Yes, Please

It is all too easy to scorn the foreign language requirement as a barnacle of tradition. Its existence can not be justified by either statistics or cold empirical proof, but only by an appeal to values.

Any university must set the criteria of what it deems a "well-educated" man. Just as Harvard requires some study in the three areas of General Education, it demands a foreign language for many of the same reasons. Part of the educational experience, simply, is to learn something about another culture. The intellectual and literary traditions of another people, their values and the flavor of their life--these are perspectives opened by language study. It is difficult to envision any definition of an educated man which excludes the ability to communicate with other educated men, of whatever background. The fact that such qualities can not be tested or measured is no indication that they are meaningless.

On a more political plane, the nation's diplomatic and cultural resources have benefited greatly by the recent recognition of the value of foreign languages. An abolition of the requirement by Harvard would seriously weaken the position of those who have advocated such a recognition. In the absence of compelling reasons within the College this move would be irresponsible, and the number of students who presently go beyond the required level would indicate that no such reasons exist.

By the same token, no reasons exist for raising the requirement. Of the 85 per cent who now continue study above the official minimum, perhaps 10 per cent could not reach the proposed score of 650. And of these at least half could pass an intermediate course with a D--. Clearly, then, a raise in the requirement would not appreciably affect the level currently being attained by the Harvard student body.

Proponents of the higher standard claim that 560 is an object of ridicule by many students. In fact, most regard it not as an affront but as merely another regulation, not a very accurate measure of achievement, but hardly worthy of much attention. A substitution of the CEEB tests for the Harvard test might well improve the efficiency of the evaluating process; raising the level required, on the other hand, would only increase undergraduate irritation. Even a student who approves of Gen Ed in principle is likely to complain about having to participate in it. A high language standard is prone to be viewed as a pain, not as a "recognition of true ability."

It is argued further that Harvard's cellar standard projects a bad image of its students. But a college's image is made not so much by what it requires as by what its graduates have achieved. That Harvard has provided the courses and the intellectual atmosphere to induce its students to go beyond what it demands--by their own volition--is no small victory. This initiative under only token compulsion argues more loudly for Harvard's "image" than would a high requirement. The present system is more than merely adequate. It is deserving of justifiable pride.