A Classical Language Requirement

What was once traditional has now become a radical proposition: that Columbia College students be required to take Latin or ancient Greek, rather than a modern language. Yet there are good reasons for such a requirement: studying a classical language improves verbal skills and introduces students to other cultures more effectively than studying a modern language.

Because of the formalized study of grammar they entail, classical language courses improve verbal and analytical skills in a way that modern language courses do not. Classics majors have higher combined Graduate Record Examination scores than virtually any other students, including modern language majors. Of course, because of the third variable here—the self-selection bias—that statistic is irrelevant. However, it is surely relevant that the combined GRE scores of classics majors showed a drop at about the same time that classics programs began de-emphasizing the languages and teaching more civilization courses. This indicates a relationship between the verbal and analytical skills tested by the GRE and experience in the classical languages. These skills are most likely affected by the close analytical work required by the intensive study of grammar. As a student of French, Latin, and Greek, I can testify to the fact that the level of analytical and grammatical work I do in French is not comparable to the work I do in Latin or Greek. Nor could it be—most modern languages have much simpler grammars than Latin or Greek, and in any case, the emphasis in modern language courses is on communication, not on the formal study of grammar.

Once the grammars have been mastered, the focus of classical language courses is purely literary. As a result, studying a classical language teaches students more about other cultures. For example, a two-year course in Greek might consist of two semesters of Greek grammar, and then a semester each of reading Plato and Homer. While the student of German is learning how to order a sandwich, his counterpart in Greek is reading the Republic. This more literary approach certainly pays off when it comes to appreciating the cultures of Greece and Rome.

Finally, learning a classical language would enrich discussion in both Literature Humanities and Contemporary Civilization. Imagine if students could refer to the literary features of the original Greek text of Medea. No language is as represented in Literature Humanities as Greek is, or in CC as Latin is, and even those texts that weren’t originally in Greek or Latin often refer extensively to the classical texts to which students would be exposed in their language courses.

I realize that the Core is already criticized for its Western focus, and the foreign language requirement could be seen as an opportunity to pursue the study of another culture. However, judging by enrollment numbers, most students are pursuing European languages anyway. Further, it is highly questionable whether one learns much culture in an elementary Arabic course, when the primary focus of the course is linguistic. Finally, there already is a part of the Core devoted to non-Western cultures: the Global Core. If the Global Core is insufficient for that purpose, then that is a problem with the Global Core. There is no reason to force the language requirement to serve the same purpose.

Such a complaint would merely be specious: although it is true that Greek and Roman cultures contributed mightily to the foundations of Western cultures, their attitudes toward gender, politics, and religion were strikingly different from those of Western cultures of today. They were not even confined physically to the West: Roman lands included parts of North Africa. Indeed, it would be hard to find a modern society more “foreign” than either Greece or Rome. America arguably has more in common with modern Japan than with Sparta. The study of the classical languages actually exposes students to cultures that are in many ways more different from our own than another modern culture.

Some might say that with increased globalization, it is essential that students be able to speak the language of another country. Knowledge of a classical language actually facilitates learning a modern language, more so than a modern language does for another modern language. Because the Latin and Greek grammars are so complex, in order to learn a modern language, it is usually just a question of what to subtract from the Latin or Greek grammar already mastered. Moreover, the level of a modern language attained after two years at Columbia is generally not high enough to permit students to immediately live or work abroad without further instruction in that language. Students who are interested in doing so have to take extra language courses anyway. In addition, utility cannot be the standard by which Core requirements are judged. Almost any discipline could benefit the modern student in some way, but it is unrealistic to include every useful skill in the Core—and as already shown, classical languages are themselves useful to know. I am not suggesting that we add a requirement, but rather modify an existing one to improve it.

The study of classical languages has been in decline for a while now. Indeed, very few high schools teach them. College will likely be the only opportunity students ever have to engage with classical languages, whereas modern languages are widely taught even at the middle school level. We should be continuing this educational tradition, not allowing it to die without comment.

The author is a Columbia College sophomore.