This paper investigates the positions of state policymakers in Latvia on Latvian, English, and Russian in higher education. By using argumentation analysis, the study explores policymakers' statements in two public debates: on the use of Russian as a medium of instruction (May 2018-June 2020) and on the use of English as a language of doctoral theses (November-December 2019). The paper shows that the main difference of opinion among policymakers is about the role of the state in university language policies. Through a focus on the discursive elements in policymaking, four responses to language use in academia are outlined: firstly, the dominant nationalising discourse, which is reinforced to insist on the need for the state to continue with its nationalising language policies; secondly, the globalising discourse, which is manifested in the statements of the same policymakers to justify the state's support to English, but not Russian; the final two discourses emphasise that universities should be autonomous to implement their own language policies, yet one of these is solely used to argue for institutional autonomy, whereas the other links autonomy with arguments that suggest construing Russian in academia as a right and a resource, not as a problem.