Letter to the Editor: In defense of the language requirement

I am a language nerd. I have loved languages for as long as I can remember, and it has always been my goal to learn as many of them as I possibly can. When I first heard about the Tufts language requirement, I was drawn to the university even more, to this institution that puts such a high premium on knowing a language other than English. While I realize that not everyone is as enthused about learning new languages as I am, I was surprised — and if I’m being honest, somewhat indignant — when I saw the article"Editorial: Arts and Sciences should lessen the language requirement” that was published in the Daily on Tuesday, Feb. 27. I fundamentally disagree with several of the claims made in the article.

One of the main issues the editorial cited with the language requirement was that it “places a real strain on liberal arts students” by requiring more than the two classes necessary to fulfill other distribution requirements. However, what the author failed to note is that languages are not the same as world civilizations and humanities; they are taught differently, they employ different skills, and they are comprised of a different kind of information. It takes more semesters to acquire a basic understanding of a language than a basic understanding of a science or a humanity, so students would not be achieving the basic proficiency that is the goal of the language requirement if they did not take more than two semesters. The author also mentions that this inhibits students from taking other courses that they want to take, and possibly double majoring. However, Tufts does allow students to take non-language culture classes for three of the six semesters, allowing students to take classes that they are more interested in taking if languages aren’t their forte. Between this and double counting, most students are able to complete their language requirement and all major/minor requirements without sacrificing much more than time.

The second aspect of the argument presented in this editorial that I fundamentally disagree with is the idea that languages are not useful to STEM majors. Although engineers are not required to take a language, many choose to do so anyway, because they recognize that it is a valuable skill. I would go so far as to argue that pre-med, pre-vet, and pre-dental students have a particular need to learn a language, so that they can better serve their patients. Additionally, knowledge of foreign languages can be useful for doing research in many STEM fields. My father, for example, is a professor of computer science, but his knowledge of French and Chinese has been integral in forming professional relationships with European and Chinese academics and companies. What it comes down to is this: we live in a multilingual, multicultural, interconnected society, and frankly, there is no excuse for not at least attempting to learn a language other than English.

The final main point that I would like to confront is that the language requirement hurts admissions. I disagree with this as well, on several levels. First of all, this statement seems to imply that the language requirement as it is drives people away from Tufts. According to Tufts Now, 21,057 high schoolers applied to be members of the class of 2021, and application numbers have risen 28% over the past five years. Clearly, Tufts is not in any danger of driving people away. Additionally, I would argue that the emphasis on learning about other languages and cultures that the language requirement reflects is part of the appeal of Tufts. In fact, I mentioned the language requirement in my “Why Tufts?” essay, as part of what drew me to apply here.

At the end of the day, the language requirement is part of what makes Tufts so unique, what makes a Tufts degree so high quality, what makes Tufts graduates so well-rounded. I stand by the six semesters as an integral part of the Tufts education. But hey, I’m just one language nerd.