ONE of educational achievements of war period has been to confirm recognition of value and importance of place of foreign languages in a program of education. Public interest has been aroused in subject, even though it be admitted that some of statements about new methods of instruction have been exaggerated but, to best of my knowledge, by no one directly connected with experiment. It would be unfortunate, however, if advocates of study of foreign languages were now to sit back in complacent belief that a lasting victory has been won. They cannot relax their vigilance, for opposition to study of foreign languages as part of a sound liberal education has not disappeared. That opposition is greatest among those who are planning reform of secondary education and comes paradoxically at a time when those concerned with education at college and university level have bent their efforts to preservation of humanities, in which study of foreign languages will have an assured place. The methods of attack are curious and among them most curious is that which looks for political motives in minds of those who advocate a liberal education rooted in academic subjects. In The Educational Forum (March, 1945) Mr. A. Gordon Melvin attacks Hutchins, Stringfellow Barr, and Mark Van Doren. To me, he writes, men stand for a reaction. Furthermore, this kind of reaction could be an easy ally of Fascism. These men are unwittingly collaborating with destructive forces. Having demolished front line of these enemies of democracy and progress, Mr. Melvin rushes forward confidently to attack all advocates of what he calls the backward look for which Lot's wife became a pillar of salt. So too will all those who in spirit of reaction sponsor old 'Liberal Education.' Educational reaction may not be a deliberate ally of Fascism but it lays itself open to such an alliance. Educational reaction means for Mr. Melvin the old predetermined MathematicsClassical Literature-Foreign Language-curriculum which uses to make learners learn in name of authority. Its advocates must believe in discipline by use of force which results in conformity on part of students, assent, affirmation, agreement, but never in training free men.