In her lead piece, Hultgren challenges three common assumptions: (1) “Non-native speakers are disadvantaged by the spread of English”; (2) “English threatens other languages”; (3) “Language policy will curb the spread of English.” Under some extreme interpretation, each of them is indefensible, but I would be surprised if anyone held such interpretation. Under some other, more natural interpretation, each of them is close to self-evident. Consequently, I doubt that focusing on these assumptions is the most fruitful way of identifying the really controversial issues. However, I do agree with Hultgren that linguistic injustice is only one dimension of social injustice and one that is generally of secondary importance relative to more material dimensions. As a result, some degree of linguistic injustice—in particular what is inherent in the adoption of some natural language as a global lingual franca—is the price we need to pay for an effective pursuit of social justice in all its dimensions.