A defense of Latin

This is my response (paragraphs added) to one woman's anti-Latin blog post.

As a Latin teacher, this is how I make my living. But you're right. For anyone living in or around or near a large community of foreign language speakers, the conclusion, which you draw, is correct. Resoundingly so. However. (And here is my standard defense of Latin when vocabulary/grammar/writing advantages are cast aside—and frankly those are skills separate from Latin, whatever uses Latin may have in teaching them.) In order to know where you're going, you must know where you came from. Latin is our heritage as Western Christians. From antiquity through the medieval era to the Renaissance, Latin was the intellectual language of the Christian West. Even after Latin's second death in the Renaissance, people with serious educations (the American founders for Americans) were steeped in the Latin tradition. Latin is where we, collectively in the West, came from. 

My secondary argument is that Americans (and I see you're living in Costa Rica, so this may be moot) live in a deeply monolingual world, which is a pity in its own right. Any foreign language will broaden a child's education, so why not pick one that will enrich their understanding of their own culture? You're shockingly fortunate to be living in a country where you and your children are able to learn a second language and culture by immersion. You're doubly fortunate to not have to do it as a disadvantaged immigrant. Maligning Latin to people who may have marginal use for low-level Spanish isn't useful. 

I am also painfully aware of how ungood many Latin curricula are, so I won't build them up. I'd also tell someone who wants to learn Spanish to learn Spanish, not Latin—no matter how useful Latin may be toward learning Spanish. Yes, Latin is strangely popular among homeschoolers—I am delighted by that for reasons of light and heat at home—but it isn't for everyone.

Again, I reiterate, maybe Latin isn't for you. But to write it off as foolish or time-wasting is just as bad as me suggesting that learning Spanish is to learn the language of farmhands and fast-food workers. Que no digo. The vast and screaming majority of  students don't even bother with a foreign language at all. So no matter what language (and I'm rather fond of Latin), there's work to be done.

In the Department of Education’s more comprehensive survey of college students, the proportion of students taking no language courses was 58.4 percent. (Panetta)

We in America have a privileged situation. We speak the most geographically widespread language with a very high number of native speakers and economic privilege: English. True, Latin isn't a help on that count, but at the very least it will give students a direct understanding of what their non-native English business partners went through as well as a deeper understanding of their culture's past. 

But as long as elite U.S. schools and universities continue to put little emphasis on the acquisition of foreign language capabilities, American executives will be monolingual and U.S. corporations will have to try and use English or buy foreign nationals who have the language ability where the business is located. A sad commentary for the strongest and most competitive economy in the world. (Panetta)

Sure, Latin has traditionally been associated with an elitist education, but there is zero reason for that to be true. Many homeschooling parents don't know Latin, but that's no reason to give up hope. Need help? I'm here.


Note: I don't really agree with Panetta's conclusions, but his analysis of the state of foreign language teaching in America is quite damning.