In a recent Guardianop-ed, Ben Tarnoff claims to expose a nefarious reason behind schools’ push to add computer science requirements to their core curriculum.

“The campaign for code education isn’t about giving the next generation a shot at earning the salary of a Facebook engineer,” he claims. “It’s about ensuring those salaries no longer exist, by creating a source of cheap labor for the tech industry.”

But this logic is deeply flawed. We teach science to children who want to be journalists. We teach world history to students who dream of playing professional sports. We maintain standards of fluency in these subjects because they are part and parcel of critical thinking, and hallmarks of a well-rounded education.

Learning to code teaches kids the mental discipline for breaking down problems logically and then solving them—a skillset that everyone can use. “We don’t expect all students to become computer scientists,” says Troy Williams, computer science integration manager at Chicago Public Schools. “But all students, no matter what their career [goals], can benefit from computational thinking.”

Computer science classes also teach young people that they can be producers and not just consumers—a critical step toward a healthy understanding of their place in the world. Kids who get a taste of computer science really grasp what it means to solve problems in their school, in their community, and on behalf of others.

By teaching students to program, we also open up their minds to the possibilities of solving problems in novel ways. Even if these kids never pursue technical careers — even if they grow up to be doctors, or bankers, or CEOs—they’ll understand the myriad ways that computers interact with other types of solutions. They’ll be equipped to create whole new ways of solving the issues our world faces now, and in the future.

But most importantly, we need to face up to the fact that standards change over time. Flawless penmanship and a rigorous grasp of Latin were once considered de riguerfor any well-educated person. These now-quaint notions of literacy were replaced in time by physics and French, then keyboarding and Cantonese. As we rapidly approach the 21st century’s second decade, we need to add coding to that list of critical skills for modern living. The fact that this is even up for debate is the only thing that should be controversial.

Of course, resistance to educating the masses—especially in skills that were once the exclusive domain of a few—is as old as history. Before the American Civil War, it was illegal to teach enslaved workers to read or write. Apartheid-era educational policies prevented South African blacks from communicating with one another, and organizing against the Afrikaner elite. The Taliban shot Malala Yousafzai for daring to promote girls’ education. It’s easier to maintain a slippery grip on privilege if you prevent others from accessing the tools that help you stay at the top of the pack.

But those who already enjoy positions of power shouldn’t fear change. Even leaders of old-school industries like auto manufacturing agree that America desperately needs more programmers and engineers in order to regain our global advantage. We need to stop fretting about imaginary plots to flood the market with low-wage programmers, and embrace reality: Technical fluency is critical to our national success and to our global humanity.

Elizabeth Ames is the Senior Vice President of Marketing, Alliances, and Programs at the Anita Borg Institute. She previously held senior management positions at Apple, Verifone, Netcentives, and RETHINK Partners, where she was Founder and CEO.