Language, like culture, was once considered a closed system of meaning, which when deciphered by the anthropologist would reveal the secrets of the society they observed. Having deconstructed language and culture to recognize the inherent inability to untangle the anthropologists own language and culture from that of the subject, it has become necessary to reassess what we actually know about language and culture and what it can tell us about social phenomena. In this vein, this paper interrogates the linguistic situation in Doha, Qatar, where an education reform initiative designed to engender an Arab and Islamic intellectual revival has taken as its first steps the development of English language in every sector of education, from pre-school to higher education. While English is viewed as the language of math, science and technology and overall economic and social progress, Arabic is invested with the responsibility to “preserve tradition” and maintain a connection to the larger Arab community and the history of the region. In the process of reforming the Qatari education system there have been many criticisms regarding their use of Western agencies, institutions and languages. While the state vigorously defends the Arabic and Islamic character of these reforms, there is a growing disconnect between the state’s vision and the inequity of language education in Qatar’s schools. Throughout the course of fieldwork, it was evident that the reform was preparing the elite of Qatari society to speak, read and write English extremely well, but was failing them in giving them comparable skills in Arabic. Several ethnographic accounts reveal the concern of Arab educators regarding this conundrum and even reform leaders recognizing the absence in quantity and quality Arabic instruction. As English becomes an increasing part of the curriculum in schools in Qatar, it is becoming imperative that the visionaries of this cultural and educational renaissance address the oft-mentioned concerns of interlocutors regarding Arab identity and language. This paper addresses the catch-22 of a state presenting a facade of linguistic unity while in actuality subverting it with linguistic plurality and in some instances, hegemony.