Cradle of Unreason

The Graves of Academe

A Professor Speaks Out

A Review by Jean Carpenter

After sober and judicious consideration, and weighing one thing against another in the interests of reasonable compromise, H.L. Mencken concluded that a startling and dramatic improvement in American education required only that we hang all the professors and burn down the schools. His uncharacteristically moderate proposal was not adopted. Those who actually knew more about education than Mencken did could see that his plan was nothing more than cosmetic and would in fact provide only an outward appearance of improvement. Those who knew less, on the other hand, had somewhat more elaborate plans of their own, and they just happened to be in charge of the schools.
-- The Graves of Academe, p. 69

So begins one of the chapters in the absorbing -- and sobering -- book, The Graves of Academe, by Richard Mitchell, a professor of English at Glassboro State College and the editor and publisher of the monthly publication, The Underground Grammarian. In this book, with insightful wit and humor he analyzes some of the grand pronouncements of those who have formulated the philosophy behind the restructuring of education in the United States and, finally, exposes the grand design.

There seems to be something ironically appropriate about the fact that it was in that same infamous year -- 1913 -- that the National Education AssociationŐs (NEA) Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education was established.

The report of an NEA task force of 20 years earlier, largely made up of scholars, had included some really quite reasonable observations, such as ...

As studies in language and in the natural sciences are best adapted to cultivate the habits of observation; as mathematics are the traditional training of the reasoning faculties; so history and its allied branches are better adapted than any other studies to promote the invaluable mental power which we call judgment.
-- Elliot Report of 1893, ibid., p. 70

It was assumed in this report that most children were actually capable of mastering subject matter and intellectual skills.

The new commission, on the other hand, assumed that most children are not capable of the pursuit of knowledge (and that understanding can be had without it) or the exercise of reason and judgment. Witness what they say in their report published in 1918, Cardinal Principles. In regard to Civics Education it blithely states:

Too frequently, however, does mere information, conventional in value and remote in its bearing, make up the content of the social studies.

Mere information. What the Commission might mean by "conventional in value" I just don't know, but I do know, along with all who have ever studied, that only a fool is willing to take the risk that this or that bit of mere information is "remote in its bearing." Facts seem unrelated only to those who know few facts.
-- ibid., p. 78

Note the direction given for Civics Education, and inclination to permeate other subjects:

... Civics should concern itself less with constitutional questions and remote governmental functions, and should direct attention to social agencies close at hand and to the informal activities of daily life that regard and seek the common good. Such agencies as child-welfare organizations and consumers' leagues afford specific opportunities for the expression of civic qualities by the older pupils.

The work in English should kindle social ideals and give insight into social conditions and into personal character as related to these conditions. Hence the emphasis by the committee on English on the importance of a knowledge of social activities, social movements, and social needs on the part of the teacher of English.

And, not content with prescribing ... ignorance of the Constitution in the name of responsible citizenship, and literature as an instigator of social compliance, the Commission decides also that all subjects should contribute to good citizenship.
-- ibid., p. 79

Perhaps it is starting to become clear how knowledge important to our survival as a nation of free people has been suppressed in the school room. But this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Mr. Mitchell's penetrating comments as he exposes the "gobbledygook" the educationists have "adopted as their native tongue" often make one laugh: sometimes to keep from crying; and sometimes from sheer relief at discovering that what we had thought was over our heads (having been "nurtured" in these sacred "halls of learning") is actually nearly unintelligible nonsense.

Most of what we've heard about holistic grading has come from the horse's mouth, the National Council of Teachers of English. We now have a report from another part of the horse, the Educational Testing Service, which is offering "workshops" in holistic grading:

With this method, the essay is read for a total impression of its quality rather than for such separate aspects of writing skill as organization, punctuation, diction, or spelling. The method takes a positive approach to the rating of compositions by asking the reader to concentrate on what the student has accomplished rather than on what the student has failed to do or has done badly. Holistic scoring is both efficient and accurate.

We have to presume the written parts of tests given by ETS will be "rated" in this "efficient and accurate" fashion from now on. In a few years, we'll hear that the writing crisis, if indeed there ever was one, is over.

This, you see, is a "positive approach." To fuss about organization, punctuation, diction, and spelling is the bad old negative approach that caused the whole flap to begin with.
-- ibid., p. 90

Schools do not fail. They succeed. Children always learn in school. Always and every day. When their rare and tiny compositions are "rated holistically" without regard for separate "aspects" like spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or even organization, they learn. They learn that mistakes bring no consequences. They learn that their teachers were only pretending in all those lessons on spelling and punctuation. They learn that there are no rewards for good work, and that they who run the race all win. They learn that what they win is a rubber-stamped smiling face, exactly as valuable as what they might lose, which is nothing, nothing at all. They learn that the demands of life are easily satisfied with little labor, if any, and that a show of effort is what really counts. They learn to pay attention to themselves, their wishes and fears, their likes and dislikes, their idle whims and temperamental tendencies, all of which, idolized as "values" and personological variables, are far more important than "mere achievement" in subject matter. The "whole child" comes first, and no one learns that lesson better than the children.É

What is done to children in schools is not inconsequential. It is not even the "fun and games" that might be deplored for its own sake. It is permanent and deadly serious. Sometimes, it is simply deadly.
-- ibid., p. 188

"Parent choice" proceeds from the belief that the purpose of education is to provide individual students with an education. In fact, educating the individual is but a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order to which individuals contribute and by which they are sustained. "Family choice" is, therefore, basically selfish and anti-social in that it focuses on the "wants" of a single family rather than the "needs" of society.
-- ibid., p. 205

The founders of modern educationism believed that "ethical character" could be taught without attention to intellectual discipline. Consequently they devised what they call the "affective domain." Mr. Mitchell has four things to say about the "affective domain" (here only summarized):

(1) that it is under this umbrella that we get as education such things as folk dancing, bulletin board decoration, and visits to nursing homes, while the merely cognitive "lower order thinking skills" such as the three R's are neglected;

(2) that it is a logical absurdity, since we cannot know or understand feelings, sentiments, values, and responses without the work of the intellect, which is eschewed;

(3) that the feelings, sentiments, values, and responses of our children, or of any citizens are none of the government's business; and

(4) that its paramountcy is what has made the teachers' colleges into "nurseries of self-indulgence, unskilled 'creativity,' and half-baked pseudo-metaphysical incantation."

Here you have had barely a taste of The Graves of Academe. It is well worth the search.

To continue: Killers of Children: Freely Available Information