President Obama recently offered up his solution to America’s educational deficiencies, notably merit pay for teachers, more early childhood intervention and national standards, all topped off with the expected paean to achieving educational excellence to compete in the knowledge-driven 21st century. These initiatives, nothing more than cliché policies with proven records of failure, will, no doubt, be wildly successful in generating new jobs for the education establishment; they will be insufficient, however, in inspiring any kind of academic excellence.  

The reason for the coming foundering is simple: America is currently mired in the egalitarian mission of gap closing, and closing gaps is inherently antithetical to academic excellence. This conflict is not reversible by more spending, gimmicks such as vouchers or even hiring star teachers using miracle curricula. Nothing in today’s educational reform repertory, regardless of ideological pedigree, can bring excellence so long as we strive to close group differences in academic attainment. This contradiction between equality and excellence has long been recognized but let me explain just how this contradiction works, and the underlying force that drives this leveling.

First, let’s visit a parallel universe in which President Obama pursues genuine educational excellence. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he reads from the tele-prompter,

American education is a disaster. We are obsessed with the facade of excellence but not its substance. It is just too easy to appease students with sham grades and meaningless diplomas. Past policies have encouraged counterfeiting with coercive gap closing measures and lax test enforcement standards. Under my “Nearly All Children Are Stupid” law, tests will be made extraordinarily tough, cheating will carry criminal penalties, the FBI will enforce these, and no data will be sub-divided by race, ethnicity or gender. Scores will be posted by name on the Internet, in schoolyards and in local grocery stores. There may be only a few geniuses, but rest assured, we will find and nurture them. 

The goal is academic distinction, not whether one group outshines another. Laggards will receive generous tutoring, but help does not mean disguising incompetence to shield delicate egos. Self-esteem must be earned from performance, not administratively bestowed in the hope of jump-starting excellence. So young Americans, when the Day of Judgment comes, and you have to spell words like “obsequious” just think of it as that long-anticipated fantasy moment when the basketball game is on the line, the clock shows .8 seconds, and you get the ball at the top of the key, and everything rides on your shot before 25,000 screaming fans and a national TV audience. So start practicing now.     

Nothing in the above speech is unreasonable or unfair. Why it’s utterly impossible that such words would come out of a president’s mouth tells us much about the ideology of “education” in America. 

Achieving academic excellence first requires calibrating it, and refusing to sort the very best from the better-than-average is the equivalent of sports competition with mush-brain statistics. This is a familiar problem in higher education where the once F-to-A scale has virtually vanished, compressed into “A” or “B.”  Just attending class or trying really hard suffices for a “B” so the mediocre only differ slightly from the truly accomplished. The opposite occurs in sports, hardly surprising since athletics far outranks academics as our national passion—in baseball, for example, batting titles often come down to, say .351 versus .352 and, of the utmost importance, these figures are always  honest. Lumping all at-bat outcomes into some all-encompassing middling metric, and then adding a few mysterious fudge factors (e.g., “had good cut”) to shield weak hitters from humiliation is unthinkable. The public would be outraged. America wants championship teams and individual stars, even if this requires calculations down to the third decimal point, not trophies to those “performing okay.”

It is a rock-solid psychometric principle that only tests incorporating difficult items can separate outliers from those just a step below. If a spelling bee among 8th graders only included “hat” “cat” and “sat” the outcome would collapse into a murky middle. Egalitarians might welcome this leveling but the exercise would, obviously, make no distinction regarding spelling skill. Now add more challenging words like “hospital” or “elephant” and it becomes possible to glimpse genuine distinctions though they are still a bit fuzzy. Finally, to uncover the true champion, sharply reduce the easy words and substitute dozens of killers like “desideratum” and “euphonious.” The range between adequate spellers and extraordinary ones will widen, so the harder the tests, the greater the uncovered excellence, and this is immutable. Excellence and grim tests are inexorably linked; this is a law of nature.

Spelling bees hardly bring much political fallout. But as academic testing (including the SAT or LSAT) grow more arduous and widespread, politically awkward gaps explode. Experts can argue forever whether demographic disparities reflect nature or nurture, are genuine or just test anxiety, are permanent or remedial but they are inevitable if the test aims to uncover the very best. Winners in particularly gruesome national academically-related contests such as Intel Science Prizes or Merit Scholarships never resemble a cross section of America though as newspapers happily point out, winners are a diverse bunch—a Russian immigrant or two, assorted Asians, even a few native-born Americans, plus a few girls. Typically absent are African Americans, those of Hispanic backgrounds, and others from demographic groups notable for poor school performance. For the Mother of All Egalitarian nightmares, look at Noble Prizes in science.

While politicians and grievance group leaders might tolerate a demographically unrepresentative collection of Spelling Bee champs, tolerance evaporates as test scores apply to broader academic subjects. The “close-the-gap” industry now emerges, and enthusiasm for the enterprise cuts across the political spectrum. A few self-designated conservatives even call racial gaps the civil rights issue of the modern era. Sadly, private reservations aside, no educator or public figure will say “group differences in academic accomplishment are inevitable, have always existed, and it is far wiser to focus on the best possible education for every student than chase the unreachable.” That honest admission is career suicide and even qualifying these heresies with “it would be wonderful if we could close them” or “perhaps in some distant future they will be closed” fails to avert banishment.

Absent honesty regarding this turn squares-into-circles enterprise, an orgy of messenger shooting is inevitable. Most of the obscuration of bad news is technically “honest” in the sense of being objective and mechanical, not outright lies. So, for example, items that are “too hard” (i.e., they excessively discriminate between proficient and middling student) are just excluded or, as anxious to please college professors might prefer, curves are shifted to rescue those on the edge. Going a bit further, replace tough fact-based tests with mushy personal portfolios, reject standards of conventional English when grading essays (“it’s the idea that counts”), cover failure with euphemisms (report cards award “ready to learn” versus an “F”) and rely on social promotions to reduce stigmas.

Portland, Oregon, like other cities with minority students challenged by high school exit exams now permits would-be graduates an options of three exit exams—a national one, the state version, or a local one that might include just a portfolio of projects (several other states are, too, toying with this option). Similarly, Newark and Camden, New Jersey, have de facto surrendered to reality and now award “alternative diplomas” for those failing the regular tests. Here exams can be endlessly taken and re-taken with only the highest scores counting (and this may include tests for the HS diploma); and if that comes up short, award “extra credit” for trying hard. Thus, with scarcely any effort, all students, from the dull to the exceptional, can be lumped into meaningless mile wide “proficient” categories. Major league baseball becomes co-ed slow-pitch softball where the score is secondary to having fun.

What makes this “honest” dumbing down so alluring is that outsiders will hardly ever notices (and many, frankly, doesn’t even care). In 2007 the New York state Regents exam, which certifies high school graduates as earning the highest academic degree, carried the strategy to absurd lengths. This exam was once a highly regarded gauge of New York State’s outstanding educational system but unacceptable race-related disparate outcomes have emasculated it. Flunking it requires now willful stupidity. In the 2008 exam one picture showed students outside of Little Rock’s Central High in 1957 with troops guarding the door. The caption tells of a white student being admitted while a black student (Elizabeth Eckford) was turned away. A second picture shows this black student surrounded by a mob. The exam question is: What happened to Elisabeth Eckford when she tried to attend Central High School? A different photograph from this event is captioned “On September 25, 1957, federal troops escort the Little Rock Nine to Central High School.” The question is: “Based on this photograph, what was the job of the United States Army troop in Little Rock, Arkansas?” 

How is a parent to discern that their offspring is a functional illiterate if classified as “average” given classmates equally unable to read or write? In Georgia, for example, a student need only pass 17 of 40 questions to advance to fourth grade, and 16 of these items are classified as “easy” by the state’s department of Education. In Texas the state’s accountability exam can be passed by correctly answering 29 of 60 questions. When Michigan found that it had 1500 “failing schools,” officials promptly adjusted the pass standard from 75% to 42% correct, and the number of failing schools dropped to 216. Firms supplying and scoring tests also have powerful incentives to weaken standards; better to keep clients happy with “good news” than risk an even more compliant rival stealing customers. The Educational Testing Service years back became alarmed as some colleges dropped their SAT’s requirements since scores exposed large racial disparities that complicated diverse admissions. To “solve” this deficiency, and keep the testing fees coming, the ETS systematically eliminated individual items with wide racial disparities. Though SAT results continue to be unequal, they are now undoubtedly smaller. 

If “honest” dumbing down tactics are inadequate, just move over to the dark side, and, hardly surprising, uncovering rampant education-related cheating has become a thriving cottage industry. Falsification is helped immensely since this data cooking is rarely a criminal offense, “good numbers” can reward the entire school administration and it is often impossible to detect without snitches or complicated statistical analyses. Cheating is so commonplace that there is even a private firm—Caveon—that probes accusations. Its website offers copious examples of educational fraud. Smoking-gun proof is often of the “too good to be true” variety. For example, Camden, NJ is an historic educational calamity, the worst of the worst, but a Philadelphia Inquirer story revealed how its test scores suddenly shot up to be among the highest in New Jersey, and this decidedly implausible outcome triggered a state investigation. Suspecting out of control test fraudulence in its schools, the Chicago schools hired two professors of economics to investigate, and they found evidence of cheating in 70 classroom. Doris Alvarez was a former national Principal of the Year (among other honors) at San Diego Preuss School where low-income and minority students had achieved spectacular academic results. Newsweek rated it 10th of the nation’s top 1,200 high schools. Alas, a review of the school’s transcripts found that three-quarters of them had at least one grade altered. 

This approach to narrowing of gaps is, of course, totally illusionary, a rubber yardstick and undoubtedly impedes learning by awarding students a false sense of accomplishment. Why struggle with Algebra II if guaranteed a “B” for just trying or the pressured teachers will teach the test? Indeed, every participant in this ersatz gap closing enterprise, from the lowest first-grader to the handsomely paid Superintendent of Schools enjoys incentives to avoid hard work, i.e., make everything “hat” and “cat” and the President will give you a prize. Imagine basketball played this way—the hoop was lowered to six feet, widened to two feet across, and anything hitting the backboard counted and bonus points awarded for snazzy uniforms and enthusiasm. Even benchwarmers might average 30+ points a game, just about Michael Jordan’s lifetime average. But, who would follow sports if the headlines declared, “Season again ends with everybody just about tied.”  

Pushed further, tough measures, not the opposite, best serve in the long-term self-interest for struggling students. What is gained by “passing” a high-school exit exam with pictures and self-evident answers? Future employers will surely discover this deceit and those who venture off to college will waste tuition on remedial courses and probably fail to graduate. This is empty calorie accomplishment and, sadly everybody knows it. Perhaps only the dumbest of the dumb cannot recognize that their “accomplishments” are gifts bestowed by craven professionals paid to obscure politically unwelcome achievement gaps.

This willingness to accept dumbed-down, if not fraudulent, educational outcomes is best explained by America’s passion for self-esteem. This is true both for those who “protect” group sensitivities (e.g., the ever-outraged-over-some-slight Rev. Al Sharpton) and individuals who favor self-puffery over harsh reality. Indeed, the “right” to feel good about oneself has de facto become America’s measure of “pursuit of happiness.” Do not forget that the original Supreme Court ruling banning state-imposed school segregation (Brown v. Board of Education (1954)) partially rested on how segregation damaged black self-esteem, and this theme has continued on among African American educators.

But make no mistake, craving self-esteem on the cheap is now almost ubiquitous. White middle-class Americans are also regularly seduced by this almost narcotic allure. Why else have a dozen valedictorians or choose from among a growing array of grade-boosting Mickey Mouse courses at all levels? Prestige schools like Harvard are famous for grade inflation, gut courses and cum laude degree by the carload. And unlike monetary inflation, academic deflation seems unstoppable, a sort of arms race in which schools “print up” increasingly stellar outcomes so as not to be disadvantaged by rivals similarly inflating the academic currency. Will there ever be a newspaper headline, “Harvard Grading Scale Collapses; thousands find that “As” are now worth only Cs? What school would wish to emulated Reed College and “disadvantage” its graduates with an old-fashioned grading system with lots of Cs? What school of advanced learning is really interested academic excellence?  

Eric Holder’s “nation of cowards” comment wasn’t simply a roundabout way of making the tired old accusation of “institutional racism.” It signaled the acceleration of a trend toward the state policing not only of behavior but attitudes, ideas, and the interpretations of facts.

Your thoughts might be impure. Attorney General Holder is here to help.  

On February 18th 2009, Eric Holder, our first African American Attorney General gave a well-publicized speech in which he called Americans cowards for, among other things, refusing to engage in an open, frank dialogue about our race relations. Reactions were immediate, nearly all negative and most correctly saw this as an effort to put whites in pillory so as to hector them with the usual accusations of racism, discrimination and all the rest as a first step to extract more tangible benefits. This much was clear. Less obvious, but more important, is that a “frank and open discussion” will inevitably invite government to monitor our private thoughts to build a “better” more racially just society. Such “honest” dialogues will not be policy debates as one might discuss school busing; this is about drawing to the surface what Peter Brimelow calls “hate facts,” that is, empirically indisputable truths that are justly inconvenient for America’s smothering liberal orthodoxy. Uttering them is, at least to champions of the reigning orthodoxy, far more hazardous than endorsing mere misguided public policy; they challenge the modern liberal state’s very foundations. In a nutshell, if Holder and company get their way, white America is to be put on the couch and coaxed to confess its selective misanthropic urges, and that done, we can be properly weaned from the thoughtcirmes debilitating blacks.

Of all the tricks to defeat opponents, classifying opposing views as a debilitating mental illness is perhaps the most nefarious. This medicalization strategy was explicit in the Soviet Union where “deranged” dissidents required long stays in insane asylums. Communist China, Cuba and other totalitarian regimes also had their versions of forcefully refurbishing the dissident. The gentler American re-education method only differs in degree, not kind. Here college students caught ridiculing wacky feminists must undergo a therapy that inevitably begins by demanding frank acknowledgment of one’s injurious thoughts, regardless of intended harm, let alone accuracy. Such treatments are not unusual; they are official policy for as Paul Gottfried has observed, the modern welfare state takes reforming supposedly misguide beliefs as part of its it central ameliorative mission—a roof overhead, food on the table, and mush in the brain. 

Those familiar with deadly European religious wars during the 16th to 17th century will recognize this sea change, a shift from the state repressing bad thinking to government punishing criminal behavior. To condense a complicated story, it was the battle over one’s inner faith that inflicted horrific slaughter across Europe. Being a “good” Catholic or Protestant required accepting as true the correct creed; just being law-abiding, even outwardly playing along, was insufficient. Mercifully, as the corpse pilled up, modern tolerance emerged—one suffered religious dissenters but did not kill them. Thanks to the influence of Locke and Voltaire among others, one’s inner religious beliefs became subordinated to outward behavior and these thoughts, even if noxious, were beyond the state’s reach. Actions count louder than words, which in turn, count louder than thoughts. Locke in particular argued that only God could detect what informed the heart, and quarrels over dogma were endemic, and to insist that the state coercively purify the heart was impossible and guaranteed civil war. Secular police now replaced the church’s torturers and executioners as the guardian of public morality. So, within certain broad limits, let people believe whatever faith they choose, but the state should focus on outward behavior, a sensible, violence-avoiding admonition.

History is reversing. Inner thoughts are again becoming central, and this reflects both ideology and new invasive technology. The burgeoning popularity of hate laws (especially in Europe where “hate” is a stand alone offense) apart from criminal conduct summarizes this worrisome trend. Since the ideological shift often begins in early public education, it is virtually invisible to adults save those with school-aged children bringing home their lessons but it is very real. Its central tenet is the psychological supposition that civil discord originates in the mind, and intervention here, not punishing any resultant behaviors, is a legitimate state function. That “bad thoughts” seldom amount to anything is irrelevant. So, for example, youngsters are taught about harmful stereotypes, so a ten-year old honestly saying that Asian classmates academically outperform African Americans will debilitate blacks as one might spread the flu. Even if unvoiced, “dangerous” views can wound, so asking only Asian classmates for help with math can lower the self-esteem of ignored black classmates. Youngsters also learn to eschew being judgmental, Cultural Relativism Lite, so to speak, and that all traits are “just as worthy as any other” to while some classmates excel at schoolwork, others are talented dancers, and everything counts equally. Bart Simpson, even Denise-the-Menace, is now “good” by thinking good, and if either happens to call a classmate a “fag,” off he goes for counseling so as to purge these urges. Learning to hold one’s tongue or behave civilly is now insufficient—root causes, i.e., bad thoughts, are to be targeted.  If kids reject this educator-supplied nonsense (and most will) about the power of words, the message that “bad thinking,” independent of decent behavior, is impermissible in a good society will still sink in. At a minimum, children learn to keep quiet about certain “negative” facts, especially when they have a racial or sexual element. 

Meanwhile modern technology with its ability to peer inside the brain reinvigorates this return to an era when “bad thoughts” were an offense punishable by death. To exaggerate only slightly, a modern incarnation of the Spanish Inquisition thrives and, as was true centuries back, the purification of creed is welcomed as the path to civic salvation. Several expose-the-dark urges devices currently exist, but consider just one. A group of Dartmouth professors, writing in Nature Neuroscience use a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan brain activity when subjects were confronted with unfamiliar black male faces. These faces, alas, stimulated activity in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), which (together with other brain activity) was expertly interpreted to be cognitively dysfunctional. As one researcher concluded, “Just having a prejudice makes you stupider.” As far as can be determined, no evidence was collected to see if research subjects were, indeed, evil doers. The fMRI is more invasive than the rack but undoubtedly more accurate in extracting confessions, at least to these scientists (and there is no messy clean-up). 

As one might predict when academics suddenly possess a new high-tech measuring gizmo, a cottage industry of imposing publications (plus others in mass media outlets like the New York Times) now depicts once hidden, if not altogether denied, racism and other improper thoughts. Findings, not surprisingly, tend to confirm a sinister Hobbesian vision, for example, people react fearfully to images they have come to associate with danger (in this instance, whites viewing blacks) though research subjects refuse to acknowledge reactions. Now, Torquemada wears a white laboratory coat and copiously footnoted reports in professional journals “happily” show after decades of officially-sanctioned efforts to eliminate white racism, it still flourishes. And like the Inquisition, there can be no defense from the Grand Inquisitor.

Let’s imagine that Holder’s vision comes to pass—“frank” and “open” dialogues on race proliferate. Naturally few whites will speak honestly lest they risk become the next James Watson (or Alvin Darks, Jimmy-the-Greeks among untold innocents who believed honesty to be cost-free). Still, some brave (or even masochistic) souls will venture forth with the all-too-familiar litany of black shortcomings, all documented with hard statistical evidence and all widely recognized privately. Though these martyrs will be only a tiny fraction of all whites believing these “hate facts,” the outpouring will nevertheless seem like a tidal wave of “hate” to those living in hate-free cocoons. And what will be the upshot? Will blacks welcome this “helpful” advice? Will policy prescriptions be more honest? Hardly: these unexpected white outpourings will be interpreted as “America has a long way to go before we can be cured of toxic racism.” Blacks will be absolutely delighted with this newly exposed bountiful “hate” for it will energize for-profit anti-racism industry while confirming shopworn explanations for failure—whitey is worse than we imagined, the Klan never vanished, so what do you expect?  With all this new-sprung hatefulness gushing forth, President Obama might issue an emergency request the National Institute of Health to add racial animosity to its list of illnesses to be investigated.

A bonanza also awaits those tracking down the hate fact mongers. Millions of mental health counselors, social workers and diversity experts may have to be hired to patrol America now that the once hidden is more visible, and, rest assured, they will uncover yet more toxic thinking. Critically, all of this will be absolutely independent of any behavior. This “let a thousand flowers bloom” temporary ideological amnesty is, of course, also a handy ruse to entice heretics to come out from hiding, and, unfortunately, it always seems to work. For every thousand flowers there will be a thousand Madame Defarges to keep an eye on them. Some innocents find confession irresistible and never heard of Jim Watson, let alone Larry Summers. When Syria’s newly inaugurated President Bashar Assad called for a “Damascus Spring” in 2000 he got his “national dialogue.” Alas, by the end of 2001 he had heard enough and those intellectuals who naively believed him were imprisoned. It is inconceivable that those prodded to express heresies in public will go unmolested when the dialogue season ends. Professional anti-bias workers will now enjoy life-time employment rounding up those foolish enough to have expressed “controversial” views.

Just as James Watson or other heretics du jour discovered, scientific evidence is irrelevant. Offering facts only demonstrates the pathology if the purpose of expressing facts is, supposedly, to hurt, and the greater the marshaled evidence, the greater its scientific quality, the greater the harm. In this upside down world, the liar, the person who says that race and crime are totally unrelated, is the saint. The anti-hate feeding frenzy will now attract all those white-coated expert witness Torquemadas with their fMRI’s anxious for a piece of the thought-cleansing enterprise. Their expert testimony will further confirm scientifically what our frank and open dialogue shows—Americans harbor endless toxic “bad thoughts” and the fMRI’s will “out” cowards hiding behind the election of Barak Obama and all else that seemingly shows genuine racial peace. The solution, all the experts will agree, is more therapy, more sensitivity training, more race-centered curricula, more searching for the symptoms with even more sensitive detections devices. And, as more clueless souls inadvertently admit to hate facts (or are exposed by increasingly clever expose-the-truth devices), the rush to discover more forceful cures for this burgeoning epidemic is on. Therapy groups might be formed to assist those now willing to face up to their “illness” and, like reformed alcoholics, the rehabilitated would lecture to inspire fresh converts. “Hi, I’m Arthur J., and I once believe that low IQ among blacks explained their lack of academic success. Now I realize how I was hurting people. I’ll never do it again.” 

To be sure, Holder’s quest is unlikely to come to pass, at least for the present (though recall a similar national show trial dialogue during the second Clinton administration). But, current safety should not blind us to the evil lurking in the hearts of men like Holder. The underlying model of such forums is the public health campaign, albeit of the mental health variety. Its aim is to first exposing the epidemic so as to then eradicate of what is eating away at America—hate, an illness that has long been swept under the rug. Note well: This “disease” is a mental condition, not criminal behavior, and this focus on bad thinking breeds totalitarian measures just as it did in religious wars that decimated Europe. And make no mistake, if such forum come to pass, private life may return to the days when heresy regarding the official orthodoxy is a capital offense. Holder is right—we are cowards and for good reason, and it should stay that way.          
           

An earlier version of this essay was delivered at the H.L. Mencken Club’s Annual Meeting; November 21-23, 2008.

Under the general topic of malevolence, wickedness, and evil, a vocabulary exists for self-imposed harm, for example, self-mutilation or self-abuse. But such words always denote individuals—not collectivities—inflicting harm. It is almost unthinkable that, say, an entire ethnic group would knowingly injure, let alone kill itself. Masada or Jonestown-like incidents are so riveting since they are so exceedingly rare.

Let me suggest a third form of evil-doing that combines both elements: a group—not an individual—deliberately hurting itself. To simplify, we’ll call the pathology Social Kevorkianism, after the infamous Dr. Jack Kevorkian, inventor of the suicide-facilitating machine. Its defining element is the pursuit of destructive policies whose injurious collective nature is patently observable, and, of the utmost importance, behavior continues regardless of demonstrable harm. Serious destruction is now welcomed by recipients though they might not fully understand its evil character and perpetrators may believe themselves blameless.

We are not inventing new terminology for its own sake, the phenomenon really does exist, and if one had to identify a place where it thrives, it would be blacks “helping” educate other blacks who struggle academically. This is not the usual “lets try it since it might work” desperation that infuses today’s educational reform menu (for example, charters, vouchers, merit pay for teachers, phonetics etc.). Those measures are certainly plausible and may even occasionally perform as advertised. We are talking about crackpot panaceas all championed by blacks themselves, whose foolishness is indisputably apparent, nostrums that have repeatedly proven disastrous and, critically, their application are guaranteed to exacerbate the educational woes of African Americans.

It is, unfortunately, a bountiful catalogue and includes such well-known, black-lauded toxic “cures” as Afrocentric instruction, inculcating inflated self-esteem at the expense of genuine academic accomplishment, treating street slang as a bona fide language (Ebonics) so as not to stigmatize the inarticulate, insisting that black teachers be hired as role models regardless of competence, litigation to bestow diplomas on those incapable of reading them, forced racial integration for zero academic gain even if this pushes white taxpayers out, and demanding racial quotas when expelling or otherwise punishing troublemakers. For higher education, add vacuous vocationally worthless majors like Black Studies, lowered admission standards to ensure a mismatch between a student’s ability and the college, giving credit for remedial work to inflate graduation rates, teaching blatant feel-good falsehoods as “history,” whose net benefits are decidedly negative.  

One might think that these poisonous panaceas would sufficiently debilitate struggling blacks for all eternity, but, as they say on late night TV infomercials, wait there’s more.

Dr. Jack is as busy as ever and his latest black-endorsed “debilitator” contraption is transforming troubling, anti-academic achievement behavior into “giftedness.” This is far more than Newspeak “war is peace” dishonesty; this imposes genuine harm under the guise of kindness. So, rather than punish Joe Gangbanger for violent insubordination, some black educators “solve” the problem by twisting his noxious outbursts into something more laudatory—giftedness! And, if outsiders object, naively insisting that disorderly conduct totally subverts learning, defend this reconstructed reality as culturally valid, a lifting of the accomplish-killing stigma beleaguering black youngster. No matter the miscreant will leave school illiterate despite his or her alleged “talents.” Nor does it matter that this “helpfulness” so as to gloss over impertinence will drive decent, committed teachers out of the profession. The battle is over cosmetic, supposedly helpful labeling, and the costs be dammed even if the casualty is one’s own supposedly cherished racial or ethnic group.  

Some Background
The battle for racial equality in education has bed many chapters, but the most recent installment concerns access to programs for the intellectually gifted. These are small potatoes in today’s educational colossus, typically just a special class overseen by a specialized teacher though in some large cities there are math and science high schools. They seldom exceed 5% of all students, and unlike those mired in poverty consuming social services, let alone the physically or mentally disabled, these students hardly drain the school’s budget. A cost/benefit analysis might show these programs to be an incredible bargain—push little Mr. Brains a bit harder, wait twenty years, and voilá, the iPod.

To an intellectually unsophisticated outsider, however, a gifted program must appear almost magical and thus worthy of forced entry. Children enter these programs and then, in some mysterious way, attain super test scores, are admitted to Ivy League schools, and then earn big bucks. That this accomplishment flows from superior innate intelligence, diligence and relentless parental pressure typically goes unnoticed—one “gets” this fantastic capacity merely by showing up as if one grows into a hulking Hercules simply by visiting an NFL weight room. And here’s the problem that sets Dr. Kovorkian in motion: blacks and Hispanics are severely under-represented in these programs while Asians are grossly over-represented. So, since these experiences “bestow” immense economic advantages for those admitted, and since all education-related advantages should not racially discriminate, it therefore follows that blacks and Hispanics should get their “fair share” of these magical, life-enhancing opportunities.

The idea of proportional access to gifted classes may even seem a natural historical progression, the next logical step in racial progress. But, here’s the obstacle: entrance requires demonstrating superior intellectual ability, usually via an IQ test, and blacks and Hispanics just cannot surmount this test-based hurdle. How, then, is this impediment to be overcome? New York City has tried special tutoring for blacks and Hispanics to help them pass the entrance exams for top-notch math and science high schools, but it failed. Elsewhere a court order has done the trick. In some instances abolishing these programs altogether solves the problem though this only angers white and Asian parents who want these programs. Alternatively, black and Hispanic children might be pushed to study harder so as to extract every benefit from their cognitive abilities. But, given a choice between being a grind and what Dr. Kevorkian might offer, the ingenious Doctor comes to the rescue.
New and Improved Definitions of Gifted
How might struggling, even barely literate black students come to be labeled gifted? Just leave it to Professor Donna Ford, holder of an endowed professorship at the Peabody School of Education, Vanderbilt University, and a renowned, well-published expert on gifted education for African Americans. In 2008 she won the Distinguished Scholar award from the National Association of Gifted Children. Ford begins by claiming that no universally accepted precise definition of intelligence exists, so almost anything can be “intelligence.” Fuzziness established, Ford then asserts that black children can be gifted though not according to existing flawed definitions. In particular, blacks are disproportionately endowed with certain under-recognized, under-appreciated abilities qualifying them as intellectually superior. These include a knack for expressing emotions, a language rich in imagery, a skill at improvisation, a superior sense of rhythm, a flair for humor, expressive body language among other “gifted” attributes. This hardly exhausts black giftedness and she compiles multiple commendable “black cultural styles” to be added to this stellar inventory, notably spirituality, oral tradition, harmonious communalism, and expressive individuality.

But, if these black youngsters are so gifted, why are academic outcomes so pitiful? No problem, according to Professor Ford. Without a scintilla of data Ford claims that black students learn to be under-achievers by being sensitive to social injustices, astutely witnessing the contradictions between academic learning and life experiences or growing wary of the school promoted meritocratic ideology. Academic under-performance is further compounded by ubiquitous racism, negative stereotypes among teachers and school administrators, and if these were inadequate to thwart academic mastery, black students come to see the racial, class and gender discrimination in both their schools and the larger society. Still, a skeptic might inquire, are blacks intellectually up to par, as measured by traditional tests, with all those striving Asians and whites flooding gifted programs? Of course they are, Ford responds. Traits traditionally defining “gifted,” i.e., aptly solving complex problems, these are all there, she blithely asserts, and at requisite if not superior levels, but “…may be hidden due to substandard educational experiences.” In other words, struggling African American students are hidden diamonds in the rough and, for good measure, possess innumerable other “gifted” traits certifying them superior candidates for admission to all those elite classes inexorably leading to Yale or Harvard.

If Professor Ford were the only proponent of this wacky giftedness, matters would not be so bad. In reality, she is only one voice in a much larger “We’re all gifted!” chorus. The sainted hero in this adulteration enterprise is Howard Gardner (who is white), a frequently honored, endlessly cited, Harvard education professor. His theories of intelligence are ubiquitous in the new and far more inclusive gifted literature. Gardner posits eight “multiple intelligences”: linguistic, visuospatial, logical-mathematical, musical, interpersonal, intra-personal and bodily-kinesthetic (this list grows as Gardner discovers additional “intelligences”). These terms reflect his definition of intelligence as a “psychobiological” ability to solve problems or create products of value in a culture. Note well, they reflect a particular culture, not universal adaptability, so among the Navajo, a talented basket weaver is considered “intelligent.”

To embrace this formulation potentially certifies everybody as “gifted” and thus, in effect, with all the prestige that comes with being a Harvard professor, Gardner subverts the historically understood idea of gifted education. These eight traits also may only be the first step, so the expansive possibilities are huge, particularly since everyone craves to be “gifted” one way or another. The slow-witted parent with an average child can now invoke a celebrated Harvard professor’s prestige to get her middling offspring upgraded—can’t-sit-still-junior with his big mouth is off the charts when it comes to intrapersonal skills! 

When Dumb is the New Smart

This is a recipe for educational calamity, and for all parties, black and white and everything in between. A full autopsy of Dr. Ford-Gardner-Kevorkian’s patient would uncover multiple patient-debilitating pathologies, all inimical to genuine education. But, we can only highlight a few items from the lab report. Clearly, twisting patently obvious academic deficiencies into something called a black learning style or other commendable traits all having zero to do with anything intellectual ensures a truly rotten education for these newly-minted wizards. This is cultural relativism applied to schooling—everything is a laudatory talent, a standing set of excuses to avoid hard work. Imagine a black youngster struggling to write, never an easy task for anyone, and a degree of painful coercion may be necessary. Now, however, escape from drudgery is simple—he or she can now just explain that he comes from an oral tradition and, so, learning to write is unnecessary, sort of like pushing an Eskimo to learn surfing. This phony giftedness also undermines self-discipline, patience for slogging through boring material, keeping quiet and all else that goes into studiousness. A classroom filled with raucous, undisciplined children is not what it seems; it is, according to Dr. Ford, an classroom teeming with the “spontaneous self expression” so characteristic of gifted blacks. Meanwhile envision a precocious shy young ten year old capable of college-level math trying to coexist with a bunch of loud talkative boys obsessed with break dancing (bodily kinesthetic intelligence, according to Dr. Gardner).

It gets worse. This praised sensitivity to racial justice, hidden racism and incapacitating inequality will transform any school into a Garden of Earthly Litigation Delights. Nothing can escape racially sensitive scrutiny and, rest assured, acrimony will thrive. The newly identified gifted, according to Professor Ford, might see invisible racism everywhere while disagreeable facts become learning-destroying stereotypes. If too many blacks fail an algebra exam, seek out the hidden whiteness of algebra so as to dismiss the unwelcome outcome. Why suffer teachers imposing Shakespeare when allegedly talented students can devise plays showcasing ghetto humor and spontaneous rap-style soliloquies? If too many “disobedient” blacks are sent to the Vice-Principal, demand that the Vice-Principal be work-shopped so as to acquire a keener understanding of how blacks possess the gift of impulsive physical playfulness.  

The awaiting tribulations hardly stop here. With a distinguished black educator (and their white allies) “proving” that blacks are just as gifted as whites, what administrator wants to risk litigation when black parents demand entry to this wondrous, prosperity-generating benefit? What school superintendent anticipates going to court and defending IQ tests as culturally fair when opposing well-credentialed “experts” explains that black students have stellar IQ’s but these scores are obscured by society’s racism? Now, obstacles pushed aside, the rush to enter the gifted classroom is on.

Unfortunately, forcing the academically unqualified into classes far over their heads will inevitably subvert learning for everybody, including African Americans. The newcomers, regardless of their hidden intellectual brilliance, will be befuddled and those admitted by conventional criteria (top 5% of the IQ distribution) will grow bored as teachers dumb down lessons to push everyone to a litigation-avoiding passing grade. Extra funds may go towards hiring “black gifted” specialists to devise unique curriculums for these diamonds in-the-rough. A parallel apartheid-like gifted program may have to be instituted. Ironically, smart whites and Asians will interact with students who re-enforce the notion of black intellectual insufficiency and witness firsthand how educators lie when covering up clumsy social engineering. Such dilution and dishonesty cannot be hidden by devious Newspeak, and the parents of the authentically gifted may soon jump ship. 

Now picture these Professor Ford-certified “gifted” students leaving school and entering the workforce. The prognosis is not good. It is one thing to survive a school run by accommodating administrators terrified of government lawsuits but quite another to thrive in profit-driven enterprise. Offering up the once sanctioned excuses—I’m an emotional, non-logical person; I’m better with tasks requiring rhythm; I overslept due to negative stereotypes—will ring hollow. Such “gifted” students-turned-employee will probably also be litigation magnets, perceiving discrimination and unfairness everywhere, just like they learned from Professor Ford and her minions. Nor will these new employees, thanks to delusional beliefs about their (hidden) intellectualism talents, accept the inevitable failures that any job brings. After all, they came to understand that it was not their fault if trigonometry or chemistry was gobbledygook; this stuff was only giftedness for the Asians and whites down the hall, and not required for those in more culturally sensitive gifted settings. In a nutshell, these bogus gifted workers may now enjoy lifetime incapacitation thanks to Dr. Ford-Kevorkian’s assistance.

Assessing the Damage
It is simple, as we have done, to castigate those harming people of their own stripe under the guise of uplifting them. Nor is it easy to sympathize with a semi-literate unemployed youngster who voluntarily feasted on the menu of Afrocentric education, self-esteem über alles, and gross historical inaccuracies offered as “speaking truth to power,” all of which brought a degree in Black Studies from a college offering remedial high school courses for counterfeit college credit. That the young man or woman interprets black-facilitated ineptitude into possessing special gifts, all the while citing famous professors and their research, is only the dessert in a banquet of foolishness.

Still, a wise bystander might reasonably plead with Dr. Ford and her followers to stop pushing this nonsense, to instead tell these struggling students that kinetic activity is not intellectual accomplishment or that they are not really gifted. But what can be done beyond these well-intentioned admonitions?  The answer is, not much. In medicine Ford’s or Gardner’s foolishness would be labeled quackery, deceptive advertising and perhaps banned from the marketplace as injurious. Or, cigarette-like scare labels may be appended to this “we’re all gifted!” literature saying that it may cause stupidity is inhaled. But, education is not medicine and it is unthinkable that consumer protection laws might be applied to what transpires in the classroom. Educational snake oil is First Amendment protected and Dr. Kevorkian’s device only requires a publisher sensing a burgeoning market, and all appearances, this market thrives.

There is, however, a totally different perspective. These debilitating but welcomed panaceas are comforting measures to medicate what must be agonizing tribulations. While a troubled individual might drown his sorrows in alcohol or gluttony, academically struggling African Americans prefer inflated self-praise, falsified history, deceptive, labeling and similar delusional tricks to reduce the distress of repeated failure. In pharmacological language, Afrocentric education, elastic definitions of gifted, and all the rest are pedagogical Prozac. This is absolutely understandable, almost unavoidable. Imagine belonging to a racial category always found at the academic bottom, the object of numerous failed, hugely expensive government remediation efforts and whose sorrowful school performance is routinely spoken of as the nation’s number one problem. Distinguished government commissions exist for the sole purpose of reversing your chronic incompetence while fresh-off-the-boat Asians zoom past you on reading and spelling tests. Battlefront reports are inexorably terrible—low test scores, dreary graduation rates, violence-plagued schools and, the mother of all insults, when blacks begin attending a school, non-blacks flee.

It is no wonder, then that when a charlatan arrives to certify your “giftedness” though in ways incomprehensible or invisible to whites, the message is gladly swallowed. And, a “shape up and get off the therapeutic fantasy” will go unheeded for the simple reason that the “shape up” alternative is often unappetizing though it may, in fact, enhance genuine academic accomplishment. Exceptions abound, and more can be accomplished with the available talent, but for most African Americans, current educational attainment levels will not be reversed, so one must find ways of tolerating the pain.    

In the final analysis, then, this massive self-inflicted harm is irreversible and, no doubt, Dr. Jack is hardly finished. Ford, Gardner and all the others will wildly inflate “giftedness” and other self-inflicted debilitations will probably multiply. Gresham’s’ Law certainly applies—bad education will drive out the good—and the disorder afflicting blacks may be contagious. To be frank, most American parents and students, including many whites, crave cheap praise for mediocre educational accomplishment—we are not only all above average, we are all truly gifted.