The author does not. And at least in the Maryland case you're correct (haven't looked up others, but they're probably similar). However, I think the author and others on their side have a point: Why is foreign language being singled out for substitution?
I get that there's only so much time in the day, so only a finite number of courses can be meaningfully conducted before a student graduates. This was an issue when I was a student at Georgia Tech. Most engineering students received some 130+ credit hours (1 credit hour = 1 hour lecture or 3 hour lab per week) over their degree. To complete this in 4 years (8 semesters) meant an average of 16 credits/semester which was very hard (especially when dealing with prerequisites, which meant you might have a 9-12 (core) + 3-6 (elective) credit semester followed by an 18 (core) credit semester, those latter ones could be brutal). At GT, compared to other GA universities, there were no language requirements and somewhat reduced general education requirements (still true?). And many (most? don't know the stats) students took 5 years (or 10 semesters) to complete their education. But GT didn't say, "CS 1301 will be a substitute for <Language> 101", they just said, "Everyone will take CS 1301, and <Language> 101 will be an elective."
If the people proposing these changes made more courses substitute for each other, then I think their argument would have more weight. Make foreign language an option along with technology education, advanced math (those that can be held concurrent to the core math courses), and other topical electives. Make the selection akin to selecting a "major" focus at university. Instead, the schools want to include something that seems to be useful (I would agree, programming skills are useful) but have no way to fit it in to the existing time available and are forcing one department to make a sacrifice.