis, excepting those occasions when an issue is "topical" enough to get us to read a book, go to a meeting, or send a small check to a tax-deductible nonprofit organization?

The first of two common misconceptions is that Esperanto "has never caught on." While this may be largely true in this country, a homogeneously English-speaking entity in which there is generally no language problem, it is not true in Europe, in the Soviet Union, in Iran, China, Brazil, or Vietnam, or in any number of other places. If judged by publications, radio broadcasts, and attendance at international meetings, Esperanto is in fact flourishing, and if it had never caught on it would not be the worldwide living language that it is today.

The second misconception is that English is already more or less ensconced as the international language, and is gaining ground to boot. Without writing an entire chapter on the subject (as I would have to do to refute fully either of the two stated misconceptions). I will only observe that (1) the number of official languages at the UN is increasing rather than remaining constant or decreasing, as would be the case if there were a real and visible tendency toward the universal acceptance of English; and (2) it is altogether understandable and fitting that English not be elected as the international language, not only because of its inherent and ineradicable political and cultural bias, but also because it is complicated grammatically, hopelessly loaded with irregularities, and impossibly unphonetic in its orthography--in short, undesigned for and therefore inappropriate for general cross-cultural usage.

Complete books can and have been written defending, Esperanto against the prejudices it encounters: but without attempting to summarize all the arguments or to formulate comprehensively my own. I may mention two things that to me seem to weigh heavily in its favor. First is the self-evident excellence of the idea of a universal auxiliary language. Second is the demonstrated fitness of Esperanto to serve in that role. I assume that humanists at Harvard can appreciate the first, and that an investigation of the second would lead them at least to sympathy for the movement, if not to active involvement and support.

Having responded to several criticisms and attempted to identify international language as a humanist ideal. I will now turn to the specific here-and-now issue of what the new humanist group at Harvard might do in relation to this. The specificity owes to the fact that there is something worthwhile that students can succeed in doing, but that unaffiliated adults--even alumni--cannot. Following a through exploration of the area, perhaps by committee and or in conjunction with the Esperanto seminar beginning in February, they can campaign for the acceptance of Esperanto as a legitimate means of satisfying the under-graduate language requirement. Considering that the College states that it will accept, aside from Spanish, French, Japanese and so forth, "any other language in which a competent examination can be given at Harvard," and that the University has already granted that Esperanto is a genuine language and that a competent examination could be administered should the occasion arise, this in itself should not be too difficult. The student group could go on, however, to conduct international language into the curriculum proper--where it belongs (and is now found in universities elsewhere in the world)--on solid academic and humanist grounds.

This project, if undertaken, would require a long period of patience, dedication, and work, but it could be done, and would be a noble achievement for all who took part in it. As someone recently wrote. "Esperanto is the linguistic expression of the brotherhood of man." I would like to be able to write someday that Esperanto is the academic expression of humanism at Harvard.