It’s important, but...
Abstract
In this article, we provide an analysis of discourses for and against the second language (L2) requirements on American university and college campuses. Facing enrollment declines in language programs, professional advocacy for L2 learning has shifted from liberal arts education ideals to practical benefits associated with multilingualism. Such benefits are often recognized by the discourses that attack the L2 requirement, according to our critical analysis. Often organized in the discursive pattern of “language learning is important, but…,” these discourses tend to argue that 1) L2 learning should be a choice and not a requirement, 2) the L2 requirement is a source of stress and a burden, and 3) the L2 requirement does not aim at full proficiency and therefore achieves nothing. We follow this discourse analysis with a reflective case study of our own experience advocating for the L2 requirement on our university campus, where we have encountered all three of these arguments. Our goal therefore is to show that these discourses are not unique to one institution, but rather common ways of attacking the L2 requirement. We conclude with implications for sustainable and meaningful advocacy that can directly counteract these skepticisms.