The University has recently terminated on-campus instruction in Dutch, Swedish and Turkish, as well as an English as a Second Language writing course titled English for Academic Purposes. Given President Skorton’s March 26 comments advocating cautiousness when eliminating programs that attract new students, these cuts denote nothing less than a broken promise.

Lately, many staff cuts have been justified as necessary to insulate students’ academic options from the repercussions of the budget crunch, but these course cuts suggest otherwise. Although staff and program reductions are inevitable, by first announcing that jobs were sacrificed for the sake of academics, and then watching courses get cut wholesale, makes us skeptical.

The University has yet to release an explanation of why Dutch or Swedish do not warrant an online option. The practice of replacing face-to-face courses with internet tutorials may prove to be a slippery slope. Offering Turkish solely as an online course seemingly undermines the value of language classes being taught in person — if we can do away with Turkish or Swedish courses so easily, how long will Bengali last? Or Nepali? Or Thai?

The implications of these cuts go beyond limiting students’ course selection choices. Cornell is aggressive at promoting study abroad to undergraduates, yet many programs require language proficiency. By whittling down the language course roster to only the more popular options ensures that fewer students will immerse themselves, fulfilling the worldly mission Cornell professes. This loss will affect not only the diversity of student experiences on campus, but the diversity of applicants and matriculated students as well.

In many cases, specialization determines the viability of professors and graduate students, and these program cuts may affect their competitiveness when applying for jobs in various areas of study. The removal of Dutch and Swedish, both of which boasted steady enrollments, represents a serious blow to Cornell’s standing as a destination institution for niche scholars.

Each year, hundreds of international students flood Cornell, bringing with them new cultural perspectives, academic backgrounds — and language barriers. These students are a boon to Cornell’s brain trust, but their value is lost if we allow a lack of ESL programming to hamper their communication.

A number of these foreign students are employed as graduate student TA’s in their field, and with good reason. Yet it is not unheard of for students to have trouble communicating with their instructor, even before the decision to cancel English for Academic Purposes, a course specifically designed to target grad students who wanted more language practice.

Instead of eliminating subjects altogether, we urge to University to consider offering unique language courses in alternating semesters. It also seems reasonable that in response to these cuts, more attention would be paid to facilitating student groups that encourage language study and practice, particularly for graduate TA’s and students whose courses were eliminated.

Thus far, the administration has proceeded with care while pruning extraneous programs from Cornell’s budget. But the abruptness with which effective and worthwhile language programs were disposed of is troubling. These cuts suggest an attitude that is at odds with Cornell’s commitment to diverse study.