Answer to Mr. P. Termaat regarding the teaching of the Dutch language in the Christian schools..... Herewith, we give a reprint of the articles of the laws governing teaching. This law governs the teaching in the elementary grades. By elementary grades, we usually understand the grades from 1 and including 8, and sometimes 1 to 6 or 7, but in each case, it includes the grades 1 and 2. The motion which was debated by the society Ebenezer was in two parts. The first part proposed that the teaching should be in Dutch for the first two years. The second part proposed that the Dutch language be kept in the higher grades as a course. Where the teaching is the same the first 2 years as in the first two grades (where teachings are given in the elementary branches of education.) it would absolutely be against the law to teach the Dutch language as it was proposed in part one. That the Dutch language, as a course, was not against the law was disputed by no one and yet the amendment to the motion to teach Dutch as a course thru all the grades was rejected. We say this to show that the meeting was unwilling to import more Dutch at the expense of the language of the land.

As to the remark that the case was handled onesidedly at the meeting, we must say that there were more arguments against than for the motion. It was not the president's fault but that of the meeting. In our opinion, every one who had anything to say in regard to the motion was given an opportunity to do so. True, everyone was restricted to speak twice on the same motion, but that was the same on both sides. Anyone who feels slighted by the president may appeal to the meeting for justice. No one though made any use of this right. As far as criticism about the membership of the meeting is concerned we can say that only members of the society participated in debate and voting. Whether or not it would be better to set a minimum age for members is another question and had nothing to do with the honest handling of the discussed question. Lastly, there is a difference of opinion concerning the place which the Dutch teaching should take in our Christian schools. Every one has the right to plead his own convictions and if possible convert others to his point of view. If, however, the Society comes to an agreement then we feel that further agitation will be a detriment to the well-being of the school. If the importation of more Dutch was absolutely essential to rule the Christian character of our schools, it would be different. The Dutch language, however, is not a real part of Christian worship. Personally, I am in favor of the teaching of the 3Dutch language in the lower grades. The following is an article written by me in Religion and Culture in 1925 -- "The Americanization of our people of Holland descent is making rapid headway, but to a large number of our children, Dutch has not yet become a foreign tongue. Because of favorable home and church environment (favorable to the acquisition of Dutch), it is comparatively easy for our children to master the Holland language. It is certainly far easier to acquire the Holland language than a foreign one. Does it not seem shortsighted and lacking in a preciation of a rich legacy to ignore the language of the Motherland? Is it not withholding something from the children to which they have a right, and if we deny it to them, will they not one day censure us for denying them the key to a vast spiritual wealth, the key to a culture of which they are products, the key to a literature -- especially theological which we consider invaluable? As it was then, so is it also my position now."

Henry Kuiper