The Foreign Language Requirement

In the first yeare after admission, for foure dayes of the weeke, all Students shall be exercised in the study of the Greeke and Hebrew Tongues."

When Harvard's President Charles Chauncy issued this statement in 1655, the university required a three year program of Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac for undergraduates (a knowledge of Latin was assumed). This requirement eventually evolved into a two year requirement for those students not proficient in a foreign language. And this, in turn, was finally changed to a one year requirement in 1968.

Recently, the language requirement has become increasingly unpopular. Dwight Bolinger coordinator of Language Instruction, cites portions of letters received by his tutors from distressed undergraduates."

"The language requirement made my academic career at Harvard a...frustrating and disappointing one. It killed (my) chances to graduate with honors. It pulled down my grades in other subjects...I worked very hard at French but to no avail...I became so frustrated that I could not get any constructive studying done."

"The damn language requirement will be my nemesis. I took a year's leave primarily because of the strain the language requirement placed on my other courses...For those of us who have trouble with languages, the requirement is more than an inconvenience--it is a catastrophe."

It would be an understatement to say that many Harvard undergraduates remain unimpressed by the compulsory language courses. General reaction ranges from. "Well, it could be worse," to "Goddmann, it screws my entire freshman year!" There are of course, those students who maintain they are extremely pleased with their language classes, and that if it were not for the requirement, they would not have enrolled in such a course. For the average Harvard freshman, however, the language requirement represents, at best, an added incentive to take a language class, and at worst, a time-consuming psychological and academic disaster.

But there is a way out.

A waiver of the foreign language requirement, instituted eight years ago, excuses student with pertinent physiological disabilities from language courses. The waiver is aimed at aiding those with a specific reading disability called strephosymbolia, and also those with an auditory discrimination handicap.

Kenneth T. Dinklage, a UHS psychologist, says that strephosymbolia manifests itself in a student's tendency to reverse syllables or letters of words while reading, or to perceive a letter as its mirror image. That is, he may read "was" for "saw" and may see "b" for "d." There is also an inclination to confuse right and left. Dinklage gives an example of a quarterback with strephosymbolia who frequently wiped out his own backfield as he ran the opposite way from a play he himself had called.

The auditory discrimination handicap is an inability to distinguish adequately between sounds. Harvard's reliance upon the audio-lingual method of teaching a language makes a student with this handicap unable to participate or to learn properly in these courses.

There are fairly stringment guidelines for the granting of requirement waivers, in order to insure the legitimacy of a student's claim. If a student does poorly on the Foreign Language Placement Test, he is automatically given the Modern Language Aptitude Test to reveal the possible presence of language learning disabilities. If the test indicates the possibility of strephosymbolia or an auditory discrimination problem, he is interviewed by a UHS psychologist who determines whether a waiver is in order.

It is theoretically possible for a student to purposely fail the placement exam and the aptitude test, and then convince the psychologist of his need for an exemption. Indeed, students have succeeded in this poly. But Dinklage says there are safeguards in the interview that should disqualify those who are not legitimately in need of a waiver.

The guidelines for exempting students have been liberalized since the waiver's inception in 1963. At that time, it was necessary for a student to achieve a "suffering quotient" by failing a few language courses and thus proving his inability to learn a foreign language. According to Dinklage, there is now much more of an emphasis on spotting those who are specifically disabled in regard to language learning before they waste several semesters in a course.

Yet for many of the students who are not eligible for exemption, the language requirement remains a formidable obstacle. A survey cited by Bolinger, taken three years ago of 215 students who had not met the language requirement on entrance to Harvard, revealed the following:

Only 2 per cent thought that the requirement was good, while 31 per cent felt that it was bad and 30 per cent that it was "so-so." The remaining 12 per cent described the whole language experience as terrible and language study as detrimental to college work in general.

There have been suggestions for changing the language requirement to make it less abhorrent to so many people. Bolinger himself suggests offering courses such as black English to promote a better understanding of American minorities. Other possibilities include courses on a foreign culture in lieu of the language, or the abolition of the foreign language requirement altogether.

This last option has been accepted increasingly by colleges and universities around the country. According to a recent survey of 1,206 institutions of higher education by the Modern Language Association, 88.9 per cent had a foreign language requirement for the B.A. degree in 1966. But in 1971, only 76.7 per cent of these colleges and universities retained the requirement.

This tren towards abolition or reduction of the language requirement comed for several reasons. Dean Edward Sullivan of Princeton where the language requirement was doubled a few years ago points out that there is a growing opposition to academic restraints in general. He says that the foreign language requirements is the first to be assaulted because it is likely to be the most rigorous and the most visible.

Another reason which Bolinger points out is that a student who learns in a language class against his will is likely to bring down the level of the class. This unwillingness can stem from dislike of the language learning process or from more deeply rooted mental blocks.

Finally, there is the case of the student who simply finds it extremely difficult to learn a foreign language, but has no legitimate reason for exemption. Although may be very conscientious and spend a vastly disproportionate amount of time studying for his class, he is unable to complete the coursework competently. The student's other classes may suffer from this lack of attention. This raises the question of whether or not it is fair to require such a student to learn a foreign language.

Yet despite the trend towards liberalization of the language requirement, some professors, administrators and students uphold the requirement's status quo, or even advocate increasing its duration. Hugo H. Montero, lecturer on Romance Languages, gives three supporting arguments:

First, the necesity of learning a language would forward the goals of "one worldism" in this non-isolation era of constant, permeating world-wide communication. International cooperation can depend upon the communication between the world's people.

Second, knowledge of a foreign language gives the student a broader perspective of the world, necessary for an education, by introducing him to another culture.

Third, and based on the above two reasons, if Harvard, as one of the most prestigious American univesities, were to abolish its language requirement, a great many high schools might follow suit by cutting down on their language programs.

From a departmental point of view, the abolition of the language requirement could cause a decrease in enrollment in language classes. This might necessitate the dismissal, or half in hiring, of members of the teaching staff.

The Modern Language Association Survey showed that schools which have abolished their language requirements have, in general, experienced some decrease in language course enrollment. In a sample survey of 100 institutions they found that 25 per cent of college entrants attended language courses in 1965 when the requirement was intact. All of these institutions rescinded the language requirements in subsequent years, and in 1970, with no requirement, 14.9 per cent of entering students signed up for language courses.

Yale University, however, which abolished its foreign language requirement four years ago, has not experienced the same results. Grant Robley, the Yale registrar, says that the average enrollment in language classes has since decreased only slightly, and that there has been no great cut in the number of teaching personnel.

The existing language prerequisites for entrance to many graduate fields further complicates the possibilities for change or elimination of the language requirement. A student with no language preparation who decides upon a field of concentration which has a language prerequisite in the graduate field must take a foreign language. But if his decision to major in a particular subject is taken in his sophomore or junior year, the time-consuming language course may make his work load exceedingly strenuous, considering the concentration requirements which must also be fulfilled.

Victor H. Brombert, chairman of the Yale Romance Language Department says that this has not been a problem at Yale. He explains that advisors put pressure on all feshmen who do not have a knowledge of a foreign language to enroll in a language course. This is especially true for students considering the possibility of majoring in a subject with a language prerequisite.

Yet despite the absence of a language requirement at its fellow Ivy League school, Harvard is not likely to follow suit in the near future. W.C. Burris Young '55, assistant dean of Freshmen, states that as of now, there are no pending plans for change.

"The language requirement is there," he comments philosophically, "and it's simply a good idea to get it out of the way early."

Harvard students will continue to face the dilemma of the foreign language requirement for some time to come