The author does in fact mention it briefly which is worse than not mentioning it. By mentioning it he acknowledges that he understands the motivation for the la

The author does in fact mention it briefly which is worse than not mentioning it. By mentioning it he acknowledges that he understands the motivation for the law but then proceeds to make an argument against the law which completely ignores the purpose behind it. It is unfortunate that he sees this as some sort of binary choice. As if the proposed law would eliminate foreign language study rather than offering students a choice of academic paths.