Would-be language teachers everywhere have one thing in common: they all want some recognition of their professional status and skills, and a job. The former requirement is obviously important on a personal level, but it is vital if you are to have any chance of finding work. Ten years ago, the situation was very different. In virtually every developing country, and in many developed countries as well, being a native English speaker was enough to get you employed as an English teacher. Now employers will only look at teachers who have the knowledge, the skills and attitudes to teach English effectively. The result of this has been to raise non-native English teachers to the same status as their native counterparts something they have always deserved but seldom enjoyed. Non-natives are now happy linguistic discrimination is a thing of the past. An ongoing research project, funded by the University of Cambridge, asked a sample of teachers, teacher educators and employers in more than 40 countries whether they regard the native/non-native speakers distinction as being at all important. NO was the answer. As long as candidates could teach and had the required level of English, it didn’t matter who they were and where they came from. Thus, a new form of discrimination this time justified because it singled out the unqualified liberated the linguistically oppressed . But the Cambridge project did more than just that: it confirmed that the needs of native and non-native teachers are extremely similar. Questions: S1. The selection of English teachers used to be mainly based on ________. S2. What did non-native English teachers deserve but seldom enjoy? S3. What kind of people can now find a job as an English teacher? S4. What is the result of the new form of discrimination? S5. The phrase the linguistically oppressed refers to those who were _______.