The differences can also be seen on higher levels. The recentrnbook on education with the most impact in the United Statesrnwas Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind. Bloom wasrnknown as an effective teacher with few or no scholarly credentialsrnwho argued for reading Plato and other classics in literalrntranslations and for a return to an ordered, self-disciplined intellectualrnlife. The comparable figure in France is ProfessorrnJacqueline de Romilly of the French Academy, one of thernworld’s greatest Thucydides scholars and an important studentrnof Greek tragedy. Her best-selling books on education and onrnthe history of ideas have presented a case for France to maintainrnthe study of Greek language, literature, and culture as thernsource of European culture and its ideal of a free society, as indispensablernfor the survival of creativity and freedom. Herrnbooks, whether scholarly, popular, or fiction, are written withrna deceptive clarity of language and structure. (She is also a delightfulrnpublic speaker.) It is not just that there is a clear differencernin quality of style and intellectual standards betweenrntheir most popular educational writer and ours. Bloom lived inrnParis and translated several important works of French politicalrntheory. He knew French intellectual life. (Similarly OriandornPatterson’s Freedom, an academic best-seller, resemblesrnMadame de Romilly’s recent Grece a la decouverte de la liberie,rnbut Patterson was not born and educated in the United Statesrnam more than Peter Jennings.)rnLanguage and culture are integral parts of national identity.rnThe public institutions of a nation have a duty to helprnpreserve their integrity and standards. A massive intrusion ofrnforeign words would muddy the vocabulary of a national language,rnalthough a slower introduction of new words and conceptsrnhelps to keep a language lively and vital. Language,rnculture, and customs live among citizens. A countrv’s populationrnmay profit from the slow introduction of new stocks andrnnew people, but will be overwhelmed by a massive and suddenrninvasion. The French people understand this and (from anrnAmerican perspective, amazingly) so does the French government.rnFor a long time French citizenship has been governed by thernjus soli or droit de sol. Anyone born on French soil was French.rnIt is a policy well adapted to a monarchical or absolutist system,rninterested in maintaining control and expanding possession. Itrnhas traditionally not been found in republican constitutions,rnsuch as those of ancient Athens or modern Switzerland, whererna commitment to the standards and ideals of the nation are essentialrnfor continuity. France is a republic with a long and distinguishedrncentralizing, absolutist, and imperial past, but in recentrnyears it has had to face the catastrophic results of droit dernsol. Those born in Tunisia and Algerie frangaise before their liberationrncould by jus soli claim French citizenship. ManyrnTunisians and Algerians preferred French citizenship for themselvesrnor the possibility of claiming French citizenship for theirrn(large) families over what liberation offered them. Francernfound itself increasingly dragged down into an economic abyssrnby claims on the welfare system made by young foreignersrnand their families. Even those with no claim on French citizenshiprnfound that if they had children on French soil, thosernchildren were French and could provide the basis for a legalrnclaim to stay in France for parents and other relatives.rnAs the Islamic portion of these immigrants began to reach arncritical mass, the French discovered that Islam is not a form ofrnpersonal piety but a culture rooted in race, language, and tradition.rnIslamic immigrants, while looking for the legal protectionrnof French citizenship, were not interested in assimilatingrnto the distinctive and demanding French way of life. This socialrntrend became a reality to many Frenchmen when Islamicrngirls began to wear the veil, the chador, to public school. Oppositionrnto the chador helped unite otherwise disparate Frenchrncommunities. For the conservative, it meant the rejection ofrnthe religion and way of life that, in a profound sense, wasrnFrance. For the leftist, it revealed a deep-seated repudiation ofrnthe secularism and women’s rights that were at the heart of thernsocialist agenda. How long could France survive as a creativerncommunity, if the fastest growing part of the nation was explicitlvrnrejecting not only what France had been in the past, butrnthe very terms of the debate about what France might becomernin the future?rnDroit de sol had to go. The French senate voted against itrntwo years ago and, with the triumph of the French rightist coalitionrnin this spring’s elections, its repudiation was virtually thernfirst item on the agenda of a French conservatism determinedrnnot to blow its opportunities as it had in 1986. For France tornsurvive as a culturally and scientifically creative community,rncommitted to self-rule and economic prosperity, the traditionsrnof what it meant to be French had to be put firmly intornthe hands of French citizens, not into the pullulating beds ofrnthe hungrv and ignorant of other lands, people committed torna way of life radically different from that of Western Europernand willing to spread that way of life by means of reproductionrnand conversion.rnThose born on French soil to those who are not French citizensrnare no longer automatically French. (They may, ofrncourse, apply for French citizenship when they reach maturity.)rnFrench mayors are given much greater authority to abortrnmariages blancs, phoney marriages for the sake of attaining citizenship.rnSpouses of French citizens must now wait two yearsrnbefore applying for citizenship. French authorities are guaranteedrnmuch greater leeway in checking residency papers. Therernare many other details, not so important in themselves as inrnwhat they say about the determination of the French governmentrnto obey the will of the French people to maintain therncoherence and integrity of French citizenship and the Frenchrnnation.rnThere is a message here for the United States. The majorrneconomic players in the world, Japan, Germany, Switzerland,rnand now France, are committed to maintaining their traditionsrnof creativity and self-rule not just by excellent schools, but byrnentrusting the future of their countries to their own citizens, byrnthe principle of/’us sanguinis, droit de sang. Their future citizensrnwill be the children of their present citizens. The UnitedrnStates not only has a vastly inferior school system, whose childrenrnrank at the bottom of the industrial world when tested forrnmath and foreign languages, they have handed their future overrnto large masses of immigrants who are committed to achievingrnmajority status by invasion and massive reproduction. Theyrnhave put demands on our staggering welfare state that it cannotrnsupport. They have dragged down the level of our publicrnschools while draining away money that could have been usedrnto create or at least encourage academic excellence. Many ofrnthem have shown that they have no intention of assimilating tornthe standards and way of life that created the United States andrncould still restore it to prosperity and freedom, if consciouslyrnsupported and defended.rnNo one who has absorbed the lessons of Lester Thurow’srnNOVEMBER 1993/17rnrnrn