Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Civic Literacy Requirements Are a Bad Idea
Yesterday, Troy Senik posted about how Tennessee Republicans came up with a half-decent idea: to require that students pass a civic literacy test in order to get a high school diploma. More specifically, that they correctly answer at least a 60 out of 100 questions found on US immigration tests. Troy endorsed this idea and so did many of the commenters on the thread.
I realize I’m swimming against the current here, but I’d like to take issue with this, because its a terrible idea.
Voting is such a small part of life. You do it once, maybe twice, in a year. Any student who cares enough about these things to actually vote will already know the answers to any civics test. As for everyone else, there’s a certain percentage of students who don’t care, and will therefore fail the test. It doesn’t seem worth the cost (or fair) to hamstring students on something as absolutely vital to their economic future as a high school diploma for the sake of what is essentially a symbolic trivia test.
The alternative to making it a graduation requirement, would be to make it a condition of voting. Setting aside the legal problems with that — in terms of simple justice — it’s a terrible idea. Government intrudes into so many nooks and crannies of every day life, that to set up the barrier of a trivia test to voting is unjust. Government, especially on the local level, consists of a few nannies jamming their preferences down everyone else’s throat under the guise, and the stamp of legitimacy, of majoritarianism, be it something like a dry county, or Seattle’s ban on throwing away food waste.
Simply put, I don’t need to know how many senators my state gets to properly vote on those kinds of issues. I don’t need to know it to vote on whether a few old bitties can decide if I’m allowed to buy beer on a Sunday. I don’t need to know it to decide that Chuck Schumer is a dirtbag. And I don’t need it to know that Barack Obama is a terrible president.
The natural counter to this is that we’re overrun with “low-information voters” and somehow this will allow us to screen them out. But do you honestly think that if such a barrier were instituted, it would stop droves of paid activist “volunteers” from “helping” the kind of people you’d keep from voting from passing a test?
The whole thing sounds like a fine idea — I was even administered such a test by my 11th grade teacher — but it’s just populist nonsense. The whole thing is premised on (1) voting actually mattering, (2) civic literacy mattering to effective voting, and (3) something as complex as civic literacy being something that can be achieved by memorizing a bunch of answers for a test. It’s not.
Civic literacy isn’t such a shallow thing. It’s a complex thing that requires time and energy and commitment. You can’t substitute it with a multiple choice trivia test.
Published in General
You’re right. I think Fred’s concern (or maybe just my concern) is the universality of it. Universal Health Care and Universal Civic Testing are two sides of the same bad idea. They sound good on paper to different sides of the political spectrum, but if we want to get away from nationalizing things we should stop nationalizing things.
An important benefit of testing is to identify trends and spot deficiencies in the teaching/training program . I think if local districts or school operators are genuinely interested in seeing that they are promoting civic literacy testing can be a good way to monitor the effectiveness of their efforts. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a demonstration of proficiency requirement for individual students.
Fred, I’m usually with you, but I’m not sure you make your case here. Civic literacy is an inherent necessity to participate fully in a free republic. Such literacy isn’t just a good idea, it’s an intrinsic responsibility as to holding up your end of the social contract.
That need has nothing to do with voting. A free Republic merely needs that the ability to vote be earnable by all citizens no matter background or status. Whether you vote or not, you need to understand the structure of the body politic you’re a participant in, voting or not.
I think a much better tack to oppose it might be the true assertion that public education is as horrible at instilling civic literacy as it is with other educational goals. Also, there is a tendency for leftists to use civic literacy/social studies requirements as a method of social engineering indoctrination.
I haven’t looked into the matter enough to assert it as fact, but I have a feeling that the rise of “social studies” programs in schools has actually coincided with a drop in civic literacy.
To reference one of Fred’s favorites, I agree with Robert Heinlein’s construction in Starship Troopers – that there are “Citizens” and there are “Civilians.” Being a Citizen implies certain rights AND responsibilities. Civilians can’t vote, but don’t have some of the responsibilities that Citizens have.
The problem, then, would be the multiple choice trivia test, not the teaching of civic literacy.
For example, this morning I countered the slings and arrows of an internet acquaintance who was sneering that the Republicans hadn’t yet repealed Obamacare now that they had control of Congress.
I had to reply that the 114th Congress only began on January 3rd. So it’s not like they’ve really had a chance yet. (Not that they will, but that’s another discussion.)
Apparently, my interlocutor was unaware that they’ve only been in power for a couple days. I doubt he’s alone.
If the complaint is “it’s just too complex to teach civic literacy,” I call that an excuse, not an answer. We have a few generations of political pundits who don’t even understand the basics let alone the complexities. (And they all seem to have landed at Vox.)
No doubt. But if you try to teach civic literacy outside the leftist-controlled public education system, you’ll get targeted by the IRS.
Here’s the rest of my point. If a civics test is no different than any other history test (which I argue), and it wouldn’t make a difference to whether someone will graduate, then it will have no effect on outcomes or knowledge, which means it would be less than worthless to require it.
This is basically why Libertarian ideals make for lousy practical politics.
At its core, Libertarianism is passive. “I’m not interested in the lives of others so just leave me alone!” At its core, Leftism is authoritarian, oppressive and pro-actively pushy. So, while you might not be interested in them, they are interested in you.
It’s war and you have to push back.
When the leftists squeeze American ideals out of education, the Libertarian celebrates the right to be ignorant. When the leftists try to build permanent voting blocs by flooding the country with unskilled poor, the Libertarian cries “Free movement for all!”
While the left is unified in goals and tactics, we’re like the Three Stooges with statist enabler Establishment types, principled Conservatives and no fight Libertarians. It’s no wonder we’re losing.
Right. So I was pondering this for a while.
What’s the solution? Would you disenfranchise that person? Don’t they have rights?
If you start down that path, then there’s a million pitfalls waiting.
Excuse me, a couple of things here:
1. I wasn’t even making a libertarian argument, just a practical one. I didn’t even unleash the libertarian argument to be made here. And I could. (And boy-oh-boy is it a doozy.)
2. Let’s be real, there are plenty of conservative who are happy to be pro-active and pushy. That’s not something progresives have a monopoly on.
3. I also wasn’t making a right-to-be-ignorant argument here.
4. And not for nothing, but I’m against having government schools too.
I am not sure I am following this. Are you saying that all test, in all schools, are ” less than worthless” if they are not used to determine whether someone will graduate, as they have no effect on outcomes or knowledge?
Which is the exact same argument many of us make against homosexual marriage. On that subject Fred calls a ban “government oppression” and so therefore that kind argument is invalid. It’s over, go with the flow!
Well, sorry Fred. If it’s not a valid argument against homosexual marriage it’s not a valid argument here, either.
Biology is not a shallow thing, truly understanding the subject requires time, energy and commitment. Are you suggesting that it is wrong to force students to study biology because the High School level treatment of the subject does not produce an “expert” on the subject?
Failing to pass high school science leads to a failure to graduate, at least in my school test were the main portion of a students grades. Should biology not be taught/tested because some percentage of students will be uninterested and would fail? Isn’t the obtainment of a High School degree too important to let lack of required knowledge stop a student from getting a degree?
I think you’re all missing the salient question: What is public (taxpayer funded) education for?
I would argue it’s twofold:
Civic literacy testing isn’t just a measure of individual achievement. It measures what we’re getting for our money! Which, in some places, by and large, isn’t much.
Now, if you’d like to argue against public education generally, you won’t get much resistance from me — especially considering how entrenched the Left is in the education establishment. But since it’s unlikely we’ll shutter the whole thing, we could at least shut down schools whose students learn more about recycling than they do the form of government under which they live.
Test ’em.
And no one is happier than me to provide the push back.
Perhaps acceptance of ignorance is a better phrasing than “right.”
I agree that improving civic “literacy” (there has to be a better term than one that means you can read — ‘awareness’?) is a desirable thing.
I disagree that a civics test furthers that end. Who will write and grade the test? It probably won’t be anyone right of center. There is a reason why existing tests (citizenship, history, … driving) have been degraded. If you don’t like Common Core or Howard Zinn, why would you think such a test will be different? Should acknowledging your ‘responsibility’ (check your privilege) for the plight of the downtrodden be a requirement for civic participation?
Now, suppose that the Official Civics Knowledge Qualifying Exam became the most important criterion for voting. (I know, but just suppose) Will we need a Spanish language version? For fairness? If a person of questionable citizenship aces the test, should they vote, being more competent than the ignorant citizen who flunks it? Will you exclude the intelligent ethnics, you racist? Do you think this idea would never occur to a political entity looking to increase its electoral power? How might/could/would such a test be abused?
Why all this sudden faith in an official government agency fairly administering its function. When expanding government functions, consider how it can be abused by your political opponents. (Notice I did not say ‘political enemies’, but I could’ve.)
Mandatory (or maybe just advisable) disclaimer: I am not an anarchist. Constraining government is difficult. The Constitution is a good idea. I wish it were (more) in effect.
I’m with you on this one, Fred. There should be no requirements to graduate other than passing all the mandatory courses. No community service, no comprehensive mega-test, no nothing. In other words, just like college.
My counter argument would be that if this requirement is so important, then existing voters should have to demonstrate the same knowledge.
I would like to offer my own version of a civic literacy test, of sorts: Instead of checking a box, or punching a card, a voter would have to write the name of his or her preferred candidate on the ballot, spelled correctly.
Think of the benefits.
1. Truly low information voters (i.e., voters who don’t know significant details about the background of the candidate they are voting for, like their name) would be screened out.
2. More importantly, truly low intelligence voters (i.e., those incapable of communicating except via texts, emoticons, and (for the truly stupid) posting selfies) would be screened out.
3. Campaign ads would contain more factually accurate information (i.e., how to spell the candidate’s name correctly).
4. Ballots for “Barock Obamma” would be invalid.
5. There is a reasonable chance that Santa Claus and Bugs Bunny would be elected to the United States Senate. This would be a bipartisan result, as Santa is obviously a Democrat and Bugs is obviously a Republican.
In California, in 1964, all 8th grade students had to pass just such a civics test to matriculate to the 9th grade. How many congressman, senators, how is POTUS elected? Amendments, etc. It was called the Constitution Test. Back then, California had the best public school system in the US. I don’t know when the test was abandoned, but I’m sure it was, because there is no way kids these days know any civics whatsoever, and could not read the test let alone pass the test.
I was very traumatized by the test. On the last day of the 8th grade, our social studies teacher told us the results. I had flunked! This meant summer school. Over dinner, I told my parents. I just didn’t flunk stuff, and we we all mystified. Unbeknownst to me, my parents called the school principal, at night. He called the social studies teacher, who told him I really had passed, and he was just giving me a hard time! The principal made the teacher drive to my house and personally inform me that I had passed the test. At 8:30 p.m.! Never saw him again!
Can anybody imagine any of this happening in these modern times? I feel so old and lucky recalling this.