Many contributors to the normative literature on language policy assert that inclusive multilingual regimes are advantageous on various grounds. However, despite the professed benefits of multilingualism, most nation-states have been unwilling to equally acknowledge minority languages alongside the majority language. This reality raises three questions. First, why is this the case? Second, should the situation be repaired? Third, if yes, how can change be obtained? The present paper claims that a large part of the problem results from the stress scholars and activists alike have placed on the deep ties between a minority group’s language and its collective identity. Yet, upholding multilingualism on grounds of identity is likely to encounter strong opposition by the majority group and, consequently, cross efforts to foster the official recognition of minority languages. In reply, this paper favors three alternative defences of policies of multilingualism, which evade the obstacles that generally attend identity-based arguments. The first justification emanates from the unique instrumental nature of language, the second from utilitarian considerations concerning democratic performance and the third underscores moral considerations like equality and access. Together, these non-identity arguments offer normative and efficient grounds to the acceptance of multilingual policies in heterogeneous societies.