a letter to teachers of language and literature

South Atlantic Modern Language Association

A Letter to Teachers of Language and LiteratureAuthor(s): Gerald E. WadbSource: South Atlantic Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 1 (May, 1955), pp. 6-9Published by: South Atlantic Modern Language AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3197321 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

South Atlantic Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to South Atlantic Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.245.77 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:12:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samla

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3197321?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A Letter To Teachers OF Language And Literature University of Tennessee Knoxville April 15, 1955

Dear Colleagues: This letter is directed especially to

teachers of modern foreign language and literature. It should have perti- nence also for teachers of English and the classics, and they are invited to consider with us a problem that, in its fundamental aspects, is common to us all. The original of the letter was read as a paper before one of the sections of Samla last November. In January of this year it was cir- culated in mimeographed form to a number of teachers in all parts of the country; it is at the urging of several readers that the present ver- sion of the paper is printed. Con- siderations of space have reduced the contents of the mimeographed paper by about half; correspondence with a number of people has also altered its contents in a few details. These persons, in a sense, are really co- authors of the present letter, and I am most grateful for their interest and for their keen appraisals of our common problem.

You will of course recall that some two and a half years ago the Rocke- feller Foundation gave the MLA a grant of $120,000 to be spent over a period of three years, this sum to be expended on a study of the place of modern foreign language in Ameri- can life. The study has taken numerous directions, but the matter of largest importance that has come out of the program is the one to be discussed in this letter. I say of largest importance because it would seem that it may have the greatest practical impact if carried out to the limits of its logical implications. The very important matter to which I refer is the report of the MLA-sponsored Interdisciplinary Seminar that grew out of this group's deliberations at the University of Michigan in the summer of 1953. The Seminar report appeared in PMLA for December of that same year, but up to now it has aroused no discussion in the professional journals. The one exception to this apparent indifference to the report appeared in the MLJ for April, 1954. Dean Charles B. Odegaard of the University of Michigan in a short article labels the report "well-nigh revolutionary" in its implications.

You may remember that the Semi-

nar consisted of nine persons of national repute, six of them experts in linguistics and/or literature, three of them specialists in cultural anthropology, history, and social psycholo- gy. This interdisciplinary group had been called together to explore the way in which foreign cultures-value systems, as the social scientists term them-may be taught in the foreign language class. The personnel consisted partly of social scientists because the other members of the Semi- nar wanted their expert help. There was no effort to evaluate the desirability of the cultural aim as com- pared with other aims; it was taken for granted that this aim was the fundamental one for that conference's deliberations because in the opinion of the Seminar enough people have thought so to make it the greatly pre- dominant one.

After having examined large num- bers of textbooks in French, German, and Spanish and having determined that these are not suitable for the elucidation of value systems in ac- cord with social science techniques, the Seminar then considered the pro- cedures whereby value systems may be elucidated with maximum efficien- cy in any languge or class. They then discussed how this task might best be approached in foreign language classes in college. It seemed to them that cultural texts should be com- piled for the intermediate level of college learning, the second year. The material should come from numerous sources, including the essay written ad hoc. Literature as such need not be a major part of the material, al- though recourse to it is recommended when it can elucidate value systems effectively by using social science techniques. Other details of the Seminar report we have no space for here, as important as they are. It must suffice to say that the report tells us, in substance, how to turn our intermediate college classes into classes in cultural anthropology, with some admixture of all the other social sciences. In other words, teachers of modern foreign language are now to become social scientists, if the report is carried out to the ultimate of its implications. This is a major part of the revolution that Dean Odegaard foresaw (and of which he, a his- torian, approved). I do not need to spell out the startling changes this

would make in the training of teachers, in the offerings of graduate de- partments, and in numerous other aspects of our profession.

An evaluation of the Seminar report may be approached on two bases: one, as regards its major premise that the only really valid reason for learning a foreign language is to gain through it an understanding of the foreign value system; two, that in order to gain this understanding we must turn our second-year college classes into classes in social science. As regards the first of the two bases, one might observe that the Seminar's acceptance of the cultural aim as of so much importance that it neces- sitates the recasting of up to one-half of the usual student's time in order to achieve it is a great narrowing of the values of foreign language study as these are expressed by the MLA Steering Committee for the Foreign Language Program. For the Steer- ing Committee's own statement of values is much broader; it appears in the same issue of PMLA that carried the Seminar report. You may wish to refresh your memory by its re-read- ing.

As regards the second basis for evaluation, one might raise the question whether the techniques proposed by the Seminar are the proper ones; whether the implementation of the cultural aim (assuming its initial desirability) is worth a recasting of second-year foreign language into social science, either completely or in large part. That is, is what we might lose by the change greater than what might be gained?

In its execution of the task with which it was charged, the investiga- tion of the connection between foreign language and foreign value systems, and the implementation of the latter through the former, the Semi- nar did a thorough job. But, to repeat, one may question the premise with which the Seminar began its work, a

premise of which it obviously approved. This premise, again, is that the one really valid aim for learning a foreign language for most students is to gain a knowledge of the foreign value system. I should like to suggest that those of our profession who have accepted the elucidation of foreign value systems as the overriding aim of foreign language work had not thought the matter through to the

Page Six SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN May, 1956



Ma, 95 SUT ALNIC

ULTNPg ee

extent that the Seminar did, and hence had not seen just where the foreign culture road really leads when cne goes to the end of it. It is doubt- ful that many of us are willing to sacrifice the other foreign language aims to the extent the Seminar report envisions.

To the Seminar, foreign language is to be in large part a tool for the grasping of statistical facts regard- ing the modes of life and of thought of foreign peoples, and these statistical facts are to be learned not so much through the easier pieces of literature (belles lettres) as through cultural anthropology and the other social sciences. The student must pre- sumably learn enough of the language irn his first year to be able to manipu- late it in the second year in the ac- quisition of rather large quantities of cultural material. The reversal of the usual aim is clear: heretofore, most of us have used year two to teach more of the language, offering materials of various sorts-and often including cultural data-to help sharpen the student's mastery of it. That is, the stress has been on the language. Now, we are urged to re- move the emphasis from the language and to place it for the most part on the cultural matter that is to be studied. This suggested alteration has important and far-reaching consequences for methodology for the second year; I do not need to dwell on them. It also raises the question of how to teach first-year materials in order that the student might be made ready for his cultural second year. If space permitted, this crucial question of methodology might be pursued much further.

Another difficult and immediately corollary question is this: How well can the student be prepared in year one for his social science second year? For if value systems are to be taught in a way that will satisfy social scientists, the technical matter is certain to be hard. Or will the material be "written down" to the student? Or cut in quantity to the point that it loses any real significance? Will the surrender values at the end of the second year be large enough to make the study of foreign language worth while in the first place? Should the cultural material perhaps be given in English and the balance of class time be given over to the old-

the language? These queries merely open up a series of hard questions that you will already have thought of.

But all the questions must be an- swered. Indeed, their very posing makes mandatory a fresh approach to the still more fundamental question that we must put to ourselves on any occasion when we consider a major alteration in the foreign language program: Just what is the primary justification for teaching a foreign language to the general student? In passing, we are very conscious of the fact that the problem we teachers of foreign language now face in the Seminal- report was largely brought upon us by our own enthusiastic claims. We have been inclined to claim too much, especially when we assert that the one and only way to understand a foreign culture successfully is through the foreign language, or that the ac- quisition of a language automatically carries its value system with it. We have not clarified our claims by de- fining exactly what we mean by culture or how much of it we can and do teach. We have not made it clear that language and culture are not synony- mous.

We must now consider once again the problem of justifying the learning of a foreign language by the general student. This cannot be the place, however, for giving it extend- ed consideration. It will certainly in- volve not merely the fundamental bases of our justification of this or that type of course content. rt will also inevitably be concerned with the broad philosophic bases of education in America; whether, for instance, we shall in all our work be immediately and practically utilitarian as the Seminar report wants us to be, or whether some of the work in school and college can not be justified on a basis of deferred rewards (these of course to include also a compre- hension of foreign peoples insofar as this can be managed in the time we have and if it is not too much at the expense of other important aims).

In passing, one might suggest that when teachers of foreign language begin to question the worth of language itself as an educative force of major importance, the subject may already be on its way out of the curriculum. The narrow, specialized and immedi-

fashioned activity of further drill in

aggeration of the instrumentalism that has dominated the educational philosophy of America under the so- called "progressive." Dewey, instrumentalism's chief philosopher, would, one may be sure, never have insisted that rewards be immediate; they could be deferred if they had useful- ness for a later time. Parenthetically, one might go even more deeply into the subject at hand and attack instrumentalism as a philosophy; its domi- nance in American thought, some think, has not been an unreservedly admirable phenomenon of the last half-century and more.

There are many other queries that might be raised about the Seminar report, but which may receive no men- tion here. What, for example, of the consequences to the MLA itself if the Seminar's willingness to trans- form college foreign language at least partly into the social sciences is accepted? It is intriguing, perhaps ironic, that it is the Association's own Seminar that proposes a procedure the implementation of which may eventually split the Association into two separate organizations, one for language and one for literature. Now it is possible that the MLA has lived out its normal span and that its Seminar's recommendation of social science is a pointed indication of the fact. There are people among us who would not mourn its passing. These people might possibly feel about literature as does Professor Robert A. Hall, Jr., who, in a recent number of Archivum Linguisticum, suggested that ". . . the study of literature and the humanities in general belongs . . . under the rubric of cultural anthropology; and that humanistic studies, now in the dol- drums of pure aestheticism, can be revived only by a rapprochement with the methods of anthropology and psychological analysis." With this type of thinking there does not seem to be much left for the MLA to exist for as it is now constituted.

The social sciences are on the make and, as one of my correspondents puts it, "social and cultural values of language are in the air; otherwise, how can one explain the sudden blooming of importance of Benjamin Whorf years after his death?" Many of us, familiar with our social science colleagues' demand for a larg- er place in the academic sun, are not startled or especially dismayed

May, 1955 SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN Page Seven

ately utilitarian aim is surely an ex-



Page Eight SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN May, 1956

by their desire to expand. But during my study of the Seminar report I ran across an item that did startle me (as did Professor Hall's statement above). It was in the FMO section of PMLA for September, 1953. You must have seen it too. It read that the Ford Foundation Fel- lowship for high school teachers for 1953-54 included 184 in the social sciences and a certain number for other areas. When the author of the item, MLA Secretary Parker, broke down the figures, he discovered that for officials of the Ford Foundation, high school English and foreign languages are now social sciences; they are, then, really only two aspects of value systems. Secretary Parker fail- ed to find any awards for literature at all, even though the Foundation report stated that there were twenty- four awards in this area (which also included music and art). For literature to be claimed for the social sciences is startling indeed, and one wonders just what the type of mind that can do that will not claim for the social sciences.

This development should help make our English-teaching friends aware that they are in the same humanistic craft with us teachers of foreign languages and literature, perhaps now a very leaky craft. Secretary Parker was moved to write in com- ment on the Foundation report: "We've been brooding over what has happened to the humanities." One might think that humanists every- where might do some brooding over the what's happening to the humanities query. Let us make very plain here that we are not interested in labels as such. So it really does not matter whether we call foreign language a social science or a humanity. It does matter, very much, how we shall implement the label by course content and the method of approach.

It may be that foreign language as such is a social science; whatever it may be called, the actual drill and practice that its learning involves, the memorization of words, the understanding of grammar rules, the conjugation of verbs and so on will hardly be altered by a label. But it is apparent that the difficulty really arises when we begin to consider what type of teaching matter shall be the substance on which drill shall be based, almost from the first day on. Members of the Seminar recommend

cultural matter, as we have seen; they doubt that literature, except in a subsidiary way, may be included so as to help toward elucidating value systems. It is the proposed removal of belles lettres from their key posi- tion in our teaching that causes us special concern; their substantial re- jection up through year two in the Seminar's proposal, and their implied relegation to a very narrow and specialized use for years three and four

(if the student gets that far).

Some of us feel that this repudia- tion of the major role that literature can and should play in the education of youth is the most insidious attack to date on the humanities, insidious

particularly because it comes, through the MLA's own Seminar report, from

within our own ranks. We must say that we do not have much faith that

man's salvation is to come through the social sciences. We now know that the natural sciences will not save man

from himself. Except as they draw material from the humanities-the value subjects-the natural sciences have nothing to say about man's sal-

vation. Nor is it probable that the social sciences will have anything really significant to say in the final

analysis; that is, unless at the least,

they leaven their statistical and im-

personal approach with material from

the value subjects. (Is the term "value

systems" an indication that this

leavening has already begun?)

To fail to use the social sciences up to a point for the effort to explain man's destiny would be folly; to sub- stitute them in any major way for

philosophy, religion, literature, music and the plastic arts would be disas- trous. For after all it is in these areas in which, if at all, man may find the answer for his salvation, for the solution of the riddle of his own

heart, ever at odds with itself.

As for the role of literature, this becomes more and more important as scholars fractionate learning into smaller and smaller segments. For literature (belles lettres) is, since

philosophy has lost out in the curriculum, the one remaining area out- side of religion where man can be ob- served as a complete entity. This is another aspect of our problem that must have long and sober discussion in our ranks. It is hard and discourag- ingly complex, for it involves the

question of what the humanities real-

ly are, of what man really is as other than a purely physical being, of what his destiny may be. (I cannot for- bear quoting a pungent metaphor written recently by Professor Rosen in his article "M. r. T. Teaches His- tory of Ideas in French." His acute statement helps point up one major aspect of our large problem: "At the time when the humanities seem on the point of committing suicide because of an unrequited passion for the natural sciences, and sociology is thoughtfully loading the gun, the principal argument for our not being able to do without the humanities must rest upon the indissoluble unity of an idea and its expression. Without this awareness, we act blindly in whatever way of life we may choose.")

In concluding let me suggest that few of us are naive enough to think that we shall achieve a unanimous opinion of what the humanities are, or of the place of language and literature among them. We teachers of foreign language are notoriously in- capable of agreeing on content or procedure. Perhaps this is not all bad. I might add that we are also notorious for grasping at panaceas for our professional ills, for the new cure that will lead us into the per- fect state of health. Right now, the "cure" is the teaching of foreign culture.

Before closing, let me say again how grateful I am for the kind words many persons sent in response to my mimeographed article of January. And let me say how deeply I appreciate the tolerance with which a number of persons accepted my mimeographed criticism of the Seminar report, tolerance rather than impati- ence for my distortion of the report, as they saw it. Their desire to do the best thing for our discipline is indeed beyond any possible question, and I am sure that those of us who may disagree with the report will be granted equal sincerity. And finally, let it be repeated once again that, even mnore than what the report actually says, it is its implications that cause us concern, implications that, if they are carried out to their logical ex- treme, bode ill for the humanistic studies which we call language and literature.

This letter presents one side of a controversial matter. There is, ob-

viously, another side, a big one. Its

Page Eight SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN May, 1955



Language, Literature, and Industry Language, Literature, and Industry When a conference of English

teachers and industrialists finds the industrialists urging upon the teachers the importance of English, that is news. And such news was made in Raleigh at North Carolina State Col- lege on October 16, 1954, when at the invitation of Dr. Lodwick Hartley, head of the State College English department, five eminent Southern industrialists engaged in a panel discussion of the importance of English in business and industry.

These five men were Charles B. Wade of Winston-Salem, personnel director of the R. J. Reynolds To- bacco Company; Louis V. Sutton of Raleigh, president of the Carolina Power and Light Company and past president of the Edison Institute; William Ruffin of Durham, president of Erwin Mills and former president of the National Association of Manu- facturers; Stuart Saunders of Roa- noke, vice president and general coun- sel of the Norfolk and Western Rail- way; and C. G. Johnson of Green- ,ville, S. C., personnel director of Deering Milliken Service Corporation. Their audience was almost two hun- dred college and university English teachers of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia who held their 1954 regional conference of the Col- lege English Association at State College last fall.

With delight the teachers heard the speakers stress the value of Eng-

proponents may want to offer an ex- planation of it in this periodical or in some other one.

Very sincerely, GERALD E. WADB

P.S. Since writing these lines, the March number of MLJ has come out with a number of provocative com- ments on the Michigan report. It is good that at last the report is beginning to achieve printed discussion. This discussion wll continue, perhaps with increasing tempo. It is my understanding that next November's Samla program will carry a panel discussion of the report and its implications. This should help a great deal to enable us to see more clearly the numerous important issues in- volved.

G. E. W.

When a conference of English teachers and industrialists finds the industrialists urging upon the teachers the importance of English, that is news. And such news was made in Raleigh at North Carolina State Col- lege on October 16, 1954, when at the invitation of Dr. Lodwick Hartley, head of the State College English department, five eminent Southern industrialists engaged in a panel discussion of the importance of English in business and industry.

These five men were Charles B. Wade of Winston-Salem, personnel director of the R. J. Reynolds To- bacco Company; Louis V. Sutton of Raleigh, president of the Carolina Power and Light Company and past president of the Edison Institute; William Ruffin of Durham, president of Erwin Mills and former president of the National Association of Manu- facturers; Stuart Saunders of Roa- noke, vice president and general coun- sel of the Norfolk and Western Rail- way; and C. G. Johnson of Green- ,ville, S. C., personnel director of Deering Milliken Service Corporation. Their audience was almost two hun- dred college and university English teachers of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia who held their 1954 regional conference of the Col- lege English Association at State College last fall.

With delight the teachers heard the speakers stress the value of Eng-

proponents may want to offer an ex- planation of it in this periodical or in some other one.

Very sincerely, GERALD E. WADB

P.S. Since writing these lines, the March number of MLJ has come out with a number of provocative com- ments on the Michigan report. It is good that at last the report is beginning to achieve printed discussion. This discussion wll continue, perhaps with increasing tempo. It is my understanding that next November's Samla program will carry a panel discussion of the report and its implications. This should help a great deal to enable us to see more clearly the numerous important issues in- volved.

G. E. W.

lish in the industrial world-not only the fundamental importance of cor- rect and effective composition as a practical tool, but also the practical value of the cultural background that literature provides. And plainly the speakers, while achieving their own high material success, were familiar with the non-technical and humanistic training that they praised; for their discussions indicated thorough-going acquaintance with the whole field of language and literature and with recent studies showing the importance of a knowledge of English for business proficiency. They were familiar, for instance, with the work of John- son O'Connor on the correlation of vocabulary and business success; with an article by Wald and Doty, in the Harvard Business Review of July- August, 1954; with a pamphlet "Why Study English" by vice-president Linder of the General Electric Co.; with Peter Drucker's article in For- tune, for May, 1952; with the works of Stuart Chase and Hayakawa.

But the speakers were not depen- dent on the works of other writers for either words or ideas. Excellent evidence of the competence of these industrialists in the use of their own language as well as evidence of their belief in the humanities can be shown by citations from their own words. Here as some excerpts from their discussion:

According to Mr. William Ruffin,

The ability to write or speak correctly and clearly is admitted- ly one of the most necessary of the skills ....

The executive in industry or business looking for trained leadership talent in his organi- zation would not be disdainful of the fellow who used the pronoun in the nomninative case when the objective is called for; but he certainly would not think it evidence of a good education and of adequate college training.

Describing a man as "well rounded" has, I suppose, long since become trite; but give me a better expression. At least give me a man for leadership in industry or commerce who is on good speaking terms not only with the technical phases of his own business but with the many other important facets of life to which he will find himself exposed-the languages, literature, the arts and, neither last nor least, re-

lish in the industrial world-not only the fundamental importance of cor- rect and effective composition as a practical tool, but also the practical value of the cultural background that literature provides. And plainly the speakers, while achieving their own high material success, were familiar with the non-technical and humanistic training that they praised; for their discussions indicated thorough-going acquaintance with the whole field of language and literature and with recent studies showing the importance of a knowledge of English for business proficiency. They were familiar, for instance, with the work of John- son O'Connor on the correlation of vocabulary and business success; with an article by Wald and Doty, in the Harvard Business Review of July- August, 1954; with a pamphlet "Why Study English" by vice-president Linder of the General Electric Co.; with Peter Drucker's article in For- tune, for May, 1952; with the works of Stuart Chase and Hayakawa.

But the speakers were not depen- dent on the works of other writers for either words or ideas. Excellent evidence of the competence of these industrialists in the use of their own language as well as evidence of their belief in the humanities can be shown by citations from their own words. Here as some excerpts from their discussion:

According to Mr. William Ruffin,

The ability to write or speak correctly and clearly is admitted- ly one of the most necessary of the skills ....

The executive in industry or business looking for trained leadership talent in his organi- zation would not be disdainful of the fellow who used the pronoun in the nomninative case when the objective is called for; but he certainly would not think it evidence of a good education and of adequate college training.

Describing a man as "well rounded" has, I suppose, long since become trite; but give me a better expression. At least give me a man for leadership in industry or commerce who is on good speaking terms not only with the technical phases of his own business but with the many other important facets of life to which he will find himself exposed-the languages, literature, the arts and, neither last nor least, re-

ligion. He will find himself sorely in need of them and in my opinion cannot develop his full poten- tial without them. He will even find it difficult to hold his own in the lower echelons of industrial and business leadership unless he is a well-rounded man.

Said Mr. Stuart Saunders, There must be some media for

creating understanding rather than confusion, loyalty instead of hostility, and interest instead of apathy. And words are practically the only means by which this can be done. Mr. Charles Malik, the brilliant representative of Le- banon in the United Nations, de- clared in an address a short time ago: "Every tragedy in history has arisen because somewhere, somehow man has misinterpreted himself. He took himself to be what he was not, or not to be what he was." This is true in business. Words are probably the most important commodity in which it deals. Like the minister, the lawyer, and the writer, the businessman is deeply concerned with the techniques of utterance and what lies behind utterance- the motivations of man. In truth, business management in this country has become a profession and requires the same skill and training as the traditionally learned callings.

What significance does all of this have for the young man who is just beginning his college education and wants to make business a career? I am convinced that if he wishes to succeed, if he wishes to get more genuine sweetness out of life and to live a more luxuriant and vivid intellectual life, he will take a lib- eral arts course in college, probably majoring in language or literature.

More and more companies now appreciate that, in addition to specialists and technicians, they badly need men who have a general education-men with a broad, coherent outlook, with a sure grasp of their intellectual heri- tage, men who are generalists, who have what Alfred North Whitehead termed "the habitual vision of greatness."

In Mr. Louis Sutton's opinion, There is no adequate substi-

tute for language and literature in acquiring the power of thought and expression. It is a great accomplishment to be a master of fine shades of thought and meaning.

Mr. Charles Wade protested against pedantry in language, pointing out that it might hurt rather than help

ligion. He will find himself sorely in need of them and in my opinion cannot develop his full poten- tial without them. He will even find it difficult to hold his own in the lower echelons of industrial and business leadership unless he is a well-rounded man.

Said Mr. Stuart Saunders, There must be some media for

creating understanding rather than confusion, loyalty instead of hostility, and interest instead of apathy. And words are practically the only means by which this can be done. Mr. Charles Malik, the brilliant representative of Le- banon in the United Nations, de- clared in an address a short time ago: "Every tragedy in history has arisen because somewhere, somehow man has misinterpreted himself. He took himself to be what he was not, or not to be what he was." This is true in business. Words are probably the most important commodity in which it deals. Like the minister, the lawyer, and the writer, the businessman is deeply concerned with the techniques of utterance and what lies behind utterance- the motivations of man. In truth, business management in this country has become a profession and requires the same skill and training as the traditionally learned callings.

What significance does all of this have for the young man who is just beginning his college education and wants to make business a career? I am convinced that if he wishes to succeed, if he wishes to get more genuine sweetness out of life and to live a more luxuriant and vivid intellectual life, he will take a lib- eral arts course in college, probably majoring in language or literature.

More and more companies now appreciate that, in addition to specialists and technicians, they badly need men who have a general education-men with a broad, coherent outlook, with a sure grasp of their intellectual heri- tage, men who are generalists, who have what Alfred North Whitehead termed "the habitual vision of greatness."

In Mr. Louis Sutton's opinion, There is no adequate substi-

tute for language and literature in acquiring the power of thought and expression. It is a great accomplishment to be a master of fine shades of thought and meaning.

Mr. Charles Wade protested against pedantry in language, pointing out that it might hurt rather than help

May, 1965 May, 1965 SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN Page Nine Page Nine



a letter to teachers of language and literature

Documents