Over the past six months, I've seen various articles reporting that professors with the University of California system have called for a return to using standardized testing for college admission. For instance, in late June, Campus Reform reported that "[o]ver 1,500 STEM faculty across the University of California system, including 53 department chairs, have signed an open letter to university leadership calling for the university system to reinstate standardized test requirements in the admissions process, citing students’ lack of competency in high school math concepts."
“Basic mathematical fluency is analogous to literacy; without it, success in university-level STEM becomes structurally unattainable for students,” the letter reads. “We now observe preparation gaps so severe that instructors must reteach middle-school mathematics while simultaneously teaching the material students need for sciences, engineering, economics, and other quantitatively demanding fields.”
The letter attributes the decline in student readiness to the University of California admissions system’s 2020 decision to eliminate standardized testing requirements, arguing that test scores provide a critical measure of student ability, particularly at a time when applicants can use artificial intelligence to assist in writing their college essays.
Accordingly, the letter calls for school administrators to implement several changes to the admissions process—including reinstating test score requirements for prospective STEM students and giving STEM faculty a larger role in determining standards for student readiness.
But Leftists are pushing back. For instance, George Leef cites to a New York Times editorial by Miriam Pawel that argues that California does not need the SAT. Leef explains:
[Pawel] acknowledges the criticism that has recently been lodged by faculty members throughout California that large numbers of students are entering college with ridiculously weak academic backgrounds—so much so that professors must teach basic high school math. Professors in the University of California system are pleading for the restoration of the SAT to screen out students who are terribly deficient in mathematics preparation.
But to Pawel, the low level of math preparation is not important. What is important, she argues, is getting “underrepresented” students into top universities and through to their degrees. The problem with the SAT is that it screens out many of the “diverse” students she thinks are vital. Admitting “underrepresented” students makes the university more diverse and that, according to progressives like Pawel, is a key element of social justice. The SAT, she believes, gets in the way of inclusivity. That view fails to consider the students who are excluded.
Leef points out the obvious: admitting "one student because his or her ancestry has been deemed 'underrepresented,' ... also means that another student must be excluded because his or her group is not one that adds 'diversity.'" He argues that "[t]here is no justification for labeling some students as 'diverse' (and therefore beneficial) and others 'non-diverse' (and therefore dispensable)"; but that "[i]nstead of seeking 'diversity' and 'inclusiveness,' it would make far more sense for universities to figure out how to identify applicants who have both the academic aptitude and the desire to study what they offer."
Leef's comments make sense and, in comparison, Pawel's seem foolish or stupid, even. But it would be a mistake to assume that just because Leftists advance ideas and policies that are (to any normal person) stupid, that the Leftists themselves are being stupid. In his piece, "Correctly Understanding the ‘Stupidity’ of the Left", Greg Salsbury warns against underestimating Leftists or giving them an excuse for their destructiveness, explaining:
We don’t tend to think of stupid people as evil. Perceived stupidity neutralizes perceived intent and, to some degree, perceived blame. “Stupid” is not the word that comes to mind for figures like Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, and it would have done us no favors to describe the Axis powers in World War II as merely stupid or crazy.
Calling an adversary’s actions crazy or stupid implies those actions produce an outcome fundamentally different from what their architects intended. But what if the opposite is true? What if the policies are producing precisely the disruption their architects sought?
In that regard, he reminds his readers:
As has often been the case with radical leftist movements in the United States, their stated objective is to dismantle existing American institutions, traditions, and governing structures in favor of a fundamentally different social order. Put simply, they despise America as it currently exists. Once you understand this premise, their positions look less like harebrained, stupid, illogical, or unworkable ideas, but as carefully conceived, sometimes ingenious tactics, intended to advance that larger objective.
In this light, things like defunding the police, draconian regulations and carbon taxes, mothballing coal and nuclear plants, wide-open borders, turning a blind eye to Medicaid and NGO fraud, supporting genital mutilation of minors, opposing voter ID, massive expansion of entitlement spending, lowering combat readiness standards in the military in the name of gender equality, and support for adversaries like Hamas can be understood not as disconnected examples of incompetence, but as elements of a broader ideological program. If it does damage to America and hastens the great realignment, they support it.
Whether one agrees with that interpretation of any particular policy is a separate question. The important point is that conservatives shouldn’t automatically assume destructive policies are the product of stupidity.
In that light, the objections to using standardized tests in admissions is not stupid if you realize it is part of an overall strategy of undermining the Unites States and the economic futures of white Americans.
