In terms of institutions and their obligations, that debate is merely one version of the generalist vs. particularist tussle which goes on in most fields. And such a decision inevitably dooms generations of students to a stagnating partial view of what should be a lively and continuously evolving whole. In terms of theory, each end of the debate taken as an absolute is inherently misleading. No good and thorough particularist study concludes without at least some reconfiguration of those hypotheses and presuppositions. Good specific studies require theoretical interpretation and correction.
Good theory requires arealist interpretation and correction.
Our rationale, therefore, is much more pedestrian and practical. We ask for the rigorous background and skills indicated above not because of an illegitimate choice between a particularist or universalist epistemology, but because deep and direct experience of at least one culture other than one's own is required for most of us before we can grasp the subtleties, ambiguities, and complexities of human behavior and organization worldwide. To be sure, there are a few geniuses of such intellectual power that they are able to intuit generalities of some lasting validity despite never leaving home and knowing no language besides their own. And there are also occasional geniuses who specialize in a particular area of the world and do not become an intellectual and emotional appendage thereto. Most of us, however, become either area-imprisoned specialists or vaporous theorists without continuous correction from the other half.