As the proud owner of a diploma I can't read, I'm partial to the pointless persistence of Latin in academia. But Christopher A. Francese, in today's New York Times, makes a persuasive case for the opposition:

Latin is a beautiful language and a relief from the incessant novelty and informality of the modern age. But when its used on diplomas, the effect is to obfuscate, not edify; its function is to overawe, not delight. The goal of education is the creation and transmission of knowledge not the creation and transmission of prestige. Why, then, celebrate that education with a document that prizes grandiosity over communication?

Growing up Catholic has left me with a special affection, if not an aptitude, for Latin -- and for honoring tradition for its own sake. On the other hand, I have to admit, if there are typos in the degree on my wall, I'm none the wiser. And I know enough to know Francese is telling the truth when he says:

Hiding behind the lovely calligraphy are maddening syntax and appalling neologisms. How do you say the name of every college town in Latin? You shouldnt have to.

("Connecticutensi" -- who am I kidding?) Behind this Latin-or-English debate is the question of what a diploma is actually for, something I hadn't given much thought up to now. I guess I just figured it was for display. The use of Latin feels to me like a decorative touch, like the faux-hand-lettered Gothic/faux-engraved capitals script that looks so nice on my wall. And, of course, looking at all that Latin reminds me that my learning isn't done. One of these days, I'll take a class and learn more than the few scattered phrases of Church Latin I have now. One of these days...