PJ MSJ

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov

ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA263329Filing date: 01/28/2009

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEBEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Proceeding 91185180

Party PlaintiffPeter H.Johnson

CorrespondenceAddress

Brennan C. SwainJeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro LLP1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90067UNITED [email protected]

Submission Motion for Summary Judgment

Filer's Name Jessica C. Bromall

Filer's e-mail [email protected]

Signature /jessica c. bromall/

Date 01/28/2009

Attachments Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf ( 94 pages )(3627415 bytes )

http://estta.uspto.gov

5718997v1


TATUAJE CIGARS INC.,

Opposer,

v.

NICARAGUA TOBACCO IMPORTS,INC.,

Applicant.

Opposition No. 91/185,180

Application Serial No.: 77/359,141

Mark: TATTOO

Published for Opposition: May 20, 2008

Atty. Ref. No.: 68692-0003

Commissioner for TrademarksP.O. Box 1451Alexandria, VA 22313-1451

OPPOSER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Opposer Tatuaje Cigars, Inc. ("Opposer"), through its undersigned counsel,

hereby moves pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 37 C.F.R. 2.127

of the Trademark Rules of Practice of entry of summary judgment in its favor and against

applicant Nicaragua Tobacco Imports, Inc. ("Applicant").

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Opposer is a well-established and well-respected member of the cigar industry. More

than four years ago, Opposer began building his TATUAJE brand of cigars. In thatshort period

of time, he has gained the respect of the industry and his TUTUAJE brand cigars havebeen

honored as some of the best cigars in the country.

Looking to trade on Opposer's goodwill, Applicant seeks to obtain rights to use the word

"TATTOO", which word is the English equivalent of Opposer's mark TATUAJE, as a trademark

for his own brand of cigars and cigar-related products.

5718997v1

2

Based on the uncontroverted facts set forth below, as a matter of law, Applicant's

proposed trademark TATTOO for cigars and cigar-related accessories isconfusingly similar to

Opposer's trademark TATUAJE, also for cigars and cigar-related accessories. No genuine issue

of material fact exists with respect to this issue.

For this and all the other reasons set forth below, Opposer is entitled to judgment asa

matter of law and Applicant's application should be rejected.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Opposer Owns the Trademark TATUAJE

Opposer Tatuaje Cigars, Inc. is in the business of selling cigars and cigar related

accessories throughout the United States. SeeDeclaration of Peter H. Johnson, filed

concurrently herewith ("Johnson Decl.") ¶ 3. Since at least as early as May27, 2003, Opposer

and its predecessor in interest, founder Peter H. Johnson, have used the mark TATUAJEto

identify Opposer's cigars. Id.

Opposer's TATUAJE cigars were first released in 2003. Id.Shortly after being

introduced into the market, Opposer's TATUAJE cigars garnered recognition in the cigar

community. Seeid. at ¶ 4 & Exh. B. After only a year, TATUAJE cigars were recognized as

one of the best cigars of the year byCigar Aficionado magazine. Id.at ¶ 5 & Exh. C.

Committed to excellence, TATUAJE brand cigars have appeared on the top25 list nearly every

year since 2004. Seeid. at ¶ 6 & Exhs. D - F.

Opposer's TATUAJE mark is also the subject of U.S. Trademark Registration

No. 2,836,665, filed on April 27, 2004. Id.at ¶ 2, Exh. A. Opposer's registration is valid and

subsisting. Id.As noted in Opposer's registration, TATUAJE is the Spanish word for "tattoo."

Id.; see alsoDeclaration of Brennan C. Swain ("Swain Decl.") ¶ 2, Exh. H.

5718997v1

3

B. Applicant's Conduct

On December 25, 2007, more than four years after Opposer's TATUAJE brand launched,

Applicant filed intent-to-use application Serial No. 77,359,141 for the mark TATTOOfor use in

connection with cigars, cigarettes, and cigarillos, as well as a variety of cigar-related accessories.

SeeApplication Serial No. 77/359,141.

As Applicant acknowledges in its correspondence with Opposer and Opposer's counsel,

the cigar industry "is a small industry and a gentleman's industry." SeeJohnson Decl., ¶ 9,

Exh. I. Accordingly, prior to initiating the instant the proceeding and filing the instant motion,

Opposer and its counsel have made repeated efforts to resolve this dispute informally. When he

became aware of Applicant's application, Mr. Johnson contacted Applicant personally,informed

it of Opposer's rights in the mark TATUAJE, and its English equivalent, TATTOO, and

requested that Applicant withdraw the application. Id.at ¶ 8.

Prior to filing its application for TATTOO, Applicant had constructive knowledgeof

Opposer's rights in the mark TATUAJE and, as a player in the admittedly smallworld that forms

the cigar industry, it is a virtual certainty that Applicant had actual knowledge of Opposer's

rights as well. Further, review of Applicant's website suggests that Applicantis not currently

using the alleged mark "TATTOO", nor is there any evidence that Applicant hasever used the

mark "TATTOO." Seeid. at ¶ 9. Nonetheless, in response to Mr. Johnson's communication,

Applicant refused to withdraw the application unless Opposer paid it more than ten thousand

dollars in compensation. Id.at ¶ 9, Exh. I.

After receiving Applicant's response, Opposer's counsel sent a more formal

communication to Applicant, again outlining Opposer's rights in the mark TATUAJE and its

English equivalent TATTOO, and again requesting that Applicant withdraw its application.

5718997v1

4

Swain Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. J. Again, Applicant refused to withdraw its applicationand Opposer had

not choice but to proceed with the instant Opposition proceeding. Id.

Opposer again attempted to reach an informal resolution prior to filing this motion.

During the discovery conference in this matter, held on Thursday, September 18, 2008,Opposer

advised Applicant of its intent to bring a motion for summary judgment. Id.at ¶ 4, Exh. K. In a

further attempt at resolving this matter without the time or expense of further proceedings, the

parties agreed to exchange cases they would rely one to support their respective positions. See

id. Pursuant to this agreement, on Monday, September 22, 2008, Opposer sent two cases to

Applicant. Id. In contravention of its agreement, Applicant neither provided any cases to

Opposer, nor did it provide any response at all to Opposer's September 22, 2008 email. Id.

Opposer was left with no choice but to proceed with the instant motion.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment should be granted where the moving party establishes that thereare

no genuine issues of material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment asa matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248 (1986). Upon the

moving party'sprima facie showing of entitlement to summary relief, the non-moving party may

not rest on mere denials or conclusory assertions, but rather must present specific factsshowing a

genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). In determining

whether there is a genuine issue of material fact which would preclude the grant of summary

judgment, the Board must look to the controlling substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

Summary judgment is a favored method of adjudicatinginter partes proceedings as the

Board considers it a "salutary method of disposition designed 'to secure the just, speedy and

inexpensive determination of every action.' " Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co., 4

5718997v1

5

U.S.P.Q.2d 1793, 1795 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Court affirmed Board's grant of summary judgment

dismissing opposition because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to likelihood of

confusion); see alsoPure Gold, Inc. v. Suntex (U.S.A.), Inc., 222 U.S.P.Q. 741, 744 (Fed. Cir.

1984) (summary judgment "is to be encouraged ininter partes cases before the Trademark Trial

and Appeal Board").

B. Applicant is Entitled to Summary Judgment on its Claim Under Section 2(d)

In order to prevail upon its Section 2(d) claim, Opposer must establish: 1) that it isthe

owner of valid trademark rights in its TATUAJE Mark; and 2) that Applicant' suse of its

proposed TATTOO mark is likely to cause confusion with Opposer's TATUAJE Mark. E.g.,

Calvin Klein Industries, Inc. v. Calvins Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1269, 1270

(T.T.A.B. 1988). For the reasons set forth below, there are no genuine issues of material fact as

to either element of Opposer's Section 2(d) claim, and judgment should be entered thereon as a

matter of law.

1. Opposer is the Owner of the Trademark TATUAJE

Opposer is the owner of rights in the trademark TATUAJE for use in connection with

cigars (the "TATUAJE Mark"). Trademark rights are created by use of a mark to identify one's

goods. E.g., Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Intern., Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1996), as

modified, 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996) ("To acquire ownership of a trademark . . . the party

claiming ownership must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or

services."); Hydro-Dynamics, Inc. v. George Putnam & Co., Inc., 811 F.2d 1470, 1473 (Fed. Cir.

1987) (“[T]rademark rights in the United States are acquired by such adoption and use . . . .”).

Opposer, and/or its predecessor in interest, have been using the TATUAJE mark to identify its

cigars since at least as early as May 27, 2005, long prior December 25, 2007, the filingdate of

Applicant's application. SeeJohnson Decl., ¶¶ 3-7, Exhs. B-G.

5718997v1

6

Furthermore, Opposer owns federal trademark registration number 2,836,665, issued on

April 27, 2004, for TATUAJE in connection with cigars in International Class 34 (the " '665

Reg."). Id.at ¶ 2, Exh. A. The '665 Reg. constitutesprima facie evidence of the validity of

Opposer's TATUAJE mark and of Opposer's exclusive right to use the mark on the goods

specified in the registration. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1057(b) & 1115(a).

Opposer's ownership of the TATUAJE Mark is undisputed.

2. Applicant's Use of the Mark TATTOO Is Likely to Cause ConsumerConfusion

In determining whether consumer confusion is likely to result from the registration and

use of a proposed mark, the Board should consider a number of factors including,inter alia, the

similarity of the respective marks, the relatedness of the respective goods, and the marketing

channels and consumers of the respective goods. In re DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d

1356, 1361, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Any one of the factors listed maybe

dominant in any given case, depending upon the evidence of record. In re Dixie Restaurants,

Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, the following

factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of thegoods, and similarity of

trade channels of the goods. In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1593 (T.T.A.B.

1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

a. Similarity of the Marks

Perhaps the single most important factor in analyzing likelihood of confusion is the

similarity or dissimilarity of marks at issue. See, e.g., Ford Motor Company v. Summit Motor

Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 293, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1417, 1430 (3d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.,

Altran Corporation v. Ford Motor Company, 502 U.S. 939 (1991). In determining similarity, the

marks at issue must be compared in their entireties, including with respect to sight, sound, and

5718997v1

7

connotation. SeeIn re E.I DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 U.S.P.Q. at 567.

Similarity as to one element (i.e., sight, sound or connotation) may be sufficient to deem the

marks similar.

i. Marks are Identical in Connotation

Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, Opposer's mark TATUAJE and Applicant's

mark TATTOO are identicalin connotation.

The doctrine of foreign equivalents provides that "foreign words from common, modern

languages are translated into English to determine similarity of connotation with English words

in a likelihood of confusion analysis." In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1645, 1647

(T.T.A.B. 2008). See alsoD.C. Comics v. Pan American Grain Mfg. Co., 77 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1220,

1225 (T.T.A.B. 2005); Palm Bay Import, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En

1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

It is indisputable that "tattoo" is the English equivalent of the Spanish word "tatuaje."

Swain Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. H. Opposer submits that Spanish is the most common language inthe

United States after English, with more than 30 million people speaking Spanishas their primary

language. Seeid. at ¶ 5, Exh. L. Furthermore, logic dictates that there are numerous Spanish

speaking people who, although fluent, do not speak Spanish as their primary language,e.g.,

children of Spanish-speaking immigrants. Additionally, Spanish is by far the most widely-taught

non-English language in U.S. secondary schools and institutes of higher education. Seeid. at ¶¶

6-7, Exhs. M-N.

As a result of the foregoing, it is likely that a significant portion of Americanconsumers

would stop and translate Opposer's mark into its English equivalent. In fact, the T.T.A.B. has

recently recognized that the Spanish language is spoken or understood by an appreciable number

of U.S. consumers who also speak or understand English, and that consumers encountering a

5718997v1

8

Spanish word in the market place are likely to translate it. In re La Peregrina, 86 U.S.P.Q. 2d at

1648-1650. Accordingly, the T.T.A.B. concluded that "there is no question that Spanish is a

common, modern language. According to the evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney,

Spanish is the second most common languages in the United States after English, with up to 30

million Spanish-speaking people in this country." Id.at 1648. The T.T.A.B. went on to say that

"it is clear that, by any standard, the Spanish language is spoken or understood by an appreciable

number of U.S. consumers who also speak or understand English." Id.

The translated meaning of TATUAJE is not obscure. It follows that an appreciable

number of U.S. consumers are likely to translate TATUAJE into its English equivalent.

Accordingly, under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, Opposer's mark TATUAJEand

Applicant's mark TATTOO are identical in connotation. This alone is sufficient to support a

finding that the marks are similar.

ii. Marks Are Similar in Sight and Sound

In addition to the fact that the marks are identical in connotation, they are similar in sight

and sound as well. To begin, the first syllables of each mark - "tat" - are identical in both sight

and sound. The second syllables of each mark, are identical in sound. In other words, when

pronounced, Applicant's mark is identical in sound to the first two syllables of Opposer's mark.

In fact, the only difference in the manner in which the two words are pronounced, isthe addition

of the two extra syllables - "a-je" - at the end of Opposer's mark.

3. Similarity of the Goods: Applicant's Goods are Identical to Opposer's

Applicant's and Opposer's goods need not be identical in order to determine that there isa

likelihood of confusion - "the inquiry is whether the goods are related, not identical." The issue

is not whether the goods will be confused with each other, but rather whether the public will be

confused about their source." TMEP 1207.01(a)(i); Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.,

5718997v1

9

518 F.2d 1399, 186 U.S.P.Q. 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975). The question is whether "the goods or

services of the applicant and the registrant are so related that the circumstances surrounding their

marketing are such that they are likely to be encountered by the same persons under

circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that they originatefrom the same

source." On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1471

(Fed. Cir. 2000).

Here, however, the issue is not that complicated - Applicant's and Opposer's goods are

identical.

Opposer has a federal registration for TATUAJE in connection with cigars in

International Class 34. Applicant also uses the mark TATUAJE in connection withashtrays,

cigar lighters, and cigar cutters. Johnson Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. G.

Applicant proposes to use the mark TATTOO in connection with cigars, cigarettes, and

cigarillos, as well as cigar and cigarette boxes, cigar bands, cigar cases, cigar cutters, cigar

holders, cigar humidifiers, cigar lighters, and cigar tubes. SeeApp. Serial No. 77/359,141.

Many of the goods in connection with which Applicant proposes to use its mark are

identical to Opposer's goods,e.g., cigars, cigar lighters, and cigar cutters. Applicant's remaining

goods are cigar-related accessories, and as such, are clearly related toOpposer's goods.

4. Similarity of Channels of Trade: Channels are Identical

Opposer uses its mark in connection with cigars and cigar-related accessories. Applicant

proposes to use its mark in connection with cigar and cigar-related accessories. As neither

Opposer nor Applicant have placed any limitations with respect to channels of trade, it is proper

to presume that the goods identified in their applications will move in all normalchannels of

trade, and that they will be available to all classes of purchasers. In re JumpDesigns, LLC, 80

U.S.P.Q. 2d 1370, 1374 (T.T.A.B. 2006); TMEP 1207.01(a)(iii). As Applicant's and Opposer's

5718997v1

10

goods are in part identical and in part extremely similar, the presumption leads to the conclusion

that Applicant's and Opposer's goods will be sold in the same channels of trade, in thesame

stores, to the same consumers.

IV. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Opposer's Motion for Summary Judgment against

Applicant should be granted, and Applicant's registration should be refused.

Dated: January 28, 2009 /S/ JESSICA C. BROMALL

Brennan C. SwainRod S. BermanJessica C. BromallJEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & M ARMARO LLP1900 Avenue of the Stars, Seventh FloorLos Angeles, CA 90067(310) 203-8080E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Opposer Tatuaje Cigars, Inc.

5811250v1



Opposer,

v.


Applicant.



Mark: TATTOO


Atty. Ref. No.: 68692-0003


DECLARATION OF PETER H. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSER'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I, PETER H. JOHNSON, declare as follows:

1. I am the owner of opposer Tatuaje Cigars, Inc. ("Opposer"). I have personal

knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could and would competently

testify thereto. I submit this Declaration in support of Opposer's Motion for Summary Judgment.

2. I am the original registrant of U.S. Trademark Reg. 2,836,665 for TATUAJE for

use in connection with cigars in International Class 34 (the "TATUAJE Reg."). On or about

June 25, 2008, I assigned the foregoing registration, as well as the business and goodwill

associated therewith to Opposer. The assignment was recorded with the UnitedStates Patent and

Trademark Office on July 9, 2008. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are two true andcorrect copies

of Opposer's TATUAJE Reg. showing the current status of and title to the registration.

3. Opposer is in the business of selling cigars and cigar related accessories

throughout the United States. I began using the TATUAJE mark to identify my cigars at least as

5811250v1

2

early as May 27, 2003, and I and/or Opposer have been using the mark in connection with cigars

continuously ever since.

4. TATUAJE cigars are hand-made premium cigars made in the Cuban tradition. I

worked hard with my associates to ensure that TATUAJE cigars are of the highest quality. The

first production of TATUAJE cigars was released in 2003. Shortly thereafter,our efforts were

rewarded. Mere months after their release, TATUAJE cigars were recognized by Cigar

Aficionado Magazine. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copyof an article that

was originally posted on cigarafficionado.com on August 11, 2003 and was printed on October

24, 2008.

5. Each year, Cigar Aficionado Magazine selects the 25 best cigars of the year. In

2004, Cigar Aficionado Magazine selected a TATUAJE brand cigar as the 25th best cigar of the

year. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the 2004 Top 25article, which

was printed on October 24, 2008.

6. A TATUAJE brand cigar has appeared on Cigar Aficionado Magazine's Top 25

list numerous times, ranking 4, 9, and 15 in 2005, 2006, and 2007 respectively. Attached hereto

as Exhibits D, E, and F are copies of the Top 25 articles from 2005, 2006, and 2007,

respectively, each of which was printed on October 24, 2008.

7. In addition to cigars, Opposer also uses the TATUAJE mark in connection with

cigar lighters, cigar cutters, ashtrays, as well as a variety of promotional items, including hats

and t-shirts. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of an internet print-out

showing goods for sale bearing the TATUAJE mark.

8. TATUAJE is the Spanish word for "tattoo." Accordingly, when I discovered

applicant Nicaragua Tobacco Imports, Inc.'s ("Applicant's") application for registration of

5811249v1



Opposer,

v.


Applicant.



Mark: TATTOO


Atty. Ref. No.: 68692-0003


DECLARATION OF BRENNAN C. SWAIN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSER'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I, BRENNAN C. SWAIN, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the state of California.I am an

associate attorney at the law firm of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP ("JMBM"), counsel

of record for opposer Tatuaje Cigars Inc. ("Opposer"). I have personal knowledge of the facts

set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto. I submit

this Declaration in support of Opposer's Motion for Summary Judgment.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit H, are true and correct copies of print outs from the

internet also showing the English meaning of the Spanish word TATUAJE.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of an email I sent to

Applicant on June 23, 2008, requesting that Applicant withdraw the application. Applicant

refused to withdraw the application.

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

Oct 24, 2008 Customer Care| Sign in| Print

AdvertisingInformation

Customer Care

Please sign in

Home> What's New> Tattooed Cigars

Tattooed Cigars

Posted: Monday, August 11, 2003

By Michael Moretti

Pete Johnson, the cigar buyer forGrand Havana Room in BeverlyHills, California, has created hisown line of cigars called Tatuaje.Named after the Spanish wordfor tattoos, Tatuaje refers to thesleeve of inked images thatJohnson sports down the lengthof his arms.

Tatuaje cigars, which Johnsonmade in conjunction withTabacalera Tropical, arecompletely Nicaraguan, butJohnson's ultimate goal was to create a Cuban taste. The cigars arerolled in Miami's El Rey de los Habanos factory, located in LittleHavana. The head roller, Jose "Pepin" Garcia, is a veteran masterroller from Cuba; he was on hand for the debut of the cigar, at theGrand Havana Room in New York City, where he showed off hisskills. Churning out delicious cigars all evening, he even rolled abeautifully made cigar pipe, as well as a cigar shaped like a baseballbat.

"This is old world Cuba for a new generation," said Johnson. "Whatthey are doing in Nicaragua is the closest right now to what they aredoing in Cuba -- the sweetness of the wrapper and the aroma comingoff the foot." He describes the cigar as medium to full bodied."People find it mild because when they first light up, thecorojowrapper adds a sweetness, but [the cigar] builds up strength towardthe end, and that's how Cuban cigars are to me."

Tatuaje comes in six sizes: Havana Cazadores, which measures 6 3/8inches long by 43 ring, Unicos (6 1/8 by 52), Especiales (7 1/2 by38), Noellas (5 1/8 by 42), Regios (5 1/2 by 50) and Tainos (7 5/8 by49). Prices range from $7.25 to $12 per cigar.

As with Cuban cigars, you may have a hard time finding the Tatuajes.They are available only at a few retailers, as well as at the Grand

Advertisement

Page1 of 2Cigar Aficionado | Daily Cigar News | Tattooed Cigars

10/24/2008http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Daily/CA_Daily_News/0,2342,843,00.html

Havana Rooms in New York City and Beverly Hills. This is a"boutique production," said Johnson, "I keep them in small orders sothat they don't rush the production since there are only six rollers."He expects to make about 6,000 cigars for each production and about30,000 cigars a year.

Not that Johnson isn't thinking big. Two limited-edition Tatuaje linesare planned for the future, he said: TheCojonu, or "monsterblend," (6 1/2 by 52, retailing for $13.00), set to hit shelves ina weekand theGran Gener (date and measurements not yet specified).These two lines will be so strong that they "would be a novelty cigarthat just true smokers will smoke," said Johnson. More on that tocome.

Also in Cigar News:

God of Fire Dinner Raises More Than $57,000 for Charity(10/17/2008)Smoking Ban Takes Effect in Atlantic City (10/16/2008)Perdomo Elected to Miami Lakes Council (10/15/2008)Gran Habano Family Part Ways (10/14/2008)Davidoff Acquires Camacho (10/13/2008)Padrón Creates Inexpensive Sampler (10/10/2008)Public Welcome at Fuente Grand Havana Room Dinner inNYC (10/10/2008)D.C. Chef Works With Smoke (10/09/2008)Christie's Auction Features Rare Cubans, Recent Cigars(10/08/2008)

Cigar of the Week:

Hot Tip: Inside the Box-Pressed

Search the 'What's New' Archive

Sign in | What's New | Forums | Cigar Ratings | Retailers | Restaurants | People | Cigar StarsThe Library | Travel | Drinks | The Good Life | Events | Subscribe | Back Issues

Cigar Aficionado RSS FeedCopyright ©2008 CigarAficionado.com

All Rights Reserved.If you're concerned about privacy, click here.

Page2 of 2Cigar Aficionado | Daily Cigar News | Tattooed Cigars

10/24/2008http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Daily/CA_Daily_News/0,2342,843,00.html

EXHIBIT C

Oct 24, 2008 Sign in | Print | Site Map


Please sign in

Home> What's New> Top 25 Home for 2004> No. 25

It's rare to find a cigar made by hand in the United Statesand rarer still to find a great one. Expensive labor and alimited number of trained cigarmakers have caused mostAmerican-based cigarmakers to leave for offshore factoriesor to automate. That's one of the reasons the Tatuaje brandis so interesting. It's a very small brand, made in a smallMiami factory, but the real draw here is the quality of thecigars, made from a rich blend of Nicaraguan tobaccos.These are medium- to full-bodied smokes, made for theseasoned smoker. The Especiales size—7 inches by a slim38 ring—is modeled after Cuba's Cohiba Lancero andTrinidad Fundadore. Good now, these gran panetelas arelikely to become great with age. If only there were more.

MADE BY: El Rey de los Habanos for Pete JohnsonFACTORY LOCATION: United StatesWRAPPER: NicaraguaBINDER: NicaraguaFILLER: NicaraguaPRICE: $9.752004 PRODUCTION: 5,000RATING: 90

NEXT CIGAR > >

2524 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 54 3 2 1

Top 25 Archives

Advertisement


Cigar Aficionado RSS FeedCopyright ©2008 Cigar Aficionado Online


Page1 of 1Cigar Aficionado | Top 25 | 2004

10/24/2008http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Top_25/Top_25_Display/0,4320,2004_25,00...

EXHIBIT D

Oct 24, 2008 Sign in| Print | Site Map


Please sign in


El Rey de los Habanos is easy to miss. The narrow cigarfactory is located on Miami's historic Calle Ocho, or 8thStreet, and it has only about a dozen rolling tables, about 10of which are occupied by Spanish-speaking Cuban rollerswho carefully craft dark cigars with impeccable precision.This is the home of the Tatuaje brand. The factory doesn'tmake many Tatuajes -- the facility is small to begin with, andTatuaje isn't the only brand made here -- but those that arecreated are intensely flavorful, made with three-seam caps inthe style of Cuban cigars and packed with hearty, leatheryNicaraguan leaf that gives them a most Cubanesque flavor.The Taino, a 7 5/8 by 49 cigar, is particularly exceptional,with earthy, spicy flavors and a full body.

MADE BY: El Rey de los Habanos, Havana CellarsFACTORY LOCATION: U.S.A.WRAPPER: NicaraguaBINDER: NicaraguaFILLER: NicaraguaPRICE: $12.002005 PRODUCTION: 7,400RATING: 93

NEXT CIGAR > >

25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 543 2 1

Top 25 Archives

Advertisement





10/24/2008http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Top_25/Top_25_Display/0,4320,2005_4,00....

EXHIBIT E



Please sign in


The Tatuaje brand is only two years old, yet it has becomeone of the hottest boutique cigar brands in America. Createdby cigar retailer Pete Johnson, who is known as Tattoo Peteby many in the cigar industry, the brand gets its name fromthe Spanish word for "tattoo" and is carefully crafted frompowerful yet elegant Nicaraguan tobaccos in the tiny El Reyde los Habanos factory in Little Havana. Only about a dozenrollers work at the factory, which makes other brands as well,so there are only about 250,000 Tatuajes made per year.Johnson is now making a less expensive version inNicaragua. The Tatuaje Cabinet Noella, a beautifully madecorona, measures 5 1/8 by 42 ring. It's among the smallest ofTatuajes, but like good, small Cuban cigars this smoke ispacked with flavor. It's rich, spicy and strong, with anunderlying elegance.

MADE BY: El Rey de los Habanos, Havana CellarsFACTORY LOCATION: MiamiWRAPPER: NicaraguaBINDER: NicaraguaFILLER: NicaraguaPRICE: $7.502006 PRODUCTION: 27,525RATING: 92

NEXT CIGAR > >

25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 98 7 6 54 3 2 1

Top 25 Archives

Advertisement





10/24/2008http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Top_25/Top_25_Display/0,4320,2006_9,00....

EXHIBIT F



Please sign in


Sometimes you just need a powerful corona to make yourday right, and it's hard to find a better choice than theTatuaje Havana VI Angeles. This 4 5/8-inch x 42-ring cigar iscrammed with strong black cherry, spice and leather, and thefinish is a mile long. We found it the strongest of the six-sizeHavana VI line, and our favorite of the bunch.

Original Tatuajes, which were made in Miami, are hard tofind, given their limited production. Havana VIs, the "redlabel" versions, are made in Nicaragua and easier to find.They're also cheaper, thanks to the lower cost of labor inNicaragua. As with all Tatuajes, these are made by Jose"Pepin" Garcia.

MADE BY: Tabacalera Cubana S.A.FACTORY LOCATION: NicaraguaWRAPPER: NicaraguaBINDER: NicaraguaFILLER: NicaraguaPRICE: $5.502007 PRODUCTION: 49,000RATING: 92

NEXT CIGAR > >

25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 54 3 2 1

Top 25 Archives

Advertisement





10/24/2008http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Top_25/Top_25_Display/0,4320,2007_15,00...

EXHIBIT G

About Us

Shipping / Returns

Humidified Shipping

You are here: Home > SWAG

Show off your favorite brands with SWAG! In popular culture, the term swag now usually

refers to promotional items or gifts that are given away by companies or organizations,

but let's face it - the best things are rarely free! We may from time to time come across

SWAG that is meant to be passed on for free, but these items for sale are specially'branded' accessories that are worth much more than their retail prices!

Sort By: Most Popular

Page of 210 per page 1

Tatuaje Mens T-Shirt

List Price: $25.00

Our Price: $25.00

Tatuaje Mens T-Shirt

Tatuaje Girls T-Shirt

List Price: $20.00

Our Price: $20.00

Tatuaje Girls T-Shirt

Tatuaje Mens Polo Shirt

List Price: $35.00

Our Price: $35.00

Tatuaje Mens Polo Shirt

Tatuaje Girls Tank

List Price: $20.00

Our Price: $20.00

Tatuaje Girls Tank

Tatuaje Girls Booty Shorts

Page1 of 3New Havana Cigars- the Online Humidor

10/27/2008http://www.newhavanacigars.com/SearchResults.asp

List Price: $17.50

Our Price: $17.50

Tatuaje Girls Booty Shorts

Tatuaje Ashtray

List Price: $34.95

Our Price: $34.95 No Longer Available

Limited Edition Tatuaje Ashtray

Tatuaje Table Lighter by Lotus

List Price: $60.00

Our Price: $49.95

You Save $10.05!

Tatuaje Lotus Table Lighter

Tatuaje Fleur Sterling 925 Pin

List Price: $15.00

Our Price: $15.00

Tatuaje Fleur Sterling 925 Pin

The Buzz Cut Cigar Cutter by Tatuaje

List Price: $13.00

Our Price: $12.00

You Save $1.00!

The Buzz Cut Cigar Cutter by Tatuaje

Tatuaje Skull Warmer

List Price: $25.00

Our Price: $25.00

Tatuaje Skull Warmer



Special Offer:

Sign up for our Newsletterand receive special

promotions

Join Now

TransactionProcessing

newhavanacigars.com

1183 Chesapeake Ave.

Columbus, OH 43212

614-486-2822

Company Info | Product Index | Category Index | Help | Terms of Use

Copyright © 2008 New Havana Cigars LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Sell Online with Volusion.

About Us Privacy Policy Send Us Feedback Bookmark Us



EXHIBIT H

Results for 'tatuaje'

Spanish English

tatuaje tattoo

New search

SpanishLooking for Spanish? Find exactly what you want today.Yahoo.com

Learn SpanishLearn Spanish with professional podcast lessons andonline toolsSpanishPod.com

Turkish ArabicFind more sources/options for Turkish Arabicwww.webcrawler.com

Learn Japanese In 30 daysHow To Learn Japanese In 30 days Learn To SpeakJapanese Languagewww.learn-japanese.com

Page1 of 1Online Dictionary Search Results

12/29/2008http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php

Contact Help Favorites Tell a friend NewsletterEnglishTranslation Dictionary Conjugation More...

Free dictionary online: English, Spanish, French, Italian, Chinese, German, Russian translations, definitions, synonyms...

tatuaje

Spanish-English

English-Spanish

Other Dictionary

Collaborative dictionary

Spanish Conjugation

English Definitions

English Conjugation

English Synonyms

English for learners

Computer Spanish-English

Reverso Mobile

tatuar

tauca

taumaturgia

taumaturgo

Ads by Google

Free Tattoo DesignsLooking for your perfect Tattoo? View 1000's of Tattoo Designs now.TattooSelector.net

Tattoo ShopsLos Angeles Tattoo Shops & Body Piercing - Safe, Custom Designs.LosAngeles.YellowPages.com

Tattoo pictures200,000+ Shoes. Search Visually. Find Tattoo pictures you Like.www.like.com/shoes/

New user: Sign upExisting user: Login

Collaborative

Dictionary ?

Ads by Google

Everytattoo.comA forum for the tattoo

community

to share tattoos and

ask questions.www.everytattoo.com

Tribal Black TattoosFind more

sources/options for

Tribal Black Tattooswww.webcrawler.com

Tattoo freeLooking for tattoos and

piercings?

We carry a variety of

tools.UnimaxSupply.com

Tattoo Design ParlorAccess Quality Tattoo

Ideas,

Pictures & Tattoo Flash

Designswww.TattooDesignParlor.com

Chinese TattoosMore Bling for Less Ka-

Ching!

Discover Chinese

Tattoos.Shopzilla.com

"Collins Spanish Dictionary 8th edition published in 2005 © William Collins Sons & Co Ltd 1971, 1988 © HarperCollins Publishers 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2005"

Contact | Newsletter | News | Company | Conditions of use | Help (?)

Text translation | Web Page Translation | French translation | Spanish translation | Italian translation | German translation | Russian translation | Chinese translation

Reverso Dictionary, Dictionnaire, Diccionario, WörterbuchFrench Dictionary | Spanish Dictionary | German Dictionary | Russian Dictionary | Chinese Dictionary | Italian Dictionary | Portuguese Dictionary | Learn English | English definition | English

Synonym | Medical dictionary French English | Medical dictionary English French | Computer dictionary French English | Computer dictionary English French | Computer dictionary Spanish

English | Computer dictionary English Spanish | Business dictionary French English | Business dictionary English French

Reverso Conjugation, Conjugaison, Conjugación, KonjugationEnglish verb conjugation | French verb conjugation | Spanish verb conjugation | German verb conjugation

Recommended links:Free: Learn English, French and other languages

Reverso offers you access to a spanish translation, definition and synonym dictionary for tatuaje and thousands of other words. You can complete the translation and definition of tatuaje

given by the Spanish - English Collins dictionary by looking at other Spanish dictionaries : Wikipedia, Lexilogos, Maria Moliner, Espasa Calpe, Grijalbo, Larousse, Wordreference, Oxford,

Collins dictionaries ...

Conditions of Use ©2008 Softissimo. All rights reserved.

Search also in:

See also:

Translation Spanish - English Collins Dictionary

tatuaje sm

1 (=dibujo) tattoo

2 (=acto) tattooing

Page1 of 1Translation tatuaje in the Spanish-English Collins dictionary

12/29/2008http://dictionary.reverso.net/spanish-english/tatuaje

Home Dictionary Forums Idioms Grammar Blog Tools Daily Word Help

Copyright © 2003-2007 Tomísimo [Compliant: xhtml css]Domain name from www.GoDaddy.com. Hosted with Dreamhost.

Search for words

in Spanish or English

Searching 63,823 entries

Hit S to go to the searchbox without using your

mouse more

tatuaje

Dictionary Search

Mobile Dictionary

TELL ME MORE - Free 2nd Day Shippping - Spanish language

software.

Tatuaje

Copyright ©2008 by Tomisimo.org. All rights reserved.

Tomisimo Forums

Find related threads on the Spanish and English language forums.

Look up tatuaje on RAE.esLook up tatuaje on MerriamWebster.comLook up tatuaje on Dictionary.com

Spanish English

tatuaje NM tattoo N

tatuáje tattoo

tatuajes tattoos

tatuaje Dictionary Search

Search

Web tomisimo.org

Spanish DictionaryQuickly Find Spanis Translation Service

Providers in Our Directory.

Search... Dictionary

Open in new window

Welcome, Guest • Login • Register

Add dictionary search to Explorer

X

ESPAÑOL

Page1 of 1Tatuaje

12/29/2008http://www.tomisimo.org/dictionary/spanish_english/tatuaje

EXHIBIT I

1

Bromall, Jessica

From: [email protected] on behalf of Pete Johnson [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:21 AMTo: Swain, Brennan C.Subject: Fwd: tatuaje email

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Al Gutman <[email protected]>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:32:59 -0400Subject: RE: tatuaje emailTo: Pete Johnson <[email protected]>Cc: Al Gutman _ Private Office Email <[email protected] om>

Pete:

The total amount provided to me by accounting is $12,639.82

I just want to let you know that I am not interested in giving up the trademark for my outof pocket expenses. I am doing this as a favor to Jonathan, and because this is a smallindustry and a gentleman's industry.

Reading my emails tonight, I noticed that I received an email from my brother notifying methat "A request for an extension of time to file an opposition has been filed at theTrademark Trial and Appeal Board" for Tattoo. I assume that i t was you but since thesystem takes time to update and I am unable to obtain a copy of t he filing, I am not sure.If it was you, I do not have a problem with a limited extension o f time to resolve thismatter between us. But if it is not resolved quickly we will ne ed to move forward and gointo product and packaging production in time for the Christ mas shopping season. As aresult I will need to ask my brother to proceed swiftly, oppos e the extension of time andget this matter heard by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board . In that case there is noturning back and we will no longer be interested in transferr ing the trademark to you.

Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks and all the be st!

Al Gutman

Operations Director

Cuban Crafters

The Cuban Crafters Building

3604 NorthWest 7th Street

Miami, Florida 33125

(305)573-0222 Fax: (305)573-0226

Toll Free: 1-877-244-2701 (1-877-CIGAR-01)

2

www.cubancrafters.com

_____

From: [email protected] [mailto:tatuajecigars@g mail.com] On Behalf Of Pete JohnsonSent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:56 PMTo: [email protected]: tatuaje email

--Pete JohnsonTatuaje Cigars Inc.Los Angeles - Miami - Esteli - Baez

http://www.tatuajecigars.com

--Pete JohnsonTatuaje Cigars Inc.Los Angeles - Miami - Esteli - Baez

http://www.tatuajecigars.com

EXHIBIT J

1

Bromall, Jessica

From: Swain, Brennan C.Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:45 PMTo: [email protected]: Papp, SusanSubject: Your use of the mark TATTOO (68692-0003)

Dear Al:

We represent Tatuaje Cigars, Inc, the owner of U.S. Trademar k Registration No. 2,836,665(to be recorded shortly) for the mark TATUAJE in connection w ith cigars (the "'665registration"). I understand that you have filed a trademar k application for the markTATTOO in connection with cigars and related products. As yo u also likely know, and asstated in the '665 registration, TATUAJE is Spanish for TATT OO. Therefore, our clientalready owns trademark rights in the mark TATTOO and is not in terested in paying you for amark he already has rights in. We believe that the Trademark O ffice erred in allowingyour mark to be published for opposition, and, if you are not w illing to abandon yourapplication immediately, we will move forward with the oppo sition and file for summaryjudgment, which we believe will be granted, as soon as possib le.

Furthermore, you indicated in your e-mail to our client that if this matter was notresolved quickly you would "move forward and go into product and packaging production intime for the Christmas shopping season." We strongly recomm end that you do not do thisand that you obtain legal advice regarding the risks you woul d be taking if you proceed touse the TATTOO mark.

Therefore, we demand that you abandon your trademark applic ation for TATTOO.

Please contact or have your attorney contact me within 5 days to let me know that youagree to this demand.

Please note that this letter does not constitute a complete s tatement of our client'srights, all of which are expressly reserved.

Regards,Brennan Swain_______________________________________

Brennan C. Swain forJMBM | Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP 1900 Avenue of th e Stars, 7th Floor LosAngeles, California 90067

(310) 785-5308 Direct(310) 203-0567 [email protected]

This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential an d may be attorney-clientprivileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of thi s message or attachments withoutproper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,please notify JMBM immediately by telephone or by e-mail, an d permanently delete theoriginal, and destroy all copies, of this message and all att achments. For furtherinformation, please visit JMBM.com.Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasur y Department rules governing taxpractice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained her ein (including in anyattachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and ca nnot be used, by you or anytaxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may b e imposed on you or anytaxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any oth er person in connectionwith promoting, marketing or recommending to another perso n any transaction or matteraddressed herein.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

2

From: Al Gutman <[email protected]>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:32:59 -0400Subject: RE: tatuaje emailTo: Pete Johnson <[email protected]>Cc: Al Gutman _ Private Office Email <[email protected] om>

Pete:

The total amount provided to me by accounting is $12,639.82

I just want to let you know that I am not interested in giving up the trademark for my outof pocket expenses. I am doing this as a favor to Jonathan, and because this is a smallindustry and a gentleman's industry.

Reading my emails tonight, I noticed that I received an email from my brother notifying methat "A request for an extension of time to file an opposition has been filed at theTrademark Trial and Appeal Board" for Tattoo. I assume that i t was you but since thesystem takes time to update and I am unable to obtain a copy of t he filing, I am not sure.If it was you, I do not have a problem with a limited extension o f time to resolve thismatter between us. But if it is not resolved quickly we will ne ed to move forward and gointo product and packaging production in time for the Christ mas shopping season. As aresult I will need to ask my brother to proceed swiftly, oppos e the extension of time andget this matter heard by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board . In that case there is noturning back and we will no longer be interested in transferr ing the trademark to you.

Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks and all the be st!

Al Gutman

Operations Director

Cuban Crafters

The Cuban Crafters Building

3604 NorthWest 7th Street

Miami, Florida 33125

(305)573-0222 Fax: (305)573-0226

Toll Free: 1-877-244-2701 (1-877-CIGAR-01)

www.cubancrafters.com

EXHIBIT K

1

Bromall, Jessica

From: Swain, Brennan C.Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 11:34 AMTo: Jose Gutman; Jeff GiuntaCc: Berman, Rod S.; Papp, Susan; Court ServicesSubject: Opposition No. 91185180 (Our Ref. 68692-0003)

Attachments: 20080922093624_BCS.PDF; 20080922093639_BCS.PDF

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to our discussion last Thursday, attached are some of the cases we intend to rely on in our motion for summaryjudgment. In light of these cases, we again request that your application be dismissed immediately with prejudice. Youindicated that, in reply to our submission of cases, you would provide us with the precedent you intend to rely on. If we donot hear from you by Thursday, September 25, 2008 we intend to proceed with the preparation and filing of the motion forsummary judgment. We look forward to receiving by the 25th your reasoning as to why summary judgment isinappropriate and your cases in support thereof. As you will recall, you advised us that you would promptly provide suchreasoning and precedent as you acknowledged that the Board appreciated such exchanges prior to the filing of motions.

Regards,Brennan_______________________________________

Brennan C. Swain forJMBM | Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th FloorLos Angeles, California 90067

(310) 785-5308 Direct(310) 203-0567 [email protected]

This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. Dissemination,distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not theintended recipient, please notify JMBM immediately by telephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, anddestroy all copies, of this message and all attachments. For further information, please visit JMBM.com.

Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby informyou that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannotbe used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and(2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending toanother person any transaction or matter addressed herein.

20080922093624_B

CS.PDF

20080922093639_B

CS.PDF

EXHIBIT L

United StatesSelected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2007Data Set: 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year EstimatesSurvey: American Community Survey

NOTE. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housingunit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates theofficial estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housingunits for states and counties.

For more information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, seeSurvey Methodology.

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPETotal households 112,377,977 +/-144,356 100% (X)

Family households (families) 75,119,260 +/-150,790 66.8% +/-0.1With own children under 18 years 34,999,584 +/-89,167 31.1% +/-0.1

Married-couple family 55,867,091 +/-163,903 49.7% +/-0.1With own children under 18 years 24,086,303 +/-93,744 21.4% +/-0.1

Male householder, no wife present, family 5,208,231 +/-39,566 4.6% +/-0.1With own children under 18 years 2,565,010 +/-30,360 2.3% +/-0.1

Female householder, no husband present, family 14,043,938 +/-55,811 12.5% +/-0.1With own children under 18 years 8,348,271 +/-43,810 7.4% +/-0.1

Nonfamily households 37,258,717 +/-79,752 33.2% +/-0.1Householder living alone 30,645,140 +/-81,159 27.3% +/-0.165 years and over 10,264,914 +/-39,411 9.1% +/-0.1

Households with one or more people under 18 years 38,639,706 +/-87,369 34.4% +/-0.1Households with one or more people 65 years and over 26,256,977 +/-51,171 23.4% +/-0.1

Average household size 2.61 +/-0.01 (X) (X)Average family size 3.20 +/-0.01 (X) (X)

RELATIONSHIPPopulation in households 293,499,975 ***** 100% (X)

Householder 112,377,977 +/-144,356 38.3% +/-0.1Spouse 55,824,105 +/-142,589 19.0% +/-0.1Child 89,604,479 +/-115,043 30.5% +/-0.1Other relatives 19,655,231 +/-130,502 6.7% +/-0.1Nonrelatives 16,038,183 +/-147,636 5.5% +/-0.1Unmarried partner 6,240,153 +/-40,813 2.1% +/-0.1

MARITAL STATUSMales 15 years and over 117,459,139 +/-23,829 100% (X)

Never married 39,982,351 +/-92,353 34.0% +/-0.1Now married, except separated 61,434,971 +/-142,506 52.3% +/-0.1Separated 2,166,837 +/-22,817 1.8% +/-0.1Widowed 2,979,103 +/-28,240 2.5% +/-0.1Divorced 10,895,877 +/-62,744 9.3% +/-0.1

Females 15 years and over 123,264,879 +/-24,019 100% (X)Never married 34,078,165 +/-85,283 27.6% +/-0.1Now married, except separated 59,485,793 +/-129,479 48.3% +/-0.1Separated 3,127,433 +/-35,018 2.5% +/-0.1Widowed 12,164,063 +/-39,155 9.9% +/-0.1Divorced 14,409,425 +/-58,059 11.7% +/-0.1

FERTILITY

Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2007 Estimate Margin of Error Percent Margin of Error

Page1 of 4United States- Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2007

10/27/2008http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=A...

Number of women 15 to 50 years old who had a birth in the past 12 months 4,183,633 +/-31,097 100% (X)Unmarried women (widowed, divorced, and never married) 1,401,567 +/-23,757 33.5% +/-0.5Per 1,000 unmarried women 36 +/-1 (X) (X)

Per 1,000 women 15 to 50 years old 55 +/-1 (X) (X)Per 1,000 women 15 to 19 years old 27 +/-1 (X) (X)Per 1,000 women 20 to 34 years old 104 +/-1 (X) (X)Per 1,000 women 35 to 50 years old 23 +/-1 (X) (X)

GRANDPARENTSNumber of grandparents living with own grandchildren under 18 years 6,210,076 +/-52,193 100% (X)

Responsible for grandchildren 2,514,256 +/-30,212 40.5% +/-0.3Years responsible for grandchildrenLess than 1 year 574,405 +/-13,261 9.2% +/-0.21 or 2 years 589,611 +/-15,449 9.5% +/-0.23 or 4 years 420,459 +/-11,704 6.8% +/-0.25 or more years 929,781 +/-17,663 15.0% +/-0.3

Characteristics of grandparents responsible for own grandchildren under 18 yearsWho are female 62.9% +/-0.3 (X) (X)Who are married 70.5% +/-0.5 (X) (X)

SCHOOL ENROLLMENTPopulation 3 years and over enrolled in school 79,329,527 +/-74,725 100% (X)

Nursery school, preschool 4,913,688 +/-36,461 6.2% +/-0.1Kindergarten 4,028,537 +/-34,845 5.1% +/-0.1Elementary school (grades 1-8) 32,160,255 +/-47,241 40.5% +/-0.1High school (grades 9-12) 17,433,099 +/-40,626 22.0% +/-0.1College or graduate school 20,793,948 +/-65,104 26.2% +/-0.1

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTPopulation 25 years and over 197,892,369 +/-69,080 100% (X)

Less than 9th grade 12,575,318 +/-60,229 6.4% +/-0.19th to 12th grade, no diploma 18,098,125 +/-76,284 9.1% +/-0.1High school graduate (includes equivalency) 59,658,315 +/-131,598 30.1% +/-0.1Some college, no degree 38,522,312 +/-114,599 19.5% +/-0.1Associate's degree 14,704,788 +/-69,816 7.4% +/-0.1Bachelor's degree 34,364,477 +/-111,059 17.4% +/-0.1Graduate or professional degree 19,969,034 +/-81,430 10.1% +/-0.1

Percent high school graduate or higher 84.5% +/-0.1 (X) (X)Percent bachelor's degree or higher 27.5% +/-0.1 (X) (X)

VETERAN STATUSCivilian population 18 years and over 226,715,104 +/-30,886 100% (X)

Civilian veterans 22,892,086 +/-54,670 100% (X)

DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIONALIZED POPULATIONPopulation 5 years and over 275,748,779 +/-22,633 100% (X)

With a disability 41,199,423 +/-96,260 14.9% +/-0.1

Population 5 to 15 years 44,461,573 +/-43,616 100% (X)With a disability 2,758,236 +/-28,729 6.2% +/-0.1

Population 16 to 64 years 195,020,523 +/-47,423 100% (X)With a disability 23,706,208 +/-72,002 12.2% +/-0.1

Population 65 years and over 36,266,683 +/-18,704 100% (X)With a disability 14,734,979 +/-45,124 40.6% +/-0.1

RESIDENCE 1 YEAR AGOPopulation 1 year and over 297,545,149 +/-27,662 100% (X)

Same house 250,025,832 +/-282,315 84.0% +/-0.1Different house in the U.S. 45,705,642 +/-271,016 15.4% +/-0.1Same county 28,005,700 +/-205,974 9.4% +/-0.1Different county 17,699,942 +/-114,821 5.9% +/-0.1Same state 10,193,075 +/-87,035 3.4% +/-0.1Different state 7,506,867 +/-63,665 2.5% +/-0.1

Abroad 1,813,675 +/-40,239 0.6% +/-0.1

PLACE OF BIRTH




Total population 301,621,159 ***** 100% (X)Native 263,561,465 +/-119,487 87.4% +/-0.1Born in United States 259,762,585 +/-120,871 86.1% +/-0.1State of residence 177,509,272 +/-151,254 58.9% +/-0.1Different state 82,253,313 +/-133,503 27.3% +/-0.1

Born in Puerto Rico, U.S. Island areas, or born abroad to American parent(s) 3,798,880 +/-37,555 1.3% +/-0.1Foreign born 38,059,694 +/-119,489 12.6% +/-0.1

U.S. CITIZENSHIP STATUSForeign-born population 38,059,694 +/-119,489 100% (X)

Naturalized U.S. citizen 16,181,883 +/-73,127 42.5% +/-0.2Not a U.S. citizen 21,877,811 +/-113,990 57.5% +/-0.2

YEAR OF ENTRYPopulation born outside the United States 41,858,574 +/-120,874 100% (X)

Native 3,798,880 +/-37,555 100% (X)Entered 2000 or later 641,660 +/-20,164 16.9% +/-0.5Entered before 2000 3,157,220 +/-34,765 83.1% +/-0.5

Foreign born 38,059,694 +/-119,489 100% (X)Entered 2000 or later 10,551,254 +/-97,330 27.7% +/-0.2Entered before 2000 27,508,440 +/-109,910 72.3% +/-0.2

WORLD REGION OF BIRTH OF FOREIGN BORNForeign-born population, excluding population born at sea 38,059,555 +/-119,486 100% (X)

Europe 4,990,294 +/-45,508 13.1% +/-0.1Asia 10,184,906 +/-45,826 26.8% +/-0.1Africa 1,419,317 +/-33,778 3.7% +/-0.1Oceania 216,701 +/-11,348 0.6% +/-0.1Latin America 20,409,676 +/-89,137 53.6% +/-0.1Northern America 838,661 +/-17,228 2.2% +/-0.1

LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOMEPopulation 5 years and over 280,950,438 +/-17,610 100% (X)

English only 225,505,953 +/-109,811 80.3% +/-0.1Language other than English 55,444,485 +/-106,562 19.7% +/-0.1

Speak English less than "very well" 24,469,011 +/-88,296 8.7% +/-0.1Spanish 34,547,077 +/-75,004 12.3% +/-0.1Speak English less than "very well" 16,367,547 +/-78,147 5.8% +/-0.1

Other Indo-European languages 10,320,730 +/-68,048 3.7% +/-0.1Speak English less than "very well" 3,383,922 +/-33,726 1.2% +/-0.1

Asian and Pacific Islander languages 8,316,426 +/-45,037 3.0% +/-0.1Speak English less than "very well" 4,041,632 +/-36,493 1.4% +/-0.1

Other languages 2,260,252 +/-43,582 0.8% +/-0.1Speak English less than "very well" 675,910 +/-20,378 0.2% +/-0.1

ANCESTRYTotal population 301,621,159 ***** 100% (X)

American 19,381,268 +/-98,125 6.4% +/-0.1Arab 1,545,982 +/-37,730 0.5% +/-0.1Czech 1,625,318 +/-24,486 0.5% +/-0.1Danish 1,449,183 +/-22,649 0.5% +/-0.1Dutch 5,070,740 +/-40,879 1.7% +/-0.1English 28,177,386 +/-104,717 9.3% +/-0.1French (except Basque) 9,616,496 +/-55,583 3.2% +/-0.1French Canadian 2,184,246 +/-30,366 0.7% +/-0.1German 50,753,530 +/-127,805 16.8% +/-0.1Greek 1,380,043 +/-27,603 0.5% +/-0.1Hungarian 1,564,569 +/-26,846 0.5% +/-0.1Irish 36,495,800 +/-125,754 12.1% +/-0.1Italian 17,844,191 +/-85,019 5.9% +/-0.1Lithuanian 745,888 +/-17,773 0.2% +/-0.1Norwegian 4,655,711 +/-40,892 1.5% +/-0.1Polish 9,976,267 +/-61,746 3.3% +/-0.1Portuguese 1,471,549 +/-28,992 0.5% +/-0.1Russian 3,152,959 +/-39,899 1.0% +/-0.1Scotch-Irish 5,313,956 +/-47,695 1.8% +/-0.1Scottish 6,019,281 +/-44,937 2.0% +/-0.1Slovak 813,968 +/-17,303 0.3% +/-0.1




Subsaharan African 2,702,367 +/-54,820 0.9% +/-0.1Swedish 4,340,436 +/-41,188 1.4% +/-0.1Swiss 1,018,853 +/-20,715 0.3% +/-0.1Ukrainian 970,667 +/-21,898 0.3% +/-0.1Welsh 1,920,993 +/-27,340 0.6% +/-0.1West Indian (excluding Hispanic origin groups) 2,478,797 +/-40,755 0.8% +/-0.1


Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability isrepresented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughlyas providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (thelower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for adiscussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

Notes:·Ancestry listed in this table refers to the total number of people who responded with a particular ancestry; for example, the estimate given for Russianrepresents the number of people who listed Russian as either their first or second ancestry. This table lists only the largest ancestry groups; see theDetailed Tables for more categories. Race and Hispanic origin groups are not included in this table because official data for those groups come from theRace and Hispanic origin questions rather than the ancestry question (see Demographic Table).·The Census Bureau introduced a new skip pattern for the disability questions in the 2003 ACS questionnaire. This change mainly affected two individualitems -- go-outside-home disability and employment disability -- and the recode for disability status, which includes the two items. Accordingly,comparisons of data from 2003 or later with data from prior years are not recommended for the relevant questions. For more information, see the ACSSubject Definitions for Disability.·Data for year of entry of the native population reflect the year of entry into the U.S. by people who were born in Puerto Rico, U.S. Island Areas or bornoutside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent and who subsequently moved to the U.S.·While the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the December 2006 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions ofmetropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables maydiffer from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities. The 2007 Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS) datagenerally reflect the December 2005 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certaininstances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in PRCS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in theeffective dates of the geographic entities.·Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2000 data.Boundaries for urban areas have not been updated since Census 2000. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarilyreflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Explanation of Symbols:1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute astandard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate,or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-endeddistribution.3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. Astatistical test is not appropriate.6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number ofsample cases is too small.8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available. Selected migration, earnings, and income data are not available for certaingeographic areas due to problems with group quarters data collection and imputation. See Errata Note #44 for details.

The letters PDF or symbol indicate a document is in the Portable Document Format (PDF). To view the file you willneed the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader, which is available for free from the Adobe web site.



EXHIBIT M

0%2+9%+) 789(= %8 9ò7ò ∋300)+)7 %2( 92−:)67−8−)7

0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ςΜΩΙ ïíû ϑςΣΘ îððîå %ςΕΦΜΓô ΨΤ ïîéûôΛΜΞΩ ýïð ΣΡ ΞΛΙ ΘΣΩΞ ΩΞΨΗΜΙΗ ΠΜΩΞå %ΩΜΕΡ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΩΞΨΗ] ΚςΣ[Ω ΩΜΚΡΜϑΜΓΕΡΞΠ]

ø2Ι[ =ΣςΟô 2=÷ óó −ΡΞΙςΙΩΞ ΜΡ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΩΞΨΗ] ΕΞ %ΘΙςΜΓΕΡ ΓΣΠΠΙΚΙΩ ΕΡΗ ΨΡΜΖΙςΩΜΞΜΙΩ ΛΕΩΜΡΓςΙΕΩΙΗ ΦςΣΕΗΠ] ΕΡΗ ΩΜΚΡΜϑΜΓΕΡΞΠ] ΩΜΡΓΙ îððîô ΕΓΓΣςΗΜΡΚ ΞΣ Ε ΓΣΘΤςΙΛΙΡΩΜΖΙ ΡΙ[ΩΨςΖΙ]ô )ΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΜΡ 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ 3ΞΛΙς 8ΛΕΡ )ΡΚΠΜΩΛ ΜΡ 9ΡΜΞΙΗ 7ΞΕΞΙΩ −ΡΩΞΜΞΨΞΜΣΡΩ Σϑ,ΜΚΛΙς )ΗΨΓΕΞΜΣΡô ∗ΕΠΠ îððêô ςΙΠΙΕΩΙΗ ΞΣΗΕ] Φ] ΞΛΙ 1ΣΗΙςΡ 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ %ΩΩΣΓΜΕΞΜΣΡ Σϑ%ΘΙςΜΓΕ ø10%÷ ΕΡΗ ϑΨΡΗΙΗ Φ] ΞΛΙ 9ΡΜΞΙΗ 7ΞΕΞΙΩ (ΙΤΕςΞΘΙΡΞ Σϑ )ΗΨΓΕΞΜΣΡò 8ΛΙ ΩΨςΖΙ]ϑΣΨΡΗ ΩΜΚΡΜϑΜΓΕΡΞ ΜΡΓςΙΕΩΙΩ ΜΡ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΜΡ ΡΙΕςΠ] ΕΠΠ Σϑ ΞΛΙ ΘΣΩΞ ΤΣΤΨΠΕς ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩΩΞΨΗΜΙΗ ΣΡ %ΘΙςΜΓΕΡ ΓΣΠΠΙΚΙ ΓΕΘΤΨΩΙΩò 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΣΡ 9ΡΜΞΙΗ 7ΞΕΞΙΩΓΕΘΤΨΩΙΩ ΕςΙ ΕΞ ΞΛΙΜς ΛΜΚΛΙΩΞ ΩΜΡΓΙ ΞΛΙ ïçêð 10% ΩΨςΖΙ]ò

−ΡΞΙςΙΩΞ ΜΡ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΩΞΨΗ] ΛΕΩ ΦΙΙΡ ΜΡΓςΙΕΩΜΡΚ ΩΞΙΕΗΜΠ] ΩΜΡΓΙ ïççèò ;ΛΜΠΙ ΞΛΙ ΩΞΨΗ] ΣϑΞΛΙ ΘΣΩΞ ΤΣΤΨΠΕς ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩô 7ΤΕΡΜΩΛô ∗ςΙΡΓΛô ΕΡΗ +ΙςΘΕΡô ΓΣΡΞΜΡΨΙΩ ΞΣ ΚςΣ[ ΕΡΗΞΣΚΙΞΛΙς ςΙΤςΙΩΙΡΞΩ ΘΣςΙ ΞΛΕΡ éðû Σϑ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩô ΞΛΙΜς ΗΣΘΜΡΕΡΓΙ ΜΩ ΩΠΣ[Π]ΗΙΓςΙΕΩΜΡΚ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ ϑΕΓΙ Σϑ ΚςΣ[ΜΡΚ ΜΡΞΙςΙΩΞ ΜΡ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΩΨΓΛ ΕΩ %ςΕΦΜΓ øΨΤ ïîéû÷ô∋ΛΜΡΙΩΙ øΨΤ ëïû÷ô ΕΡΗ /ΣςΙΕΡ øΨΤ íéû÷ò )ΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΜΡ %ΘΙςΜΓΕΡ 7ΜΚΡ 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΜΡΓςΙΕΩΙΗ ΡΙΕςΠ] íðû ϑςΣΘ îððîô ΘΕΟΜΡΚ ΜΞ ΞΛΙ ϑΣΨςΞΛ ΘΣΩΞ ΩΞΨΗΜΙΗ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΣΡ ΓΣΠΠΙΚΙΓΕΘΤΨΩΙΩô ΩΠΜΚΛΞΠ] ΕΛΙΕΗ Σϑ −ΞΕΠΜΕΡò

8ΛΙ ΘΣςΙ ΞΛΕΡ ΗΣΨΦΠΜΡΚ Σϑ %ςΕΦΜΓ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΘΣΖΙΗ ΞΛΙ 1ΜΗΗΠΙ )ΕΩΞΙςΡ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΣΡΞΣΞΛΙ ΞΣΤ ïð ΘΣΩΞ ΩΞΨΗΜΙΗ ΠΜΩΞ ϑΣς ΞΛΙ ϑΜςΩΞ ΞΜΘΙò 8ΛΙ ΡΨΘΦΙς Σϑ ΜΡΩΞΜΞΨΞΜΣΡΩ Σϑ ΛΜΚΛΙςΠΙΕςΡΜΡΚ ΣϑϑΙςΜΡΚ %ςΕΦΜΓ ΛΕΩ ΡΙΕςΠ] ΗΣΨΦΠΙΗ ΩΜΡΓΙ ΞΛΙ ΠΕΩΞ ΩΨςΖΙ]ô ϑςΣΘ îêì ΜΡ îððî ΞΣìêê %ςΕΦΜΓ ΤςΣΚςΕΘΩ ΣϑϑΙςΙΗ ΜΡ îððêò

♥8ΛΜΩ ΩΜΚΡΜϑΜΓΕΡΞ ΚςΣ[ΞΛ ΜΡ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΩΞΨΗ]ô ΕΡΗ ΞΛΙ ΗΜΖΙςΩΜΞ] Σϑ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΦΙΜΡΚ ΩΞΨΗΜΙΗôΜΩ ΖΙς] ΚΣΣΗ ΡΙ[Ω ϑΣς ΙΗΨΓΕΞΜΣΡ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ 9ΡΜΞΙΗ 7ΞΕΞΙΩô♠ ΩΕΜΗ 6ΣΩΙΘΕς] +ò ∗ΙΕΠô Ι∴ΙΓΨΞΜΖΙΗΜςΙΓΞΣς Σϑ ΞΛΙ 10%ò ♥7ΞΨΗΙΡΞΩ ΜΡΓςΙΕΩΜΡΚΠ] ΩΙΙ ΞΛΙΜς ϑΨΞΨςΙΩ ΞΕΟΜΡΚ ΤΠΕΓΙ ΜΡ ΕΘΨΠΞΜΠΜΡΚΨΕΠ [ΣςΠΗô ΕΡΗ ΞΛΙ] [ΕΡΞ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΤςΙΤΕςΕΞΜΣΡ ΞΣ ΛΙΠΤ ΞΛΙΘ ϑΨΡΓΞΜΣΡ ΜΡ ΞΛΕΞ[ΣςΠΗò 7ΞΨΗΙΡΞΩ ςΙΓΣΚΡΜ⊥Ι ΞΛΕΞ ΛΕΖΜΡΚ ΞΛΙ ΕΦΜΠΜΞ] ΞΣ ϑΨΡΓΞΜΣΡ ΕΓςΣΩΩ ΓΨΠΞΨςΙΩ ΕΡΗΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΜΩ ΕΡ ΙΡΣςΘΣΨΩ ΕΗΖΕΡΞΕΚΙò♠

8ΛΙ ΡΙ[ 10% ΩΨςΖΙ] ΜΡΓΠΨΗΙΩ ΗΕΞΕ ϑςΣΘ îôéçë ΓΣΠΠΙΚΙΩ ΕΡΗ ΨΡΜΖΙςΩΜΞΜΙΩ ΘΙΕΩΨςΜΡΚΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ ΩΞΨΗ] Σϑ îïç ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΣΞΛΙς ΞΛΕΡ )ΡΚΠΜΩΛô ϑςΣΘ ΞΛΙ ΘΣΩΞ ΤΣΤΨΠΕςôΜΡΓΠΨΗΜΡΚ 7ΤΕΡΜΩΛô ∗ςΙΡΓΛ ΕΡΗ +ΙςΘΕΡô ΞΣ ΠΙΩΩ ΓΣΘΘΣΡΠ] ΩΞΨΗΜΙΗ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΩΨΓΛ ΕΩ2ΕΖΕΝΣô ∗ΕςΩΜô ΕΡΗ ;ΙΠΩΛò

1ΣΗΙςΡ 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ %ΩΩΣΓΜΕΞΜΣΡ Σϑ %ΘΙςΜΓΕ îê &ςΣΕΗ[Ε]ô íςΗ ϑΠΣΣς 2Ι[ =ΣςΟô 2= ïðððìóïéèç êìê ëéêóëððð [[[òΘΠΕòΣςΚ

∗Σς −ΘΘΙΗΜΕΞΙ 6ΙΠΙΕΩΙæ 8ΨΙΩΗΕ]ô ïí 2ΣΖΙΘΦΙς îððé

∗Σς ΘΣςΙ ΜΡϑΣςΘΕΞΜΣΡ ΤΠΙΕΩΙ ΓΣΡΞΕΓΞ ΞΛΙ ΣϑϑΜΓΙ ΣϑΞΛΙ 10% Ι∴ΙΓΨΞΜΖΙ ΗΜςΙΓΞΣς ΕΞ êìê ëéêóëïðîò

2); 10% 796:)= 7,3;7 7−+2−∗−∋%28 −2∋6)%7)7 −2 ∗36)−+2

î

+ΠΣΦΕΠ (ΙΖΙΠΣΤΘΙΡΞΩ 1Ε] %ϑϑΙΓΞ 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ∋ΛΣΜΓΙΩ

8ςΙΡΗΩ ΜΡ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΕΤΤΙΕς ΞΣ ΘΜςςΣς ΩΜΚΡΜϑΜΓΕΡΞ ΡΕΞΜΣΡΕΠ ΕΡΗ ΚΠΣΦΕΠΗΙΖΙΠΣΤΘΙΡΞΩô ΜΡΓΠΨΗΜΡΚ ΞΛΙ ςΜΩΙ Σϑ %ΩΜΕΡ ΙΓΣΡΣΘΜΙΩô ΞΛΙ ΩΞΙΕΗ] ΜΡΓςΙΕΩΙ Σϑ 7ΤΕΡΜΩΛóΩΤΙΕΟΜΡΚ ςΙΩΜΗΙΡΞΩ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ 9ΡΜΞΙΗ 7ΞΕΞΙΩô ΕΡΗ ΓΣΡΓΙςΡΩ ΕΦΣΨΞ ΞΛΙ ΚΕΤΩ ΜΡ ΨΡΗΙςΩΞΕΡΗΜΡΚΦΙΞ[ΙΙΡ )ΡΚΠΜΩΛó ΕΡΗ %ςΕΦΜΓóΩΤΙΕΟΜΡΚ ΩΣΓΜΙΞΜΙΩò

∗ςΣΘ îððî ΞΣ îððêô ΞΛΙ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΜΡ ïï Σϑ ΞΛΙ ïë ΘΣΩΞ ΤΣΤΨΠΕς ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΚςΙ[ ϑΕΩΞΙςΞΛΕΡ ΞΛΙ ΣΖΙςΕΠΠ êòîû ΜΡΓςΙΕΩΙ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ ΡΨΘΦΙς Σϑ ΓΣΠΠΙΚΙ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞΩ ΗΨςΜΡΚ ΞΛΕΞ ΤΙςΜΣΗò8ΛΙ ΘΣΩΞ ΤΣΤΨΠΕς ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΣΡ ΓΣΠΠΙΚΙ ΓΕΘΤΨΩΙΩ ΜΡ ϑΕΠΠ îððê [ΙςΙæ

0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ )ΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ û Σϑ %ΠΠ 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ −ΡΓςΙΕΩΙ ΩΜΡΓΙ îððî)ΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ

ï÷ 7ΤΕΡΜΩΛ èîîôçèë ëîòîû õ ïðòíûî÷ ∗ςΙΡΓΛ îðêôìîê ïíòïû õ îòîûí÷ +ΙςΘΕΡ çìôîêì êòðû õ íòëûì÷ %ΘΙςΜΓΕΡ 7ΜΚΡ0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ éèôèîç ëòðû õ îçòéû

ë÷ −ΞΕΠΜΕΡ éèôíêè ëòðû õ îîòêûê÷ .ΕΤΕΡΙΩΙ êêôêðë ìòîû õ îéòëûé÷ ∋ΛΜΡΙΩΙ ëïôëèî íòíû õ ëïòðûè÷ 0ΕΞΜΡ íîôïçï îòðû õ éòçûç÷ 6ΨΩΩΜΕΡ îìôèìë ïòêû õ íòçûïð÷ %ςΕΦΜΓ îíôçéì ïòëû õïîêòëûïï÷ %ΡΓΜΙΡΞ +ςΙΙΟ îîôèìç ïòìû õ ïîòïûïî÷ &ΜΦΠΜΓΕΠ ,ΙΦςΙ[ ïìôïìð ðòçû ó ðòíûïí÷ 4ΣςΞΨΚΨΙΩΙ ïðôîêé ðòéû õ îîòìûïì÷ 1ΣΗΙςΡ ,ΙΦςΙ[ çôêïî ðòêû õ ïïòëûïë÷ /ΣςΙΕΡ éôïìë ðòëû õ íéòïû

8ΛΙ 10% ΩΨςΖΙ] ΕΠΩΣ ϑΣΨΡΗ Ε íïòîû ΜΡΓςΙΕΩΙ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ ΡΨΘΦΙς Σϑ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΣΨΞΩΜΗΙ ΞΛΙΞΣΤ ïë øΟΡΣ[Ρ ΕΩ ΠΙΩΩ ΓΣΘΘΣΡΠ] ΞΕΨΚΛΞ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩô Σς 0∋80Ω÷ ΦΙΜΡΚ ΣϑϑΙςΙΗ ϑΣς ΩΞΨΗ]ò8ΛΙΩΙ 0∋80Ω ΜΡΓΠΨΗΙ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΩΨΓΛ ΕΩ 7[ΕΛΜΠΜô 4ΙςΩΜΕΡô ,ΜΡΗΜô ΕΡΗ ∋ΕΞΕΠΕΡò % ΞΣΞΕΠ Σϑîðì 0∋80Ω [ΙςΙ ΣϑϑΙςΙΗ ϑΣς ΩΞΨΗ] ΣΡ %ΘΙςΜΓΕΡ ΓΕΘΤΨΩΙΩ ΜΡ îððêô ΨΤ ϑςΣΘ ïêî ΣϑϑΙςΙΗΜΡ îððîò 8ΛΙ ΠΕςΚΙΩΞ ΜΡΓςΙΕΩΙΩ ΜΡ 0∋80Ω [ΙςΙ ϑΣΨΡΗ ΜΡ 1ΜΗΗΠΙ )ΕΩΞΙςΡ ΕΡΗ %ϑςΜΓΕΡΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩô [ΛΙςΙ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΚςΙ[ Φ] ëëòçû ΦΙΞ[ΙΙΡ îððî ΕΡΗ îððêò

9ΡΜΞΙΗ 7ΞΕΞΙΩ 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ 7ΞΨΗ] 7ΞΜΠΠ ∗Ες 7ΛΣςΞ Σϑ ,ΜΩΞΣςΜΓ ,ΜΚΛΩ

;ΛΜΠΙ ΜΡΞΙςΙΩΞ ΜΡ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΩΞΨΗ] ΜΩ ΛΜΚΛô ΞΛΙ ΓΨςςΙΡΞ ςΕΞΙ Σϑ èòê ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΓΣΨςΩΙΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΤΙς ïðð ΞΣΞΕΠ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΜΩ ΩΞΜΠΠ [ΙΠΠ ΩΛΣςΞ Σϑ ΞΛΙ ïçêë ςΕΞΙ Σϑ ïêòëΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΓΣΨςΩΙ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΤΙς ïðð ΞΣΞΕΠ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩô [ΛΜΓΛ [ΕΩ ΞΛΙ ΛΜΚΛΙΩΞςΕΞΙ ςΙΓΣςΗΙΗ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ ϑΣςΞ]óΙΜΚΛΞ ]ΙΕςΩ ΞΛΕΞ ΞΛΙ 10% ΛΕΩ ΓΣΡΗΨΓΞΙΗ ΞΛΜΩ ΩΨςΖΙ]ò

∗Σς ΞΛΙ ϑΜςΩΞ ΞΜΘΙô ΞΛΙ îððê 10% ΩΨςΖΙ] ΕΠΩΣ ΓΣΘΤΕςΙΗ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞ ϑΜΚΨςΙΩ ϑΣςΜΡΞςΣΗΨΓΞΣς] øϑΜςΩΞó ΕΡΗ ΩΙΓΣΡΗó]ΙΕς÷ ΖΙςΩΨΩ ΕΗΖΕΡΓΙΗ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΩΞΨΗ]ò 7ΞΨΗΙΡΞΩ ΕςΙ

í

ΡΙΕςΠ] ϑΜΖΙ ΞΜΘΙΩ ΘΣςΙ ΠΜΟΙΠ] ΞΣ ΦΙ ΙΡςΣΠΠΙΗ ΜΡ Ε ϑΜςΩΞó Σς ΩΙΓΣΡΗó]ΙΕς ΓΣΨςΩΙ ΞΛΕΡ ΜΡΕΗΖΕΡΓΙΗ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΩΞΨΗ]ò ;ΛΜΠΙ ΜΡΓςΙΕΩΜΡΚ ΡΨΘΦΙςΩ ΕΡΗ ΤςΣΤΣςΞΜΣΡΩ Σϑ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞΩ ΕςΙΞΕΟΜΡΚ ΜΡΞςΣΗΨΓΞΣς] ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΓΠΕΩΩΙΩô ΞΛΙ ΘΕΝΣςΜΞ] ΗΣ ΡΣΞ ΤΨςΩΨΙ ΞΛΙ ΕΗΖΕΡΓΙΗ ΩΞΨΗ]ΡΙΓΙΩΩΕς] ΞΣ ΕΓΛΜΙΖΙ ϑΠΨΙΡΓ]ò

♥;Ι ΕςΙ ΩΞΜΠΠ Ε ΠΣΡΚ [Ε] ϑςΣΘ Ε ΚΣΠΗΙΡ ΕΚΙ Σϑ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΩΞΨΗ]ô [ΛΙΡ ϑΠΨΙΡΓ] ΜΡ ϑΣςΙΜΚΡΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΜΩ ΩΙΙΡ ΕΩ Ε ΟΙ] ΤΕςΞ Σϑ Ε ΓΣΠΠΙΚΙ ΙΗΨΓΕΞΜΣΡô♠ ΡΣΞΙΗ 1ΜΓΛΕΙΠ ,ΣΠΥΨΜΩΞôΤςΙΩΜΗΙΡΞ Σϑ ΞΛΙ 10%ò ♥,ΜΚΛΙς ΙΗΨΓΕΞΜΣΡ ΞΣΗΕ] ΜΩ ΣϑϑΙςΜΡΚ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞΩ ΘΣςΙ ΕςΙΕΩ Σϑ ΩΞΨΗ]ôΠΜΟΙ ΜΡϑΣςΘΕΞΜΣΡ ΞΙΓΛΡΣΠΣΚ]ò ;Ι ΕςΙ ΙΡΓΣΨςΕΚΙΗ ΞΣ ΩΙΙ ΞΛΕΞ ΜΡ ΞΛΜΩ ΩΞΜΘΨΠΕΞΜΡΚΙΗΨΓΕΞΜΣΡΕΠ ΙΡΖΜςΣΡΘΙΡΞô ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞΩ ΕςΙ ΜΡΓςΙΕΩΜΡΚΠ] ςΙΓΣΚΡΜ⊥ΜΡΚ ΞΛΙ ΜΘΤΣςΞΕΡΓΙ ΣϑΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΩΞΨΗ]ò♠

1ΙΞΛΣΗΣΠΣΚ]

8ΛΙ ΩΨςΖΙ] ςΙΤΣςΞΩ ΜΡϑΣςΘΕΞΜΣΡ ϑςΣΘ ççòèû øîôéçë÷ Σϑ ΞΛΙ îôèðï ΕΓΓςΙΗΜΞΙΗô ΡΣΞóϑΣςóΤςΣϑΜΞô %%óô &%óô 1%óô ΕΡΗ 4Λ(óΚςΕΡΞΜΡΚ ΓΣΠΠΙΚΙΩ ΕΡΗ ΨΡΜΖΙςΩΜΞΜΙΩ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ 9ΡΜΞΙΗ 7ΞΕΞΙΩΞΛΕΞ ςΙΚΨΠΕςΠ] ΞΙΕΓΛ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩò 6ΙΚΜΩΞςΕςΩ ΕΡΗ ΣΞΛΙς ΩΓΛΣΣΠ ςΙΤςΙΩΙΡΞΕΞΜΖΙΩ [ΙςΙΓΣΡΞΕΓΞΙΗ Φ] ΞΛΙ 10% Φ] ΘΕΜΠô ΞΙΠΙΤΛΣΡΙô ΕΡΗ ΙóΘΕΜΠò 8ΛΙ 10% ΗΕΞΕΦΕΩΙ [ΕΩΩΨΤΤΠΙΘΙΡΞΙΗ [ΜΞΛ ΜΡϑΣςΘΕΞΜΣΡ ϑςΣΘ ΞΛΙ 2ΕΞΜΣΡΕΠ ∋ΙΡΞΙς ϑΣς )ΗΨΓΕΞΜΣΡ 7ΞΕΞΜΩΞΜΓΩ ΞΣΙΡΩΨςΙ ΞΛΕΞ ΕΠΠ ΙΠΜΚΜΦΠΙ ΜΡΩΞΜΞΨΞΜΣΡΩ [ΙςΙ ΕΓΓΣΨΡΞΙΗ ϑΣςò 6ΙΩΤΣΡΩΙΩ ΓΕΘΙ ϑςΣΘ çêê Ξ[Σó]ΙΕς ΓΣΠΠΙΚΙΩ ΕΡΗ ïôèîç ϑΣΨςó]ΙΕς ΜΡΩΞΜΞΨΞΜΣΡΩò

8ΛΙ ΩΨςΖΙ] ΘΙΕΩΨςΙΩ ΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩô ΡΣΞ ΞΛΙ ΡΨΘΦΙς Σϑ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞΩ ΩΞΨΗ]ΜΡΚ Ε ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΣΞΛΙς ΞΛΕΡ )ΡΚΠΜΩΛò 7ΜΡΓΙ ΣΡΙ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞ ΘΕ] ΙΡςΣΠΠ ΜΡ ΘΣςΙ ΞΛΕΡ ΣΡΙ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΓΣΨςΩΙô ΕΩΜΡΚΠΙ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞ ΘΕ] ΦΙ ΓΣΨΡΞΙΗ ΘΣςΙ ΞΛΕΡ ΣΡΓΙò 8ΛΙ ςΕΞΜΣ Σϑ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΓΣΨςΩΙΙΡςΣΠΠΘΙΡΞΩ ΞΣ ΞΣΞΕΠ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞΩ ΜΩô ΛΣ[ΙΖΙςô Ε ϑΜΚΨςΙ ΞΛΕΞô ΣΖΙς ΞΜΘΙô ΓΕΡ ΩΙςΖΙ ΕΩ ΕΡΜΘΤΣςΞΕΡΞ ΜΡΗΜΓΕΞΣς Σϑ ΩΞΨΗΙΡΞ ΜΡΞΙςΙΩΞ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ ΩΞΨΗ] Σϑ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩò

%ΦΣΨΞ ΞΛΙ 1ΣΗΙςΡ 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ %ΩΩΣΓΜΕΞΜΣΡ

∗ΣΨΡΗΙΗ ΜΡ ïèèíô ΞΛΙ 1ΣΗΙςΡ 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ %ΩΩΣΓΜΕΞΜΣΡ Σϑ %ΘΙςΜΓΕ ΤςΣΖΜΗΙΩ ΣΤΤΣςΞΨΡΜΞΜΙΩϑΣς ΜΞΩ ΘΙΘΦΙςΩ ΞΣ ΩΛΕςΙ ΞΛΙΜς ΩΓΛΣΠΕςΠ] ϑΜΡΗΜΡΚΩ ΕΡΗ ΞΙΕΓΛΜΡΚ Ι∴ΤΙςΜΙΡΓΙΩ [ΜΞΛΓΣΠΠΙΕΚΨΙΩ ΕΡΗ ΞΣ ΗΜΩΓΨΩΩ ΞςΙΡΗΩ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ ΕΓΕΗΙΘ]ò ∗Σς ΣΖΙς Ε ΛΨΡΗςΙΗ ]ΙΕςΩô ΘΙΘΦΙςΩΛΕΖΙ [ΣςΟΙΗ ΞΣ ΩΞςΙΡΚΞΛΙΡ ΞΛΙ ΩΞΨΗ] ΕΡΗ ΞΙΕΓΛΜΡΚ Σϑ ΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ ΕΡΗ ΠΜΞΙςΕΞΨςΙò 10%ΘΙΘΦΙςΩ ΩΨΩΞΕΜΡ ΣΡΙ Σϑ ΞΛΙ ϑΜΡΙΩΞ ΤΨΦΠΜΩΛΜΡΚ ΤςΣΚςΕΘΩ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ ΛΨΘΕΡΜΞΜΙΩò

8ΛΙ 10% 0ΕΡΚΨΕΚΙ 1ΕΤ ø[[[òΘΠΕòΣςΚñΘΕΤΧΘΕΜΡ÷ ΕΡΗ ΜΞΩ (ΕΞΕ ∋ΙΡΞΙς ΤςΣΖΜΗΙΜΡϑΣςΘΕΞΜΣΡ ΕΦΣΨΞ ΘΣςΙ ΞΛΕΡ ìéôðððôððð ΤΙΣΤΠΙ ΜΡ ΞΛΙ 9ΡΜΞΙΗ 7ΞΕΞΙΩ [ΛΣ ΩΤΙΕΟΠΕΡΚΨΕΚΙΩ ΣΞΛΙς ΞΛΕΡ )ΡΚΠΜΩΛ ΕΞ ΛΣΘΙò

8ΛΙ 10% [ΙΙΟΠ] ςΕΗΜΣ ΤςΣΚςΕΘô ;ΛΕΞ←Ω ΞΛΙ ;ΣςΗ#ô ΓΕΡ ΦΙ ΛΙΕςΗ ΣΡ ΘΣςΙ ΞΛΕΡ ïêðςΕΗΜΣ ΩΞΕΞΜΣΡΩ ΕΓςΣΩΩ ΞΛΙ 9ΡΜΞΙΗ 7ΞΕΞΙΩò 8ΛΙ îððé 10% %ΡΡΨΕΠ ∋ΣΡΖΙΡΞΜΣΡ [ΜΠΠ ΦΙ ΛΙΠΗΜΡ ∋ΛΜΓΕΚΣô îé♣íð (ΙΓΙΘΦΙςò

∗Σς ΘΣςΙ ΜΡϑΣςΘΕΞΜΣΡ ΕΦΣΨΞ ΞΛΙ 10%ô ΤΠΙΕΩΙ ΖΜΩΜΞ ΣΨς ;ΙΦ ΩΜΞΙ ø[[[òΘΠΕòΣςΚ÷ò

ý ý ý

EXHIBIT N

IN SEPTEMBER 2003 the MLA finished compiling

the figures from its fall 2002 survey of foreign lan-

guage enrollments in United States institutions of

higher education. This latest survey is the twentieth

in a series conducted since 1958 with the support of

grants from the United States Department of Educa-

tion (or from its predecessor, the United States Office

of Education). The following report presents fall 2002

enrollments for individual languages and examines

trends through time.

Using procedures developed for previous surveys,

the MLA sent a questionnaire to the registrars of

2,781 two- and four-year institutions, soliciting infor-

mation on credit-bearing enrollments for fall 2002 in

all language courses other than English. Although

the instructions on the questionnaire made it clear

that the survey was seeking information on all lan-

guage courses offered on the campuses of these insti-

tutions, the MLA has no way of knowing whether

the registrars in all cases provided complete informa-

tion. The questionnaire was not mailed until mid-

October 2002, to ensure that the figures provided

would be final (or nearly so) rather than preliminary.

A second mailing was sent in early December, a third

in mid-February 2003, and a series of follow-up tele-

phone calls was begun in April.

All but 12 of the institutions receiving the initial

survey mailing, or 99.6%, eventually responded—the

highest response rate in the history of the MLA’s enroll-

ment surveys. Among the 2,769 respondents, 2,519, or

91.0%, reported having fall 2002 enrollments in at least

one language other than English. Of the responses,

1,068, or 38.6%, are from two-year colleges, and 1,701

are from four-year institutions. No language courses

other than English were offered by 7.6% of the four-

year institutions and 11.3% of the two-year colleges.

This year for the first time, survey participants

were able to respond on the World Wide Web us-

ing an interface designed for the collection of the

survey data. Of the responses monitored and en-

tered into our database, 28.7% were made on the

Web site, 50.9% were made on a return postcard,

and 20.4% were made in follow-up phone calls.

The Web site was designed to tell us whether en-

rollments had been previously reported for an insti-

tution and for what specific languages. This feature

helped make the survey more accurate, ensuring a

higher level of consistency in the data reported by

the participating institutions, whose particular indi-

vidual respondents change from survey to survey.

The user-friendly design of the Web interface also

made it easier for the MLA survey administrator

to keep track of additional information about lan-

guage offerings. It instantly displayed comparisons

between the numbers of programs offered in 1998

and those being reported for 2002. This display led

to follow-up questions about the addition and sub-

traction of specific language offerings and about

the reasons for those changes. For example, we

asked institutions that reported enrollments in a

specific language in 1998 but not in 2002 whether

the language was still listed in the catalog; those

that had enrollments in a language in 2002 but not

in 1998 were asked if they were reporting about a

new program.

Foreign Language Enrollmentsin United States Institutions ofHigher Education, Fall 2002

Elizabeth B. Welles

ADFL Bulletin, Vol. 35, Nos. 2–3, Winter-Spring 2004

© 2004 by the association of departments of foreign languages

The author is former Director of Foreign Language Programs

and ADFL at the Modern Language Association.

8 • Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2002

Fall 2002 Enrollments

Tables 1a and 1b compare the fall 2002 enroll-

ments in the fifteen most commonly taught lan-

guages with those in 1998, the year of the most

recent previous survey. In table 1a, the languages are

listed in descending order of fall 2002 enrollment

totals; in table 1b they are listed alphabetically. The

tables also show an aggregate count for the 147

other languages for which enrollment data were

reported in 2002. Enrollments for those other lan-

guages appear in table 8. As tables 1a and 1b show,

the total of foreign language enrollments for 2002

exceeded that for 1998 by 17.0%. It is the highest

total recorded since the beginning of the MLA sur-

veys (see fig. 1).

The list of the fifteen more commonly taught lan-

guages shows clear groupings: Spanish is far ahead;

then come French and German; then Italian, Amer-

ican Sign Language (ASL), and Japanese; then

Chinese, Latin, Russian, and ancient Greek; then

biblical Hebrew, Arabic, Modern Hebrew, Portu-

guese, and Korean. For the first time since 1968, all

show increases in enrollments. ASL’s increase at

432.2% is more than four times that of any other

language. Next is Arabic at 92.3%; biblical Hebrew

at 55.9%; Italian at 29.6%; Japanese, Chinese, an-

cient Greek, Modern Hebrew, and Portuguese at

between 20% and 30%; and Spanish, Latin, and Ko-

rean at between 10% and 17%. French, German,

and Russian showed an increase under 3% and thus

can be said to have had stable enrollments from

1998 to 2002.

Foreign Language Enrollments by Undergraduates

in Two- and Four-Year Colleges and by Graduates

in Universities

Tables 2a and 2b show enrollments of undergradu-

ate and graduate students; two-year and four-year

institutions further define the undergraduate popula-

tion. Undergraduate enrollments at four-year institu-

tions, which had declined 6.2% from 1990 to 1995,

rose 4.6% in 1998 and rose another 11.8% in 2002;

they are now 9.8% more than the previous high in

1990. Graduate enrollments declined 15.2% from

1995 to 1998 but increased 11.9% from 1998 to 2002.

They have fluctuated in a range of 5,000 students

since 1983 and have not yet returned to the high of

1974 (see table 2c).

Foreign language enrollments in two-year colleges

underwent a growth spurt of 40.2% between 1986

and 1990 and have risen continuously since: 3.6% in

1995, 8.8% in 1998, and 36.0% in 2002. The student

population in two-year colleges increased 12.0% from

1986 to 1990 and 4.8% between 1990 and 1995, de-

creased 0.1% between 1995 and 1998, and increased

8.6% between 1998 and 2002.1 Of the 1,068 two-year

colleges included in our survey, 947 reported enroll-

ments in 2002 (37.6% of all institutions), accounting

for 45.6% of the total growth for all enrollments re-

gardless of level or institution type. From 1998 to

2002, Spanish increased 22.9%, almost twice the in-

crease in Spanish for the total survey. Spanish now

represents 63.0% of all two-year college language en-

rollments, a drop from 1998 when it represented

69.7%. Community college enrollments in ASL,

which accounted for 78.9% of the overall ASL total

in 1995 and 61.3% in 1998, increased by 457.6% be-

tween 1998 and 2002 and now represent 64.2% of the

overall ASL total.

Tables 3a and 3b show the regional distribution of

language study in the United States. Whereas total

enrollments and four-year and graduate enrollments

are highest in the Northeast, Midwest, and South

Atlantic regions, two-year college enrollments are

overwhelmingly on the Pacific Coast. Appendix A

shows sixteen languages and their enrollments by

region. The study of Italian and Hebrew resides pri-

marily in the Northeast. The study of the Asian lan-

guages Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese

takes place primarily on the Pacific Coast. The study

of Spanish is fairly evenly distributed nationally,

with slightly higher concentrations found in the Mid-

west and South Atlantic. Arabic is also very evenly

distributed, with an enrollment concentration of

about 21% in the four most populated regions of the

United States.

Elizabeth B. Welles • 9

Table 1a

Fall 1998 and 2002 Foreign Language Enrollments

in United States Institutions of Higher Education

(Languages in Descending Order of 2002 Totals)

Percentage

Language 1998 2002 Change

Spanish 656,590 746,267 13.7

French 199,064 201,979 1.5

German 89,020 91,100 2.3

Italian 49,287 63,899 29.6

American Sign

Language 11,420 60,781 432.2

Japanese 43,141 52,238 21.1

Chinese 28,456 34,153 20.0

Latin 26,145 29,841 14.1

Russian 23,791 23,921 0.5

Ancient Greek 16,402 20,376 24.2

Biblical Hebrew 9,099 14,183 55.9

Arabic 5,505 10,584 92.3

Modern Hebrew 6,734 8,619 28.0

Portuguese 6,926 8,385 21.1

Korean 4,479 5,211 16.3

Other languages 17,771 25,716 44.7

Total 1,193,830 1,397,253 17.0

Table 1b

Fall 1998 and 2002 Foreign Language Enrollments

in United States Institutions of Higher Education

(Languages in Alphabetical Order)

Percentage

Language 1998 2002 Change

American Sign

Language 11,420 60,781 432.2

Arabic 5,505 10,584 92.3

Chinese 28,456 34,153 20.0

French 199,064 201,979 1.5

German 89,020 91,100 2.3

Ancient Greek 16,402 20,376 24.2



Italian 49,287 63,899 29.6

Japanese 43,141 52,238 21.1

Korean 4,479 5,211 16.3

Latin 26,145 29,841 14.1

Portuguese 6,926 8,385 21.1

Russian 23,791 23,921 0.5

Spanish 656,590 746,267 13.7

Other languages 17,771 25,716 44.7

Total 1,193,830 1,397,253 17.0

Figure 1

Foreign Language Enrollments by Year, Excluding Latin and Ancient Greek

1,400,000

1,300,000

1,200,000

1,100,000

1,000,000

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

1960 1965 1968 1970 1972 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1990 1995 1998 2002

608,749

975,777

1,073,097

963,930

897,077922,439

1,138,880

1,347,036

1,151,283

1,067,217

960,588

883,222

1,096,603

877,691


Table 2a

Foreign Language Enrollments by Undergraduate Students in Four-Year Colleges and by Graduate Students

(Languages in Descending Order of 2002 Totals)

Undergraduates Graduates Undergraduates and Graduates

Language 1995 1998 2002 1995 1998 2002 1995 1998 2002

Spanish 432,133 468,040 515,688 10,936 9,046 9,950 443,069 477,086 525,638

French 168,027 164,407 162,705 6,809 4,850 4,605 174,836 169,257 167,310

German 80,393 74,437 75,987 4,181 2,938 2,803 84,574 77,375 78,790

Italian 36,287 41,216 51,750 1,043 925 1,047 37,330 42,141 52,797

Japanese 33,888 32,588 38,545 1,406 1,334 930 35,294 33,922 39,475

Latin 24,030 24,411 27,695 1,040 894 1,045 25,070 25,305 28,740

Chinese 20,966 22,472 26,914 1,042 1,220 934 22,008 23,692 27,848

American Sign Language 852 4,254 21,613 58 163 121 910 4,417 21,734

Russian 21,305 20,541 20,208 1,424 964 770 22,729 21,505 20,978

Hebrew* 8,860 11,740 16,651 3,448 3,560 5,551 12,308 15,300 22,202

Ancient Greek 11,666 11,738 14,044 4,385 4,471 6,033 16,051 16,209 20,077

Arabic 3,807 3,902 8,194 441 445 531 4,248 4,347 8,725

Portuguese 5,359 5,958 6,945 710 488 487 6,069 6,446 7,432

Korean 2,943 3,546 4,045 231 309 111 3,174 3,855 4,156

Other languages 12,877 14,254 19,257 1,523 1,196 1,797 14,400 15,450 21,054

Total 863,393 903,504 1,010,241 38,677 32,803 36,715 902,070 936,307 1,046,956

Percentage Change – 4.6 11.8 – –15.2 11.9 – 3.8 11.8

*Modern and biblical Hebrew combined

Table 2b

Foreign Language Enrollments by Students inTwo-Year Colleges (Languages in Descending Order of 2002 Totals)

Percentage Change Percentage Change

1986 1990 1995 1998 2002 between 1998 and 2002 between 1986 and 2002

Spanish 89,491 133,823 163,217 179,504 220,629 22.9 146.5

American Sign Language 0 1,140 3,394 7,003 39,047 457.6 –

French 39,818 44,366 30,515 29,807 34,669 16.3 –12.9

Japanese 4,835 10,308 9,429 9,219 12,763 38.4 164.0

German 15,399 19,082 11,689 11,645 12,310 5.7 –20.1

Italian 6,303 8,325 6,430 7,146 11,102 55.4 76.1

Chinese 2,105 3,506 4,463 4,764 6,305 32.3 199.5

Russian 1,596 3,472 2,000 2,286 2,943 28.7 84.4

Arabic 354 423 196 1,158 1,859 60.5 425.1

Vietnamese 56 169 489 385 1,185 207.8 2,016.1

Latin 497 909 827 840 1,101 31.1 121.5

Korean 0 141 169 624 1,055 69.1 –

Portuguese 289 365 462 480 953 98.5 229.8

Hawai‘ian 199 299 635 645 667 3.4 235.2

Hebrew* 697 786 819 533 600 12.6 –13.9

Ancient Greek 245 283 221 193 299 54.9 22.0

Other languages 997 1,023 1,747 1,291 2,810 117.7 181.8

Total 162,881 228,420 236,702 257,523 350,297 36.0 115.1

Percentage Change – 40.2 3.6 8.8 36.0

Hebrew and ancient Greek are not commonly taught at the two-year level but are included here for comparison with table 2a.

*Modern and biblical Hebrew combined


Table 2c

Total Foreign Language Enrollments by Student

Status, 1974–2002

Students in Students in

Two-Year Four-Year Graduate

Colleges Colleges Students

1974 154,466 750,277 41,892

1983 164,411 769,444 35,158

1986 162,881 807,084 33,269

1990 228,420 920,092 35,628

1995 236,702 863,393 38,677

1998 257,523 903,504 32,803

2002 350,297 1,010,241 36,715

Table 3a

United States Geographic Distribution of 2002

Language Enrollments

Percentage

Number of National

Northeast 302,875 21.7

Midwest 304,366 21.8

South Atlantic 293,736 21.0

South Central 138,884 9.9

Rocky Mountain 104,323 7.5

Pacific Coast 253,069 18.1

National (total) 1,397,253 100.0

Table 3b

United States Geographic Distribution of 2002 Language Enrollments by Level

Two-Year Percentage Four-Year Percentage Percentage

Colleges of National Colleges of National Graduate of National

Northeast 45,360 12.9 249,018 24.6 8,497 23.1

Midwest 45,648 13.0 250,162 24.8 8,556 23.3

South Atlantic 54,891 15.7 230,377 22.8 8,468 23.1

South Central 36,759 10.5 98,696 9.8 3,429 9.3

Rocky Mountain 36,037 10.3 66,134 6.5 2,152 5.9

Pacific Coast 131,602 37.6 115,854 11.5 5,613 15.3

National (total) 350,297 100.0 1,010,241 100.0 36,715 100.0

States included in each region:

Northeast: CT, DE, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT

Midwest: IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI

South Atlantic: AL, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV

South Central: AR, LA, MS, OK, TX

Rocky Mountain: AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, UT, WY

Pacific Coast: AK, CA, HI, OR, WA

Trends in Language Enrollments

Figure 1 shows trends through time in total foreign

language enrollments: the steep growth in the 1960s,

the decrease in the 1970s, and the steady rise through

the 1980s. During the 1990s, enrollments continued

to ascend, dipped in 1995, and reached an all-time

high in fall 2002. This growth is tempered by the fact

that total college enrollments have increased at a

greater rate than foreign language enrollments; the

difference in the two rates of increase is shown in

table 4. Between 1977 and 1998, as the increase in

the number of college students leveled off, the propor-

tion of enrollments in modern foreign languages re-

mained stable, ranging from the 1980 low of 7.3 per

hundred students to the high in 1990 of 8.2. In our

2002 survey the proportion of modern foreign lan-

guage enrollments per 100 institutional enrollments

rose to 8.6, a moderate proportion but the highest in

the history of MLA surveys since 1977.

Table 5 presents trends in enrollments in the twelve

most commonly taught foreign languages (Latin and

ancient Greek excluded) between 1960 and 2002,

and the enrollment growth or decline for each lan-

guage over selected periods. Table 6 gives the per-

centage of the total language enrollment count for

the fourteen most commonly taught languages (Latin

and ancient Greek included). Spanish is and has

been the most widely taught language in colleges and

universities since 1970, and it continues to account

for more than half (53.4%) of all enrollments, a fact

first recorded in our 1995 survey. The next largest

grouping, French and German, represents 21.0% of

students studying languages other than English. Ital-

ian, ASL, Japanese, Chinese, and Latin together

make up 17.2%. A fourth grouping of languages, each

representing between 1% and 2% of the total, com-

prises Russian, Hebrew, and ancient Greek; together

they account for 4.8% of all language students. The

languages that have enrollments lower than 1% in

some cases show very dramatic increases but still ac-

count for a very small percentage of students studying

languages. Korean, Arabic, and Portuguese, which in-

dividually grew significantly from the previous survey,

account for only 1.8% of total enrollments.

Since their high points in 1968, French has lost

48.0% of its total enrollments and German 57.9%, but

each seems to have stabilized in the last four years, with

slight increases in both languages in comparison with

the 1998 survey. Between 1970 and 2002 Japanese


Table 4

Modern Foreign Language (MFL) Enrollments Compared with Enrollments in Higher Education, 1960–2002

Total United States Index of Index of MFL Enrollments

*College Enrollments* **Growth (%)** ***MFL Enrollments*** Growth (%) per 100 Overall

1960 3,789,000 100.0 608,749 100.0 16.1

1965 5,920,864 156.3 975,777 160.3 16.5

1968 7,513,091 198.3 1,073,097 176.3 14.3

1970 8,580,887 226.5 1,067,217 175.3 12.4

1972 9,214,820 243.2 963,930 158.3 10.5

1977 11,285,787 297.9 883,222 145.1 7.8

1980 12,096,895 319.3 877,691 144.2 7.3

1983 12,464,661 329.0 922,439 151.5 7.4

1986 12,503,511 330.0 960,588 157.8 7.7

1990 13,818,637 364.7 1,138,880 187.1 8.2

1995 14,261,781 376.4 1,096,603 180.1 7.7

1998 14,507,000 382.9 1,151,283 189.1 7.9

2002 15,608,000 411.9 1,347,036 221.3 8.6

***The figures in the first column are taken from the Digest of Education Statistics.

***The 1960 and 2002 figures are estimates. The 2002 figure is taken from a projections table on the National Center for Education

Statistics Web site (nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/proj2012/Table_11_2.asp).

***For index figures, 1960=100.0%

***Includes all languages listed in tables 1 and 2 except Latin and ancient Greek.


Table 5

Enrollments in the Twelve Leading Foreign Languages (Excluding Latin and Ancient Greek) in Selected

Years, with Percentage Changes

Enrollments

1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 1998 2002

Spanish 178,689 389,150 379,379 533,944 606,286 656,590 746,267

French 228,813 359,313 248,361 272,472 205,351 199,064 201,979

German 146,116 202,569 126,910 133,348 96,263 89,020 91,100

Italian 11,142 34,244 34,791 49,699 43,760 49,287 63,899

American Sign Language – – – 1,602 4,304 11,420 60,781

Japanese 1,746 6,620 11,506 45,717 44,723 43,141 52,238

Chinese 1,844 6,238 11,366 19,490 26,471 28,456 34,153

Russian 30,570 36,189 23,987 44,626 24,729 23,791 23,921

Hebrew* 3,834 16,567 19,429 12,995 13,127 15,833 22,802

Arabic 541 1,333 3,466 3,475 4,444 5,505 10,584

Portuguese 1,033 5,065 4,894 6,211 6,531 6,926 8,385

Korean 168 101 374 2,286 3,343 4,479 5,211

Total 604,496 1,057,389 864,463 1,125,865 1,079,332 1,133,512 1,321,320

Percentage Changes between Surveys

1960–70 1970–80 1980–90 1990–95 1995–98 1998–2002

Spanish 117.8 –2.5 40.7 13.5 8.3 13.7

French 57.0 –30.9 9.7 –24.6 –3.1 1.5

German 38.6 –37.3 5.1 –27.8 –7.5 2.3

Italian 207.3 1.6 42.9 –11.9 12.6 29.6

American Sign Language – – – 168.7 165.3 432.2

Japanese 279.2 73.8 297.3 –2.2 –3.5 21.1

Chinese 238.3 82.2 71.5 35.8 7.5 20.0

Russian 18.4 –33.7 86.0 –44.6 –3.8 0.5

Hebrew* 332.1 17.3 –33.1 1.0 20.6 44.0

Arabic 146.4 160.0 0.3 27.9 23.9 92.3

Portuguese 390.3 –3.4 26.9 5.2 6.0 21.1

Korean –39.9 270.3 511.2 46.2 34.0 16.3

Total 74.9 –18.2 30.2 –4.1 5.0 16.6

*Modern and biblical Hebrew totals combined

enrollments increased by nearly eight times, Chinese

almost five and a half times. The greatest period of

growth in actual numbers for both these languages oc-

curred during the 1980s; they now are experiencing

less variation and have represented 6% of all student

enrollments for the current and previous two surveys.

Figure 2 contrasts the enrollments in Spanish from

1960 through 2002 with those in all other modern lan-

guages taught at the postsecondary college levels.

While considerably higher in 2002 than in the previ-

ous two surveys, enrollments in languages other than

Spanish are lower than they were at their high of 1968.

After dropping off in the 1970s, they grew through the

1980s and peaked in 1990, which was the most recent

high for the total enrollments in all languages other

than Spanish. After a dip in the 1990s, languagees

other than Spanish indicate a rise in the current sur-

vey. Spanish enrollments, however, have increased

consistently since 1960 and progressively accounted

for a greater percentage of all enrollments until 2002.

For this survey the number of students studying Span-

ish went up by 89,677, while the number of students

studying all other languages increased by 113,746.

Figure 3a shows enrollment trends through time in

the top seven most commonly taught modern lan-

guages, not including Spanish, and Figure 3b shows

the trends for the remaining six languages listed in

table 1. French and German are similar: strong growth

during the 1960s and a drop in the 1970s. While

French recovered somewhat in the 1980s, it declined

through the 1990s, though it now seems to be increas-

ing again. German made a modest recovery from

1986 to 1990, declined throughout the 1990s, but has

experienced an increase since 1998. Russian now

seems to be stabilizing after showing great variability

(dropping steeply in the 1970s and 1990s, rising in

the 1960s and 1980s). Enrollments in Italian, Chi-

nese, and Japanese grew consistently from 1960 to

1990, but since 1990 slightly different patterns have

emerged: Chinese continues to grow; Japanese de-

clined slightly but has been on the rise since 1998;

and Italian recovered from the decline that it experi-

enced in the 1995 survey and in 2002 is increasing

substantially. American Sign Language was first re-

corded in the survey in 1990 and has shown a tre-

mendous increase for each survey since then as more

institutions begin to report it. Korean has grown

steadily since it was first reported in 1974, showing an

increase of 128.0% since 1990. Enrollments in Arabic

were relatively stable during the 1980s; however,

since 1995 they have shown rapid growth, particu-

larly between 1998 and 2002, almost doubling (from

5,505 to 10,584). Portuguese showed consistent low

growth through the 1990s but jumped between 1998


Table 6

Percentage of Total Enrollments, 1968–2002, for the Fourteen Most Commonly Taught Languages in 2002

1968 1980 1986 1990 1995 1998 2002

Spanish 32.4 41.0 41.0 45.1 53.2 55.0 53.4

French 34.4 26.9 27.4 23.0 18.0 16.7 14.5

German 19.2 13.7 12.1 11.3 8.5 7.5 6.5

Italian 2.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 3.8 4.1 4.6

American Sign Language – – – 0.1 0.4 1.0 4.4

Japanese 0.4 1.2 2.3 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.7

Chinese 0.4 1.2 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.4 2.4

Latin 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1

Russian 3.6 2.6 3.4 3.8 2.2 2.0 1.7

Hebrew* 0.9 2.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6

Ancient Greek 1.7 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5

Arabic 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8

Portuguese 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6

Korean 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4

Other languages 0.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.8

Total enrollments 1,127,363 924,837 1,003,234 1,184,100 1,138,772 1,193,830 1,397,253

(in numbers)

*Modern and biblical Hebrew totals combined

and 2002 (from 6,926 to 8,385). Enrollments in He-

brew and Greek have shown similar curves since their

high counts in 1974, though Hebrew’s growth has

been steadier since 1990. Through the 1990s, Greek

hovered in the 16,000s but in 2002 jumped to over

20,000. The net gain between 1998 and 2002 of 48

institutions reporting Greek perhaps accounts for this

growth (see table 7a). The 2002 count for Latin is the

highest in the history of the survey, showing a healthy

jump after enrollments dropped during the mid and

late 1990s from the previous high in 1990.

Information gathered about the differences between

the programs that reported in 1998 and those that re-

ported in 2002 revealed some interesting trends. The

data based only on responses from those institutions re-

porting in 1998 showed smaller increases generally than

those reporting overall in 2002 (table 7b); in three lan-

guages there were decreases. This difference should not

be taken as an indication of what the enrollment figures

might have been if the response rate in 2002 had been

the same as that in 1998 (97.4%). It is doubtful that a

2.2% increase in respondents would have changed the

picture significantly. The comparison of the 1998 and

2002 institutional figures (table 7a) is particularly useful

for explaining the enormous growth of ASL: the bulk of

the increase occurred through the reporting of institu-

tions that had not responded previously.

ASL enrollments rose from 1,602 in 1990 to 4,304

in 1995 and then to 11,420 in 1998, increases of

168.7% and 165.3%. Besides student interest, the in-

crease recorded in 2002 also has to do with a change in

the nature of our survey. For over thirty years we have

elicited enrollment data on less commonly taught lan-

guages by requesting information about “other lan-

guages” rather than listing them individually on the

survey form. Through the 1998 survey, ASL was in this

category, but with the enrollments reported in that

survey it joined the list of the more commonly taught

languages, then numbering fifteen. As a result, in 2002

ASL was among the fifteen languages about which we

explicitly requested information. Many institutions

that had not reported their existing ASL programs in

1998 did so in this survey. If these institutions had pre-

viously reported their existing ASL enrollments, the

remarkable growth in ASL in the current survey might

have been more evenly spread out across the three sur-

veys from the 1990s. But it is also notable that 187

new programs were created between 1998 and 2002

(see table 1 in appendix B) to meet growing demand.

French, German, and Russian enrollment data from

the 1998 respondents alone show decreases, while

the overall enrollments in these languages were

slightly up. For Arabic, Chinese, and Italian there is

also a considerable rise in the number of institutions


Figure 2

Enrollments in Spanish Compared with Those in All Other Languages, except Latin and Ancient Greek, by Year

430,060

178,689

364,870379,379

533,944

490,317 494,693

600,769

411,293

708,227

498,312

549,295

604,936 606,286

656,590

746,267Other Modern Languages

Spanish

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

1960 1968 1980 1986 1990 1995 1998 2002


Figure 3a

Enrollments in the Top Seven Modern Languages, Not Including Spanish, in Selected Years

Russian

Chinese

Japanese

*ASL

Italian

German

French

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

23,92123,79124,729

44,62633,961

23,98740,696

30,570

34,15328,456

26,47119,490

16,89111,366

5,0611,844

52,23843,14144,72345,717

23,45411,506

4,3241,746

60,78111,420

4,3041,602

63,89949,287

43,76049,699

40,94534,791

30,35911,142

91,10089,020

96,263133,348

121,022126,910

216,263146,116

201,979199,064

205,351272,472

275,328248,361

388,096228,813

20021998199519901986198019681960

*1960, 1968, 1980, 1986 figures for ASL not available.


Figure 3b

Enrollments in Six Less Commonly Taught Languages in Selected Years

Korean

Portuguese

Arabic

*Hebrew

Ancient Greek

Latin

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

5,2114,479

3,3432,286

875365

8,3856,926

6,5316,211

5,0714,846

10,5845,505

4,4443,4753,4173,387

22,80215,833

13,12712,995

15,63019,429

20,37616,402

16,27216,401

17,60822,111

29,84126,14525,897

28,17825,03825,035

200219981995199019861980

*Modern and biblican Hebrew combined

reporting over 1998. Tables 1 and 2 of appendix B

show that in undergraduate programs new offerings

account for the gains notably in Arabic (74), ASL (as

noted, 187), and Chinese (84). In most cases the

number of new offerings since 1998 is larger than the

number of programs no longer offered, except in Rus-

sian, where 59 programs were discontinued and 28 es-

tablished, and in German, where 60 programs were

discontinued and 39 established.

Less Commonly Taught Languages

During the 1960s, languages we now call less com-

monly taught (LCTLs) were designated “critical” or

“strategic” by government entities and the MLA. Be-

fore 1986, the seven most commonly taught lan-

guages in United States colleges and universities were

Latin, ancient Greek, French, German, Italian, Rus-

sian, and Spanish. By the 1986 survey, however, Japa-

nese became the seventh most commonly taught

language, and by 1998 it had moved up to fifth place;

it now stands in sixth place, behind American Sign

Language. Chinese was the sixth most commonly

taught language in 1995 and is now the seventh.

Table 8 provides information about enrollment data

by level of program (two-year, four-year, graduate) for

the 147 languages composing the other-languages cate-

gory of tables 1, 2, and 6. (In table 8, of the 162 lan-

guages listed, 137 were taught in 1998, and 147 were

taught in 2002.) There are 7.3% more languages in

which students enrolled than were reported for 1998;

34 are indigenous to Europe, 38 to the Middle East or

Africa, 41 to Asia or the Pacific and 34 to North or

South America. Table 9 shows the proportion of enroll-

ments for these different language groups. These num-

bers have not changed significantly since 1998, except

for languages indigenous to Asia or the Pacific, of

which 11 were added in 2002 to the 30 reported in

1998. Of these Asian languages, Vietnamese stands out

as the largest gainer of the LCTLs with enrollments of

2,236, for a total increase of 148.7%. At the two-year

level, Vietnamese went from 385 students in 1998 to

1,185 in 2002; at the four-year level, it grew from 491 to

1,003. Hindi also shows remarkable growth at 72.1%,

up to 1,430 in 2002 from 831 in 1998. One LCTL of

Middle Eastern origin—Aramaic, and one of African

origin—Swahili, now have enrollments over 1,500 and

appear to be gaining rapidly (Tables 8 and 10a).

North and South American native languages have

experienced considerable expansion since the previ-

ous survey, as shown in the enrollments for the lead-

ing sixteen of these languages in 2002 (table 10b).


Table 7a

Comparison of Numbers of Institutions Reporting

Undergraduate Enrollments in the Top Fifteen

Foreign Languages in 1998 and 2002

Net Gain

1998 2002 or Loss

Spanish 2,166 2,279 113

French 1,668 1,701 33

German 1,192 1,163 –29

Italian 531 606 75

American Sign Language 116 552 436

Japanese 683 696 13

Chinese 416 489 73

Latin 526 561 35

Russian 497 441 –56

Ancient Greek 518 566 48

Biblical Hebrew 194 226 32

Arabic 157 233 76

Modern Hebrew 150 163 13

Portuguese 143 175 32

Korean 76 91 15

Table 7b

Language Enrollments in Fall 1998 and in Fall

2002 for Those Institutions Responding in 1998

Percentage

1998 2002 Change

Spanish 656,590 710,347 8.2

French 199,064 191,996 –3.6

German 89,020 86,545 –2.8

Italian 49,287 58,774 19.2

American Sign

Language 11,420 13,486 18.1

Japanese 43,141 48,258 11.9

Chinese 28,456 30,701 7.9

Latin 26,145 27,006 3.3

Russian 23,791 22,438 –5.7

Ancient Greek 16,402 17,520 6.8


Arabic 5,505 7,720 40.2


Portuguese 6,926 7,057 1.9

Korean 4,479 4,730 5.6

Total 1,176,059 1,243,969 5.8

Table 8

Enrollments in 162 Less Commonly Taught Languages, 1998 and 2002

Enrollments in Undergraduate Graduate

Two-Year Colleges Enrollments Enrollments Total

Language Status 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002

Afrikaans 0 0 72 13 0 0 72 13

Akan 0 0 13 5 0 0 13 5

Akkadian 0 0 9 24 93 71 102 95

Albanian 0 0 1 10 0 0 1 10

Alutiiq 0 0 1 10 0 0 1 10

Amharic 0 0 7 12 0 3 7 15

Anishinabe + 0 6 0 18 0 0 0 24

Apache + 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20

Aramaic 0 36 1,071 1,261 59 389 1,130 1,686

Arapahoe 4 112 0 0 0 0 4 112

Armenian 80 318 233 278 12 11 325 607

Assiniboine 5 12 0 0 0 0 5 12

Assyro-Babylonian – 0 0 3 0 1 0 4 0

Athabaskan 0 0 10 14 0 0 10 14

Aymara – 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0

Bambara 0 0 28 10 0 1 28 11

Basque 0 0 5 46 0 3 5 49

Bemba – 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Bengali 0 0 31 50 4 4 35 54

Blackfoot 40 41 0 0 0 0 40 41

Bulgarian 0 0 7 17 4 3 11 20

Burmese 0 0 31 46 3 3 34 49

Cambodian + 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5

Cantonese 0 47 39 128 0 5 39 180

Catalan 0 0 6 31 3 4 9 35

Cebuano + 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7

Chagatai – 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0

Chamorro + 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 11

Cherokee 28 7 147 111 0 0 175 118

Cheyenne + 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Chichewa 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2

Chinese, Classical 0 0 31 56 1 18 32 74

Choctaw 0 0 83 63 0 0 83 63

Coptic 0 0 0 2 3 9 3 11

Cree – 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Croatian 0 0 1 15 0 1 1 16

Crow Indian 0 55 5 0 4 0 9 55

Czech 5 1 159 291 30 29 194 321

Dakota/Lakota 46 17 286 589 2 4 334 610

Danish 0 0 145 189 6 2 151 191

Dari + 0 28 0 13 0 0 0 41

Deg Xinag 0 0 7 9 0 0 7 9

Dutch 0 0 260 357 28 18 288 375

Egyptian 0 0 13 16 39 31 52 47

Eskimo 0 0 46 99 0 0 46 99

Estonian 0 0 6 13 2 3 8 16

Ethiopic – 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0

Farsi + 0 20 0 64 0 1 0 85

A plus sign in the Status column signifies a new program; a minus sign signifies a discontinued program.

No sign means that the program continues.


Table 8 (continued)



Language Status 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002

Finnish 2 6 103 151 9 5 114 162

Fula + 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Gaelic, Scottish 0 0 47 4 3 0 50 4

Galician 0 0 0 0 6 5 6 5

Georgian 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2

Greek, Modern 19 11 553 736 74 57 646 804

Gujarati 0 0 32 20 1 0 33 20

Gwich’in 0 0 0 18 2 0 2 18

Haitian Creole 0 0 116 121 8 7 124 128

Hausa 0 0 36 38 7 2 43 40

Hawai‘ian 645 667 1,344 1,014 18 6 2,007 1,687

Hindi 0 0 767 1,374 64 56 831 1,430

Hindi-Urdu 0 0 417 393 31 34 448 427

Hittite 0 0 0 0 8 1 8 1

Hmong 2 89 13 194 0 0 15 283

Hungarian 0 0 53 97 5 5 58 102

Icelandic 0 0 2 12 0 0 2 12

Igbo + 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9

Ilocano 0 0 171 91 0 0 171 91

Indonesian 0 0 177 180 46 45 223 225

Inupiaq 0 24 22 27 0 0 22 51

Iranian 0 0 77 92 3 10 80 102

Irish 13 0 252 659 13 46 278 705

Irish, Modern + 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8

Irish, Old 0 0 35 0 13 3 48 3

Japanese, Classical + 0 0 0 8 0 11 0 19

Kannada 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2

Kazakh 0 0 1 8 0 8 1 16

Khmer 0 0 14 20 0 0 14 20

Kikuyu + 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Kiowa 0 0 49 77 0 0 49 77

Koyukon 0 0 7 6 0 0 7 6

Kutenai + 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20

Latvian 0 0 12 8 0 0 12 8

Lingala 0 0 35 78 0 1 35 79

Lithuanian 0 0 37 54 14 5 51 59

Luganda 0 0 9 13 0 0 9 13

Macedonian 0 0 0 1 5 2 5 3

Malay 0 0 1 1 1 3 2 4

Malayalam 0 0 28 20 0 0 28 20

Manchu – 0 0 1 0 6 0 7 0

Mandingo + 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Maori 0 0 18 25 0 0 18 25

Marathi 0 0 6 0 0 2 6 2

Menominee 13 13 0 0 0 0 13 13

Meru – 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Mohawk 0 0 16 29 0 0 16 29

Mongolian 0 0 4 27 2 8 6 35




Table 8 (continued)



Language Status 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002

Muskogee (Creek) 0 6 85 126 0 0 85 132

Nahuatl – 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Navajo 169 526 127 257 1 0 297 783

Ndebele, Zimbabwe – 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0

Nepali 0 0 94 11 6 0 100 11

Nez Perce + 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9

Norse 0 0 4 2 1 9 5 11

Norwegian 0 0 638 772 2 5 640 777

Ojibwa 31 40 219 230 1 0 251 270

Omaha – 19 0 0 0 0 0 19 0

Oromo + 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Pali 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 11

Papago 27 36 5 13 0 0 32 49

Pashto + 0 10 0 4 0 0 0 14

Persian 233 308 317 680 64 129 614 1,117

Pilipino + 0 236 0 213 0 0 0 449

Pima 11 9 0 0 0 0 11 9

Polish 22 80 703 935 47 38 772 1,053

Punjabi 0 0 30 99 2 0 32 99

Quechua 0 0 53 43 5 8 58 51

Romanian 0 0 83 120 9 6 92 126

Sahaptin – 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0

Salish + 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 56

Samoan 0 0 207 201 0 0 207 201

Sanskrit 0 0 275 329 88 158 363 487

Serbian 0 0 22 20 15 16 37 36

Serbo-Croatian 76 133 66 175 12 34 154 342

Setswana 0 0 19 10 0 0 19 10

Shona 0 0 7 2 0 2 7 4

Shoshoni 0 0 8 16 0 0 8 16

Sinhala – 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Sinhalese + 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Slavic, Old Church 0 0 7 9 23 0 30 9

Slovak 0 0 24 31 1 5 25 36

Sumerian 0 0 0 3 13 19 13 22

Swahili 1 47 1,199 1,483 41 63 1,241 1,593

Swati + 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Swedish 0 0 678 727 6 9 684 736

Syriac 0 0 11 2 30 29 41 31

Tagalog 428 404 362 287 4 2 794 693

Tahitian 0 0 19 20 0 0 19 20

Taiwanese + 0 0 0 34 0 13 0 47

Tamil 0 0 41 89 4 25 45 114

Telugu 0 0 11 3 0 0 11 3

Thai 17 16 240 302 15 12 272 330

Tibetan 0 0 59 43 21 35 80 78

Tibetan, Classical + 0 0 0 8 0 20 0 28

Tlingit 0 0 17 108 0 0 17 108





Table 8 (continued)



Language Status 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002 1998 2002

Tonga 0 0 33 43 0 0 33 43

Turkic 0 0 15 15 0 6 15 21

Turkish 15 13 166 240 37 61 218 314

Twi 0 0 33 75 1 4 34 79

Ugaritic 0 0 0 0 33 14 33 14

Uighur – 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0

Ukrainian 0 0 34 107 6 19 40 126

Urdu 0 0 22 140 13 12 35 152

Uzbek 0 7 0 5 4 11 4 23

Vietnamese 385 1,185 491 1,003 23 48 899 2,236

Welsh 0 0 16 30 1 2 17 32

Welsh, Early + 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 6

Wolof 0 0 43 73 0 1 43 74

Xhosa + 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 34

Yaqui – 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0

Yiddish 0 0 324 414 14 24 338 438

Yoruba 0 0 64 76 5 0 69 76

Yup’ik 0 0 55 10 0 0 55 10

Zulu 0 0 63 70 5 2 68 72

Total 2,348 4,662 14,227 19,257 1,196 1,797 17,771 25,716

Continued programs 122

New programs 25

Discontinued programs 15

Total other languages 162



Table 9

Enrollments in Less Commonly Taught Languages, by Region of Origin, 1998 and 2002

1998 2002

Languages Enrollments Percentage Languages Enrollments Percentage

Europe 32 4,126 23.2 34 6,636 25.8

Middle East and Africa 39 5,353 30.1 38 6,373 24.8

Asia and Pacific 30 4,477 25.2 41 7,996 31.1

North and South America 37 3,815 21.5 34 4,711 18.3

Total 138 17,771 100.0 147 25,716 100.0


Table 10a

Enrollments in Sixteen Leading Asian or Pacific Languages in Selected Years, with Percentage Change

Change from

Language 1974 1980 1986 1990 1995 1998 2002 1998 to 2002 (%)

Vietnamese 29 74 175 327 1,010 899 2,236 148.7

Hindi 313 197 300 306 694 831 1,430 72.1

Tagalog 122 263 88 146 680 794 693 –12.7

Sanskrit 384 265 250 251 377 363 487 34.2

Pilipino 203 –0 132 196 –0 –0 449 NA

Hindi-Urdu 161 76 101 125 263 448 427 –4.7

Thai 71 80 108 192 278 272 330 21.3

Hmong – – – 13 170 15 283 1,786.7

Indonesian 121 127 156 222 256 223 225 0.9

Samoan 0 18 56 69 179 207 201 –2.9

Cantonese 42 36 111 83 33 39 180 361.5

Urdu 41 23 49 90 88 35 152 334.3

Tamil 33 25 36 35 55 45 114 153.3

Punjabi 0 0 1 8 42 32 99 209.4

Ilocano 58 17 28 72 146 171 91 –46.8

Tibetan 61 56 50 75 67 80 78 –2.5

Total 1,639 1,257 1,641 2,210 4,338 4,454 7,475

Percentage change – –23.3 30.5 34.7 96.3 2.7 67.8

Table 10b

Enrollments in Sixteen Leading Native American Languages in Selected Years, with Percentage Change

Change from

Language 1974 1980 1986 1990 1995 1998 2002 1998 to 2002 (%)

Hawai‘ian 570 610 441 913 1,890 2,007 1,687 –15.9

Navajo 587 225 273 186 832 297 783 163.6

Dakota/Lakota 112 109 168 158 465 334 610 82.6

Ojibwa 95 84 184 231 321 251 270 7.6

Muskogee (Creek) 20 0 0 0 0 85 132 55.3

Cherokee 15 29 22 57 73 175 118 –32.6

Arapahoe 0 0 15 15 9 4 112 2,700.0

Tlingit 0 5 0 0 0 17 108 535.3

Eskimo 0 0 0 0 0 46 99 115.2

Kiowa 0 0 0 0 0 49 77 57.1

Choctaw 12 0 0 8 0 83 63 –24.1

Salish 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 NA

Crow Indian 0 16 14 21 38 9 55 511.1

Inupiaq 30 0 32 48 0 22 51 131.8

Quechua 29 23 17 37 41 58 51 –12.1

Papago 15 0 0 5 39 32 49 53.1

Total 1,485 1,101 1,166 1,679 3,708 3,469 4,321

Percentage change – –25.9 5.9 44.0 120.8 –6.4 24.6


Following national trends, enrollments dipped in

1980 and began to climb slowly through the rest of

the decade: a 5.1% increase from 1980 to 1986;

48.2% from 1986 to 1990; and, much more steeply,

119.6% from 1990 to 1995. Despite a slight decline of

–8.5% from 1995 to 1998, these languages have in-

creased since 1998 by 24.6% and have almost tripled

since 1974. Though it has lost some enrollments,

Hawai‘ian still has the largest total enrollment (39%)

of the top sixteen Native American languages taught;

however Navajo and Dakota-Lakota made impressive

gains of 163.6% and 82.6%, respectively.

The 2002 statistics on enrollments in foreign lan-

guages in United States institutions of higher educa-

tion show that trends established in previous surveys

are continuing: Spanish is still the language chosen by

most students who study languages and is becoming

ever more significant in the undergraduate curriculum.

While the number of students studying other languages

is slightly less than half the total, these students are

pursuing a greater variety of languages. Some of the

more commonly taught languages—French, German,

and Russian—do not enjoy the enrollments they did

during the 1970s but now have become stable or have

increased slightly. While the 17.0% increase in total

language enrollments (table 1) is substantial,2 the pro-

portion of modern foreign language (MFL) enroll-

ments to every 100 institutional enrollments (table 4)

has remained relatively constant over the years. The

current proportion of 8.6 MFL enrollments per hun-

dred institutional enrollments should be taken as a

good sign, not only because it is the highest since 1972

but also because the college population grew at a faster

pace between the last two surveys than it had during

the surveys of 1990, 1995, and 1998. The index of

growth for institutional enrollments, showing increases

in college student population since 1960, rose by

11.7% between 1990 and 1995, by 6.5% between 1995

and 1998, by 29.0% between 1998 and 2002. Consid-

ering that growth, the 0.7% increase in MFL enroll-

ments per hundred institutional enrollments for the

2002 survey is significant: foreign language enrollments

are keeping pace with and improving slightly in rela-

tion to the increase in the college student population.

Notes

The author wishes to thank Michael Pisapia, the project re-

search assistant who collected the data; Richard Brod, former

MLA director of special projects and founding director of

ADFL; and MLA staff members David Goldberg and Natalia

Lusin. The author is particularly indebted to Natalia Lusin, who

verified and corrected the data.1These figures are taken from the 2002 Digest of Educational

Statistics, published by the National Center for Education Sta-

tistics. Projections for 2002 enrollments can be found at

nces.ed.gov//pubs2002/proj2012/table_16.asp and nces.ed.gov//

pubs2002/proj2012/table_18.asp.2This percentage gain is the largest since 1990. Gains and

losses of total enrollments in previous years are: –1.4% in 1970,

–9.2% in 1972, –6.2% in 1974, –1.4% in 1977, –0.9% in 1980,

4.5% in 1983, 3.9% in 1986, 18% in 1990, –3.8% in 1995,

4.8% in 1998.


Appendix ARegional Comparison of 2002 Undergraduate Enrollments in Sixteen Leading Languages

South South Rocky Pacific National

Language Northeast Midwest Atlantic Central Mountain Coast (Total)

Spanish 143,587 157,214 167,090 87,819 58,837 121,770 736,317

Percentage of national 19.5 21.4 22.7 11.9 8.0 16.5 100.0

French 46,540 44,680 48,065 19,088 11,452 27,549 197,374


German 16,580 27,456 18,870 6,702 6,634 12,055 88,297


Italian 26,192 10,459 9,350 2,813 3,101 10,937 62,852


American Sign Language 8,818 11,613 7,744 4,989 6,882 20,614 60,660


Japanese 9,132 9,980 6,582 2,320 4,023 19,271 51,308


Chinese 8,822 5,166 4,228 1,431 1,933 11,639 33,219


Latin 6,127 7,197 7,200 3,736 1,688 2,848 28,796


Russian 6,034 5,198 4,159 1,442 2,289 4,029 23,151


Greek 2,111 4,128 3,750 1,982 780 1,592 14,343


Biblical Hebrew 5,732 1,242 1,132 357 135 452 9,050


Arabic 2,184 2,219 2,246 652 692 2,060 10,053


Modern Hebrew 4,091 1,491 1,207 280 339 793 8,201


Portuguese 2,202 1,250 1,886 516 1,244 800 7,898


Korean 1,147 592 393 152 323 2,493 5,100


Vietnamese 113 45 97 117 36 1,780 2,188


Appendix BStatus of Foreign Language Offerings at Institutions That Reported UndergraduateEnrollments in Fall 1998 or Fall 2002 but Not in Both

Table B1

Institutions Reporting Enrollments in 2002 but Not in 1998

New Offerings Language Available in 1998 Status Not

Language since 1998 but No Enrollments Reported Reported Total

Spanish 38 36 145 219

French 49 70 83 202

German 39 50 38 127

Italian 49 40 37 126

American Sign Language 187 24 240 451

Japanese 67 22 25 114

Chinese 84 24 20 128

Latin 25 62 21 108

Russian 28 24 13 65

Ancient Greek 20 48 49 117

Biblical Hebrew 20 33 38 91

Arabic 74 12 17 103

Modern Hebrew 13 7 15 35

Portuguese 35 13 8 56

Korean 11 10 4 25

Table B2

Institutions Reporting Enrollments in 1998 but Not in 2002

Discontinued Language Available in 2002 Status Not

Language Offerings since 1998 but No Enrollments Reported Reported Total

Spanish 3 13 90 106

French 46 69 54 169

German 60 62 34 156

Italian 16 24 11 51

American Sign Language 4 9 2 15

Japanese 40 34 26 100

Chinese 16 25 14 55

Latin 13 45 15 73

Russian 59 38 24 121

Ancient Greek 10 40 19 69

Biblical Hebrew 6 40 13 59

Arabic 8 11 8 27

Modern Hebrew 7 10 5 22

Portuguese 6 13 5 24

Korean 4 4 2 10

Reasons for lack of enrollments include changes in student demand, lack of faculty availability, courses offered on a staggered schedule,

or a combination of these reasons. This category includes languages listed in the course catalogue but having no reported enrollments.

The New Offerings column is for languages newly listed and offered at an institution since 1998. The Discontinued Offerings column

is for languages that are no longer listed in the catalog, though they were available in 1998.


5811249v1

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing OPPOSER'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DECLARATION OF PETER H. JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF

OPPOSER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and DECLARATION OF BRENNAN

C. SWAIN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, have

been sent by U.S. mail to the attorney of record for Applicant:

Jose GutmanFleit, Gibbons, Gutman, Bongini, PL551 N.W. 77th StreetBoca Raton, FL 33487

Dated: January 28, 2009 __________________________________

Michelle Boothby

PJ MSJ

Documents

Transcript of PJ MSJ