Politics and the English Language

Orwell repeatedly mentioned in his essay the risks of cluttering sentences with Greek and Latin-derived polysyllabic words, saying that these, instead of communicating a precise meaning via an image, muddle meaning in a fog of abstraction. "...Latin words [fall] upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details" (2391). He then, rightly so, says Latin-drenched sentences usually come from the mouths or pens of politicians and lawyers - and it is strange then to think what reasons are given to young pupils to encourage them to study the classical languages.
If my Internet were working now, I would pull up a quotation from a page I viewed months ago when first deciding to study Greek, but I think the example so familiar that a quotation would be needless. Greek and Latin are encouraged for those interested in pursuing law or political occupations. It is obvious, then, that such diction would come from the mouths and pens of lawyers and politicians. However, if such diction muddles meaning, and students are encouraged by educators to study Greek and Latin so that they may later use Greek and Latin etymology to bolster their sentences - why are they encouraged? Should they be encouraged?
It seems that students, then, are encouraged to study Latin and Greek for the wrong reasons. Rather than appeal to future lawyers and politicians on the basis of the languages' ability to boost their vocabulary, educators should emphasize the rhetoric that flourished in ancient Roman and Greek oratory and the literature to which ours pales in comparison.