The (in)justice of EMI: a critical discourse analysis of two key stakeholders’ views on the Polytechnic University of Milan court case

While English-medium Instruction (EMI) continues to be appealing for various stakeholders, it also raises some epistemological and ethical concerns, which have in the past found expression in polarized debates. A well-known example is the 2012 Milan court case, in which the academic staff sued the Polytechnic University of Milan over its attempt to promote an EMI-only policy. Now almost ten years after the case, the motivations of the key proponents and opponents of the policy are yet to be explored in depth. In order to explain how different interpretations of EMI could result in such unreconcilable positions, in this paper we adopt a new analytical angle, focusing on two elite participants: the rector who promoted the policy and the lawyer (also a faculty member) who represented the lecturers in court. Via a critical discourse analysis of interviews to these participants, we aim to unveil how different stakeholders from the same context frame EMI in relation to ideas of justice/injustice. Results indicate that, despite comparable personal commitment to education and similar understandings of language/power interactions, the participants evaluate English against different frames of reference (i.e. a horizon of globalized education, versus the traditional national understanding of the goals of education). This leads to diametrically opposite evaluations of the growing presence of English in higher education.