A chara, - A number of interesting letters have appeared on this page over the last couple of weeks, questioning the decision by Minister for Education and Science, Micheal O Mairtin, to remove the obligation on all aspiring secondary school teachers to sit an Irish exam. It was with great interest in particular that Bord na Gaeilge read Eugene Egan's letter (July 7th). He clearly highlighted how fundamentally wrong are those who continue to espouse the view that it is unreasonable to ask a person to learn Irish or to demand of others that they sit an Irish exam in order to qualify for certain types of employment. If, as an tUasal Egan states, an average student from the region of Kilimanjaro in Africa is fluent in at least three languages, how is it unreasonable to demand of the people of Ireland that they should be proficient in both official languages of the State, Irish and English?
Do those native to Africa possess some unique disposition when it comes to languages? On the contrary, being multilingual is not unique to Africa. Most other countries recognise the value of being competent in additional languages, but for some reason or other the majority of the English-speaking world seems content to be monolingual. According to European Commission findings, nearly half of EU citizens can take part in a conversation in another language. However when one studies this issue on a country by country basis, one sees that the two English-speaking countries are at the bottom of the scale, with the UK at 21 per cent and the population of this State not too far behind at 31 per cent. In Spain this figure is 81 per cent, in France it is 45 per cent, and in Germany it is 45 per cent. English may be among the major languages of the world but the same can equally be said about the above three, yet the members of these countries recognise the value of being multilingual.
In order to counter this monolingual mindset endemic in much of the English-speaking world, those in positions of power, or influence, or both, in this State must lead by example. It is for this very reason that Bord na Gaeilge was dismayed at the Minister's decision. Instead of viewing the obligatory oral Irish exam as a restrictive measure - as, I may say, the Irish Times Editorial for the following day did - it should be viewed as it was intended: as a guarantee that those involved in teaching the young people of the country would be in a position to lead on the question of Irish by example and that the language also could be taught on an integrated basis. That is to say, that the history teacher could highlight the historical significance of, for example the old Irish poetry which is on the Irish curriculum, or that the Geography teacher could show students how many of the names of places, mountains and rivers in Ireland actually derive from the Irish language.
One of the arguments used to justify the Minister's decision is that the existence of the exam restricted people from Britain or Northern Ireland from teaching in this State. The obligatory Irish exam no more prevented those from outside the State from teaching in this State than the existing laws in France, Germany, Italy or most other European states prevent Irish people from teaching in those countries. It is common courtesy to learn the native language of the country you intend to locate. It is true that people in Northern Ireland don't have the same opportunities to learn Irish as the rest of the country; that is a problem that needs addressing, and one that the new cross-Border language body will have to look at. But this latest decision is not the answer.
Other English-speaking countries must decide for themselves whether they wish to be monolingual, but we as people within the wider European nation, with our own ancient tradition and native tongue, need not follow their example, but instead recognise the value of being multilingual and thus openly embrace all languages. - Is mise,
Donall O Maolfabhail, Rannog Cumarsaide, Pobail agus Gno, Bord na Gaeilge, Cearnog Mhuirfean Baile Atha Cliath 2