Academia Problematic Competence

Levelling

December 10, 2024 by David 138 Comments

At Vanderbilt University, an honours programme intended to accommodate academic giftedness has been denounced as “inherently exclusionary.” Having now been identified as an affront to “equity,” an unforgivable wickedness, the programme is of course being shut down:

In his research, [sociology professor, Andrew] Cognard-Black… reported many college honours programmes do not have “proportional representation” of minority students, especially blacks and Hispanics, compared to the demographics of their student bodies.

And so, instead of all that problematic academic rigour, all those challenging tasks that not everyone can complete, exceptional students will now be obliged to mingle with those less academically inclined, and offered an education “accessible to all,” one “open to the voices of divergent experiences.”

The practised doublethink in play, in which precocious interest in advanced material is actively discouraged, and in which “access” is invoked while gleefully denying it, has been noted here before.

Along with educators’ hostility to students and parents who dared to complain about the downgrade, and whose concerns were dismissed as perpetuating “systemic racism.”

Update:

In the comments, sH2 quotes this,

offered an education “accessible to all,” one “open to the voices of divergent experiences.”

And adds,

*alarm bell*

Well, quite. The reliance on fuzzwords and rhetorical fluff is not an encouraging sign. And any unironic use of the word equity should raise eyebrows.

The restructuring above is a familiar conceit, heard many times, and somewhat unconvincing. We’re expected to believe that by phasing out the most challenging courses, in high schools and colleges, and by shafting the students who take them, somehow everything else will become every bit as good, every bit as excellent.

Yes, there will be excellence everywhere.

Albeit achieved in ways that are never quite explained. And despite the obvious disregard for students who excel, and whose ability is deemed troublesome and a basis for corrective measures.

Regarding the promise of glorious inclusion and excellence everywhere, this came to mind:

Dr Asao Inoue, whose “research focusses on antiracist and social justice theory,” and whose scholarly insights include “destroy grading,” and “standards… are white supremacist,” has been mentioned here before. As when we learned that grading a student’s ability to convey their thoughts in writing – and to formulate thoughts by writing – is merely a manifestation of “white language supremacy,” an allegedly lethal phenomenon, and therefore to be abandoned in the name of, and I quote, “inclusive excellence.”

Oh, and let’s not forget the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Inclusive Excellence Centre, where microaggressions are forbidden, including the words thug and trash, and where punctuation and grammar are unfathomable things, even among staff.

Update 2: 

On the subject of omnipresent excellence, arrived at by some opaque and supernatural means, Rafi adds,

They’ll just change the meaning of the words.

That would seem to be the most plausible option, the easier route. That, and cultivating a ludicrous unrealism. Habitual pretending. Something close to an inversion of reality, driven by fantasies of “equity,” which seems to mean something like equality of outcome regardless of inputs. 

As in California, where differences in “school experiences,” i.e., differences in ability and achievement, are something to be eliminated by holding back high-achieving students, with curriculum guidelines based on “social justice,” and educators who are visibly “committed to social justice work.”

And so, we have California’s Department of Education actively discouraging gifted maths students from taking calculus any earlier than their less gifted classmates. As if this were a good thing with no conceivable downsides. Because frustrating clever kids, boring them and demoralising them, is, like, totally progressive.

And likewise, we have Jennifer Katz, a professor of education at the University of British Columbia, scolding parents who question the conceit that bright children will somehow flourish if taught more slowly and in less detail in a more disruptive environment. While implying, quite strongly, that any parents who complain must be racist.

And then there’s San Diego, another bastion of progress, where teachers are instructed that in order to be “anti-racist,” they must “confront practices” deemed inegalitarian and which result in “racial imbalance” – say, norms of classroom behaviour, a disapproval of tardiness and cheating, and oppressive expectations of “turning work in on time.”

There’s a through-the-looking-glass quality. A fun-house mirror malevolence.

As noted in the comments following this, it’s quite easy to demoralise bright children, and the brighter they are, the easier it tends to be. Just bore them and frustrate them in an environment where precociousness is ideologically problematic and often results in social disapproval, from both peers and educators. Say, with accusations of racism, and the closure of their advanced programmes, where they’d previously been allowed to be better at things.

The pace at which learning happens is important. If a lesson is unfolding much too slowly for someone, if new information is barely trickling out, with endless delays and interruptions, boredom and frustration can be hard to avoid. If someone needs to work at a certain speed, anything less can, very quickly, be demoralising. And difficult to undo.

But hey, progress, baby.




Subscribestar
Share: