So says Russell A. Berman, professor of Humanities and German at Stanford University. Arguing against the kneejerk cuts of language programs at all levels of education in the United States, Berman presents a strong case that learning a second language costs very little compared to the enormous advantages it provides. If the US really wants to remain a global player, Berman writes, second language learning must be strengthened not cut:
These language programs, targeted for cuts, are the ones that enable students to encounter another culture through that profound identification afforded only by language acquisition. Learning another culture’s language allows students to experience that culture from the inside;…”
The comparison to Europe is especially startling:
In Europe, some 50 percent of the population over the age of fifteen report being able to carry on a conversation in a second language, and the European Union has set a goal of equipping all citizens with proficiency in two non-native languages. This level of language ability will obviously represent an enormous human resource in the global economy, which is to say that the American model of education for monolingualism deprives our students of the skills they will need in tomorrow’s economy. The endemic hostility to language learning is a war against our next generation.
And not only is the US behind on second-language learning, its quickly becoming less literate in general:
The unfortunate corollary, however, is that the degradation of second-language study contributes to declining literacy in the United States, a decline that is evidenced by the poor performance of US students in the 2009 study of the Program for International Student Assessment. […] As far as reading ability goes, the United States—whose educational system was once the envy of the world—ranks only fourteenth, far behind the schools in parts of China, South Korea, Finland, Singapore, and Canada. Yes, we have a language crisis in the United States, and the lack of second-language learning is now spilling over into first-language literacy deficiencies. For all of our monolingualism, we don’t even learn our one privileged language well.
Read the entire article here.
I’ve been meaning to share this for a while, but never got around to doing it. As part of my work on redesigning the assessment plan for the German Studies program and also rethinking the undergraduate research education for our undergraduate students, I have been reading a lot about the role of the liberal arts and the humanities, usually in the context of “crisis”. While doing this I came across Cathy N. Davidson’s article in the AAUP magazine Academe, titled “Strangers on a Train.”
Davidson keenly observes how the humanities are not innocent in their current difficult situation. But she also boldly claims that there hasn’t been a better time than the one we’re living in to reclaim the relevance of humanities disciplines:
We now live in an age that requires synthesis and reconnection across isolated and overly specialized fields throughout the university (by no means just in the humanities). If the university is in intellectual crisis (in addition to economic crisis), it is the consequence of a mismatch between the educational needs of our era and the antiquated design of our educational systems. In short, we need a wholesale reconceptualization and transformation of the industrial-age university for a global, interactive, interdisciplinary digital age. The humanities have the skills to put the present university in historical perspective and to lead its reformation, to turn a crisis into an opportunity. First we must acknowledge our complicity in the current crisis. Until we acknowledge our complicity, we will change nothing—but others will change us, whether we like it or not. There seems to be no third alternative in this version of the “crisis in the humanities.
Go and read the article, it’s worth it!