I am an average American who is aware of my shortcomings. One of these shortcomings is my inability to speak a foreign language with some level of proficiency. Despite three years of French class in high school and two at the University, I can still only speak at what could be described as an elementary manner with such an atrocious accent it makes native speakers cringe.
Despite this, I took issue with the Emerald editorial board’s Jan. 17 editorial “No, Non, Nein; In any tongue ‘no’ to language requirement,” that described this University’s two year language requirement as “merely a nuisance” and “nothing more than a bother” for students.
I’ll admit that I would often swing from bored to frustrated during my French classes. And I’m sure I gave my professors an equal sense of frustration at my inability to grasp basic French. But looking back, I have begun to understand the purpose of the requirement for a bachelor of arts degree.
The editorial board stated “language enrichment is counterproductive” when students are required to take language courses. I feel this argument is false on two counts. The first being if that argument is taken further, all requirements are counterproductive based on their nature of being requirements. And secondly, from my own experience, I know I have been enriched by studying a different language. As a journalism student, I found it interesting at times to study a foreign language and I still feel lucky to drop the occasional French phrase, even though it probably isn’t completely correct.
I mentioned before that I’m an average American, and that leads to another point in defense of the requirement. As an American, I’ve been shortchanged by our language education. I’m not terribly upset about this because I feel it makes more sense for foreigners to learn English. Yet I feel in light of the United States’ poor foreign language education system, it is unreasonable for the editorial board to expect the language curriculum to be specialized for majors because it would entail a higher level of language proficiency. It’s a stretch to say that first and second year foreign language students should be speaking in terms of their majors when they can barely converse on a basic level.
As to immersion programs and years abroad that the editorial board argues is a better way to educate students in foreign languages, I agree these are good methods. But again, one has to have a certain level of proficiency in the basics before they reap the full benefit of such programs. I’m a skier, and when I was learning to ski I went through two methods of instruction. The first was being left on top of the mountain and then told to make it down any way I could. The other was hours of patient and considerate training by my father. My father’s instruction proved to be the most valuable, just like two years of slow and careful instruction in a foreign language would prove.
I don’t take my inability to speak French as a sign of this school’s failed language requirement. I view it as my own problem, but I do see this language requirement as one part of my education, which is this institution’s responsibility to provide.