The teaching of foreign languages has been discussed more frequently and with more favorable implications in the past two years than in several pre-Sputnik decades. Most of the discussion has centered upon the aural-oral or audio-lingual aspects of language study with special emphasis on electronic teaching aids. In the Bay State Foreign Languages Bulletin (Univ. of Massachusetts), for example, Professor Theodore Mueller, of the Univ. of Florida, writes, Language is primarily an oral means of communication. Speech is the primary form of language, the written form is only its surrogate. Despite the high esteem the written language enjoys through literature, it is comparable to the Morse code or to sign language.' This statement begins with a truism, and it ends with an absurd comparison. We would do well to question the wisdom of giving undue emphasis to such ideas in our discussion of teaching methods, language laboratories, etc., for one cannot help but infer therefrom a down-grading of the value of reading in a foreign language course. The stated aims of any and all Colleges of Liberal Arts can be summed up in words to this effect; to broaden knowledge in order to increase the understanding of man and the universe he inhabits, and to enrich the lives of individuals by enhancing their appreciation of, and their capacity for the life of the mind. This life of the mind embraces all aspects of our cultural heritage, whether they be categorized as Humanities or Sciences. As language teachers we do not question the value of our contribution to the liberal education of our students, but we run the risk of narrowing our goals if we concentrate too heavily on the aural-oral aspect of language teaching. There are many specialized schools which teach languages exclusively for purposes of communication. A good teacher of any subject should be himself an educated man; that is, he should be alert to the intellectual atmosphere of his own times and to the cultural tradition behind this atmosphere. No matter what specific field he may teach, his ultimate goal should be to contribute to the multiple reproduction of the educated man. A teacher of foreign languages, even on the first and second-year levels, is presented every day with opportunities to contribute consciously toward this goal. (The mere fact of the student's studying a foreign language contributes sub-consciously to it.) Every time a too literal-minded student asks, Why do Spanish-speaking people say, 'It makes cold' instead of 'It is cold'? the teacher has an opportunity to explain that different peoples see and do things in ways which are different from ours, but which are equally valid both in a relative and an absolute sense. If he can introduce a few remarks about Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture or some other work which treats such questions in detail, he may open a road to understanding to one of his students. Naturally, the teacher must not spend all of his class time on such digressions, but neglecting to avail himself of the manifold opportunities of this nature would be a disservice to the students and to the institution for which one works.