PROGRAMMATIC DEFINITIONS ARE TRECHEROUS: here's why

 

Here is a classic programmatic definition: "Abortion is murder." Why? Because if you accept the definition, you necessarily accept the program of action that goes with it. What program of action? Redefining induced abortion as an act of murder. It is NOT murder anywhere in America. Not even in states where abortion is outlawed after a certain term of pregnancy. 

"Abortion is murder" does not mirror ordinary usage. As evidence let's look at the two key words, "abortion" and "murder." The Medical Dictionary explicitly defines abortion as: termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. In the medical sense, this term and the term miscarriage both refer to the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of survival outside the uterus. The term abortion is more commonly used as a synonym for induced abortion, the deliberate interruption of pregnancy as opposed to miscarriage, which connotes a spontaneous or natural loss of the fetus. 

The Oxford Dictionary of English defines "murder" as: the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another. Of course, then, for abortion to be murder a fetus has to be thought of as a human being. But among theologians there is substantial disagreement on that matter.  Even the early church fathers thought that it was more wrong to abort a fully formed fetus than one that wasn't.  

t

Pope Francis declared abortion to be a "crime" even though in the United States, and in other Western nations, it isn't. So the Pope's definition is programmatic. If we accept the Pope's definition, we embrace the Roman Catholic program of action that is embedded in it. Redefining abortion as the capital crime of murder. 

Clearly the Pope's definition violates ordinary usage. Abortion is not a crime, at least not until a certain duration of pregnancy has passed. Nor do polls evidence a majority of Americans agree with the Pope that it is an "absolute evil." The Pope's violation of ordinary usage - and popular consensus - is what makes his definition programmatic. And that istroublesome because this linguistic maneuver delegitimizes debate and stifles discussion. 

Accept the Pope's definition and we need not wonder if a girl who has been raped by her father should have the option of abortion. If she and/or her mother choose that course of action, no matter how desperately they choose it, she/they are, by the Pope's definition are murderers who have chosen an "absolute evil." And, according to the Pope, this would be true even if the abortion were performed before the embryo was still and embryo - much less capable of independent survival outside the womb.

The practical force of programmatic definitions is that their acceptance has consequences far exceeding mere linguistic preference. Accept Pope Francis's definition, for example, and there is no room for argument or contrary evidence. The choice has been made for us. 

A handy, though by no means infallible, method of identifying programmatic definitions is the presence of adjectives such as “true “ or “real.” For example, "A true conservative is one who ...". You can fill in the rest. But those who offer programmatic definitions do not necessarily intend to deceive or slip us a linguistic Mickey. They might well believe that the meaning they propose is the only “true” or “right” one. 

Sincerity and good intentions, however, are not enough. To avoid being programmatic, definitions must mirror ordinary usage, stand against contrary evidence and surmount informed disagreement. Mere assertion will not do.

SCARCE ENROLLMENT = VANISHING STANDARDS

When I was admitted to college there were 3 qualified applicants for every opening. The result was a set of rigorous standards. For instance, finishing sophomores were required to take a summative "Junior Standing Test." It measured knowledge of the required core subject taken during the first two years. One had to pass  to become a junior. Fail the first time and you had to retake it until you passed. Imagine an administrator instituting such a test today. Finding a polar bear in the rain fores is more likely. Why? Because today's acute shortage of applicants causes many college presidents to at least flirt with the standard: "The customer is always right."

A new breed of professor also thrives and reproduces in this permissive environment. These 'professors' not only fail to impose rigor, they decry the very concept. Rigor, they piously proclaim, is a form of oppression. Worse, reason and logic are merely "white" ways of knowing. Arriving at the "right" answer is also out.  Even Socrates is finished. He is, according to these enlightened individuals, just another white, male, SYS, chauvinistic, oppressor. So, I guess the Socratic method, a time-honored, logic-based method of teaching and learning, must now be useless.  (Of course, my last sentence exemplifies the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. But  since logic is merely a white way of knowing, I guess we can ignore fallacious reasoning.)

This new breed of enlightened professors even declares the enlightenment and Western culture are also out. How come? Because, they preach, no culture is better than any other. This new breed of professor's lives would be at risk if they lived in this culture and failed to agree that the People's Republic's cultural practices are without equal anywhere in the world. Yet, according to these benighted individuals, the culture of, say, Canada, is no better than the culture of North Korea where you must enthusiastically agree that a porcine homicidal runt is  superior to every other human being on the face of the earth. 

Taken together, this new breed of professor's  assertions castrate instructional quality, consign scholarship to the dust bin, spit on our Western heritage and dramatically devalue academic credentials in the process. Nevertheless, they sell their goofy gospel to impressionable students with evangelical intensity. 

Evangelization of any kind is a NOT a professor's proper job. Real professors pose intelligent questions, communicate settled knowledge and lead penetrating discussions. In short, they teach, not preach. These ersatz professors  preach, then preach some more. This new breed are, in effect, true believers selling a profane, destructive and illogical faith as gospel to impressionable teens. 

Making matters worse, a distressing number of college administrators add fuel to this academic dumpster fire in order to retain tuition paying customers. Preoccupied with meager enrollment and vanishing tuition revenue, they slyly promote academic dereliction of duty under a variety of guises. For instance, deciding attendance is now optional in the name of promoting freedom. The unstated goal? To keep seats filled." 

Similarly, the worst of college presidents now urge professors to "become the student's friend." Professors should NOT be a student's friend. Yes, they owe students fairness, courtesy and quality instruction. But they also have crucial obligations to society as a whole , such as sorting the academic wheat from the chaff. And don't imagine for a moment that this is unimportant. Do you want an ignorant and/or lazy person to build the bridges you cross, do your taxes, teach your kids, perform your surgery? Of course not. Yet friendship compromises the professorial selection process that maximizes the probability of competence. 

I also know of a college President who requires professors to engage in "whole life" counseling. Mere academic counseling, is incomplete he proclaims. You student should also be your friends. And you should inquire into personal things like: "Are you sleeping well?" "Do you have digestive issues?" "Are you anxious?" "Is there trauma in your life?"   Other than sending them to the Counseling Center, what can a professor do about a student's personal difficulties? Award an unearned higher grade seems the most likely remedy. And that has the added advantage of keeping seats filled. Professors are not qualified to pry into student's personal lives. They aren't trained mental health professionals. Besides, focusing life's difficulties undermines young people's resilience. In the real world, bad things happen to all of us. Far better for students to be encouraged to suck it up and get on with life.  Emphasizing grievances and personal difficulties encourages whining, capitulation, feeling sorry for one's self, blaming others, looking for excuses. All of that is destructive of human potential.  

Also let's not forget that these new breed "progressives" have redefined a broad range of normal stressors and perturbances as traumatic. For instance, minor slights, even unintended ones, have morphed into "micro aggressions." In this whinging atmosphere students can't help but see the advantage in making up traumas. These days intense whining just might get them a passing grade for failing work.

Rigor and student responsibility are what makes higher education "higher?" That means in order to earn a legitimate diploma, students must have performed at a high level. And it's a professor's non-negotiable duty to apply that standard. When they fail to do so diplomas become bogus. Counterfeit might be a better word. This is a key reason why current college degrees are losing value and becoming less attractive. Their possession is growing more and more valueless,

Here's something else to keep in mind. There are an increasing number of female professors. And research reveals strong gender bias in student's reaction to females who enforce high standards. Students often expect them to be more solicitous. more sympathetic, motherly, if you will. That means female professors require more courage to enforce meaningful standards. How many of them have that courage? Especially when they consider the lack of backup from tuition starved administrators?

Sorting and Grading

Sorting and grading college students is unappealing. Nevertheless, it is a vital responsibility. "Woke" professors are prone to evade that duty. I even know one individual who says he will not fail anyone.  "I wouldn't be able to sleep at night!" he says. (This same individual has male genitalia, but sometimes wears dresses to work.) Such dereliction of duty should cost this ersatz "professor" his job. Instead, his permissiveness improves his "course" evaluations and helps him win both promotion and tenure. 

Such dereliction of duty is tolerated, even encouraged because administrators are far more concerned about decreasing enrollment and unbalanced balance sheets than they are about quality education. For instance, imagine suggesting to any of them that the school require students to pass a final test before granting them a diploma. I think it might give them a coronary. It's bad enough some uncooperative professors still require students to study.

Political correctness is at the heart of this malignant nonsense. And many academics are self-righteous converts.to this faith. In fact, some go to astonishing lengths to actualize it. For instance, they assert with invincible assurance, that reason and logic are "white." So too are "objectivity" and" rationality," So there's no need to require that sort of thing. Even getting the right answer, is simply "racist" aspect of "white identity culture," They claim "it's time to decolonize the curriculum!" 

They even assert, with a straight face, mind you, that all cultures are equal. If that were true, then no religion ise better than any other. Religion, after all, is a central feature of culture. Now imagine these decolonizers made such a claim in a number of theocratic societies, Iran for instance, or ISIS controlled areas of the Arab world. They would be imprisoned; possibly even put to death. And female professors who hold that all cultures covalent are particularly opaque. They are, in effect, endorsing cultures in which males routinely subjugate them and deprive them of their most fundamental human rights. That's singularly stupid. Unless, of course, it's alright for other women to be subjugated so long as they are not.

Winning Souls to Silliness

In this wacky world these folks inhabit individual responsibility has virtually disappeared. Child molesters, for instance, are no longer pederasts. They merely are "minor attracted persons." Worse, these academic evangelicals preach their faith as objective truth to naive adolescents. Since many adolescents long for simple answers to complex questions, they win souls to this silliness. 

This quasi-religious indoctrination even emboldens some students to inquire into the nature of their professors, searching for signs of damnable heresy. Should one of the professoriate even mention, say, David Hume, they demand the offending devil be purged. These so-called students are half-baked Torquemada's, stifling academic freedom and demanding "right thinking" from all and sundry. In the service of "truth," of course.

Meanwhile administrators, intensely preoccupied with balancing the budget and preserving their well-paying jobs, cower in the face of outrageous student conduct, consign academic freedom and intellectual rigor to the dust bin and even pretend they too are true believers in this new, blighted orthodoxy.

 

The "Woke" and Chairman Mao

Nowadays "students" are patrolling the collegiate world eagerly looking to be offended. They usually are the converts of thought-police professors. Think of them as inquisitors, junior grade. Instead of using college to create themselves, they let others do it for them. To "convert them," so to speak. And as converts, they find researched knowledge offensive, emotionally troubling and heretical whenever it violates their faith conviction that the world is in the clutches of an all-powerful, neo-colonial white male hegemony. 

What disappears in all of this is individual student agency. They've been taught to believe that it isn't they who fail to actually think, who refuse to listen, but the "other."! That's who is always to blame! It's not hard to see how poisonous such an attitude is. 

To tell the truth, this "woke" culture is really a watered down version of Mao's "cultural revolution." Professors aren't being beaten, imprisoned, or murdered as they were in Mao's China. But they are being subjected to name-calling, public ridicule, administrative muzzling, censorship and job loss. Worse still, this politically correct zealotry has provoked a right-wing backlash that also threatens academic freedom from the opposite direction.  And guess who's caught in the middle?  

Conclusion

Of course DEI is utterly tangled up in all of this as many still seek to combat racism with racism, prejudice with still more prejudice, inequality with more inequality, etc. Yes, Trump and his MAGA republicans are busily expunging D.E.I. from government and corporate giants are also backing away. But "wokeness," performative virtue and identity politics remain firmly in place in academe. Actual, as well as ersatz, 'true believers' still successfully denounce non-conforming colleagues as homophobic, racist, reactionaries. They even are often able to block publications they deem 'heretical' in professional journals. This is why professors willing to risk being labeled a heretic are about as scarce as collegiate applicants.

So in higher education, the "woke" religion remains firmly in place. And the zealotry of its true believers remains undiminished. In consequence the intellectual and marketplace worth of a "higher education, "especially in non-STEM areas, is loosing value. What employer wants a blindly fanatic, judgmental college graduate, who knows little, can do less, and promises to be nothing but trouble? 

In the final analysis, "wokeness" is having the same devitalizing impact on U.S. academic life, that Marxism-Leninism had in the Soviet Union. And because it is coupled with the growing collegiate enrollment crisis, its impact is especially virulent. Worse, this quasi-religious zealotry and intellectual vacuity,  continues to coin new so-called "scholars" who substitute faith for reason and conviction for evidence. And they busily churn out even more of the sort of pseudo-scholar evangelists who threaten higher education's very future.

 To further examine these and similar issues, visit www.newfoundations.com

ARE MOST AMERICANS EDUCABLE or merely trainable?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity: and I'm not sure about the universe." 

Albert Einstein

“Essential questions” are intended to guide instruction and help students discover the big ideas that constitute the core of a topic of study. Let's apply this methodology to education itself. What is the most essential question we can ask about it? How about this: how many Americans are truly educable?

What’s the difference between being “educable” and “trainable?” Let’s stipulate that for a person to be “educable” they must be “capable of being improved in ways that depend on accurate information, logical reason and deep understanding.” A trainable person, in contrast, is incapable of being improved in these ways.

Have you ever wondered if many Americans are educable in any deep and abiding sense? A great deal of human misery is preventable if people could be taught to think effectively, listen closely, weigh facts accurately, and carefully consider alternative points of view. But failure to achieve these skills is commonplace — as is the misery and folly such failures. Why? Perhaps because most Americans, like most humans everywhere, are just not capable. 

Lack of Capacity and/or Interest 

 For education to be a cure, much less a cure-all, the majority must be capable of, and sufficiently interested in, gaining the requisite hard-won reason and understanding. Are most Americans up to that? Maybe not. 

Consider the long-standing popularity of P.T. Barnum’s observation that “There’s a sucker born every minute.”  Ponder the durability of H.L. Mencken’s dictum that “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” Perhaps such observations are so durable because they reflect fundamental reality? After all, half of the American people really are dumber than the other half - at least as measured by IQ tests. And, as Martin Luther King Jr., observed, "While you can fix a lot of things, you cannot fix stupidity."

Such an opinion is heretical to Americans bought up on our culture's nearly obligatory optimism regarding schooling's possibilities. Such a consideration is not even acknowledged by educational "leaders" be they principal, superintendent of schools, or Secretary of Education. Nevertheless, there is a large amount of evidence that supports this pessimistic view. Consider, as one of many examples, that many Americans continue to either deny or ignore that we humans are heating the globe to a catastrophic level. And they persist in this folly despite overwhelming objective evidence that climate change is real and growing ever more serious. 

Also consider how many humans trot off to slaughter every time someone decides America should give a war. Instead of learning from repeated previous slaughters, we humans continue to enthusiastically divide ourselves into pseudo-species, carefully nurture distrust and hatred toward one another, adopt beliefs that render others inferior to ourselves and then, sooner or later, join in still another horrific mutual slaughter of our fellow beings that is utterly foreign to any “lesser species.” For instance, fully fifteen million people were killed and twenty two million wounded in World War I. Yet just nineteen years later homo sapiens (man the thinker?) got himself into a far worse slaughter: WW II, This second ghastly tribute to human folly cost, maybe, 60 million people their lives and loosed hellish suffering on many more. Does any of this sound like the behavior of a species that is educable, i.e. “capable of being improved in ways that depend on reason and understanding?”

How come years of compulsory schooling has failed to cure this blindness?  Is it that their education was inadequate? Is it because a substantial number are unable to grasp the depth and urgency of the problem because they lack the brain power? Or, is it because of the many other educational impediments we'll soon mention?

Denying Readily Apparent Facts

The fact is many homo sapiens displays a peculiar reluctance, or inability, to employ reason and understanding even when the truth is readily apparent. The Harris Poll reported, for instance, that despite repeated official reports that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, the belief that Iraq possessed such weapons increased substantially after the war was over and evidence to the contrary was in.

That’s right, despite massive and widely publicized evidence to the contrary, the number of Americans who thought that Iraq possessed such weapons prior to Operation “Enduring Freedom” actually went up as evidence to the contrary became widely known. As a matter of fact, in February of 2005 only 36% thought Iraq was so armed; but in July of 2006 fully 50% believed they were. Does that sound like a conviction that grew out of widespread capacity for reason and understanding?

To be fair, those who changed their mind about those weapons of mass destruction might have done so out of an unconscious desire to rationalize their own original enthusiasm for the war and/or to justify the tremendous costs it has generated. In short, what seems to be evidence of public credulity might just be people being human, all to human. But that still leaves us wondering why the species is so very eager to cling to the mindless tribalism, hatred and the organized murder we call warfare? Is that evidence of Homo sapiens' educability?

Campaign Ads

One can also profitably consider the success of political campaign strategies based on the principle that most of us are fools. In the recent presidential election, for instance, swing state Pennsylvania's citizens were bombarded by an unprecedented and unrelenting multi-million dollar TV ad blitz that offered little but unsophisticated attack ads. Why so many of that kind? Because ads like that work and work well. Does their success suggest there is a great deal of deep thought going on out there?

Of course, political propagandists know how to play on emotions such as fear of the unknown, the alien and the complex. Moreover, the simplicity they offer is beguilingly attractive to a public that has to reach conclusions based on imperfect information and deliberate disinformation. Maybe that, rather than widespread intellectual ineffectiveness, is why the general public remains so exploitable and so oblivious to many urgently important issues. Let’s hope so. But don't put any money on it.

The Media

Evidence of a widespread ineducability is not confined to the repetitive insanity of war, assaults on the environment, or crass political chicanery. Consider, the quality of the media. More specifically, let’s consider infomercials or “paid programming.” 

Multiplied millions of dollars are spent buying TV time to peddle bogus nostrums, physical and spiritual, and many, many more millions are realized in consequence. Psychic hotlines generate fortunes for their bogus operators even though they have absolutely nothing but hot air to sell. Omega 3 fish oil is successfully huckstered as a cure for an impossible range of maladies and tens of thousands have been convinced that purging their bowels will have the same beneficial effects on their body that emptying a full sweeper bag can effect for s clogged up Electrolux. Ka-ching$!

Also consider how dozens of televangelists of dubious background and motive, repeatedly and successfully conning the public on TV by means of such obvious scams as packets of “miracle spring water,” or dollar green colored “prosperity prayer cloths” allegedly conveying magical pecuniary powers. “Pastor, right after I got your prayer cloth a thousand dollars mysteriously appeared in my bank account. Praise God!”

The fact is there is a small army of prosperity “pastors” on TV convincing tens of thousands of financially desperate people that giving generously — to the pastor, of course— will not only eliminate some benighted fools financial troubles but prompt a ten-fold return on their “offering.” One oily, but particularly persuasive, televangelists lives in a multi-million dollar California beach front mansion and flies to world-renown resorts in his business jet. Years back I even saw one of them wheedling still more money out of the faithful so he could buy an even bigger business jet —the price tag was nine million dollars! Let’s pump this sacerdotal bunko artist full of truth serum then ask him about the educability of the average American. Can you guess what he would say?

Media Programming

Ponder also the generally appalling quality of media programming both cable and broadcast. Broadcast TV, for instance, is still the same cultural wilderness it was in 1961 when FCC Chairman Newton Minnow invited us to:

“…sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit and-loss sheet or rating book to distract you--and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland. You will see a procession of game shows, violence, audience-participation shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western badmen, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence and cartoons. And, endlessly, commercials--many screaming, cajoling and offending. And most of all, boredom.”

Newton was right on target until he got to that very last sentence. Since TV bored him, he concluded that the broad masses must also be bored. But Minnow failed to consider that shows remain on the air by virtue of their ratings. TV content is a function of the public tuning in or tuning out. Hence the generally mindless quality of TV programming is an indirect index of widespread public preference for drivel. Network executives long ago learned that they pan the most gold by designing a preponderance of their shows for people of limited capacity and less sophistication — i.e. the general public.

Radio programming is similarly selected via public popularity. So what do the masses tune to? Well here in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, home to almost 6 million people, it is unlikely to be classical music because the one commercial station that played it switched to soft rock. Philadelphians can listen to hip-hop, dance, country, soft rock, hard rock, pop/rock, stupidly one-sided right wing “talk” shows and endless gassing about sports, but the likes of Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn are out so far as commercial radio is concerned. Why? The broad masses weren’t tuning in. Evidently the broad masses prefer Rap to the Ode to Joy. And keep in mind that even greater desolation exists in the hinterlands where semi-literate pastors read God’s mind for the masses while country music grinds on endlessly in cacophonous concert. That is nearly all there is in the media heartland.

Do the happenings on social media give the lie to this argument? No, it reinforces it several orders of magnitude. The truly dumb entries on X, for example, offer overwhelming evidence of massive, breathtaking, shitheadedness that dominates much of social media.

Too Dumb, Too Scared, Or What?

To be fair, no one knows for sure how many people are deeply disgusted with this media garbage. And many people might have far better discernment if they had more knowledge to work with. American schooling helps little here. It is woefully inadequate when it comes to the arts and the discernment they can develop and it shies completely away from anything that might help kids see through bogus divines. As a matter of fact, by the time budget cuts slash “frills” from the curriculum, high stakes testing takes its share and the self-appointed censors finish off anything that might trigger thought, the curriculum is a cultural wasteland par excellence. Perhaps, then, we should beware of blaming the victim for the wasteland’s results.

All of these oblivious folks are not lacking in native intelligence. Sure, many are too dumb to know better. But many others are smart enough but lack their lack of intellectual training and knowledge prohibits their putting their intelligence to skillful use. This variety of blindness COULD be cured by a well-designed and implemented education provided if other things aren't weighing their intelligence down. But these "other things" often do. 

People are rendered uneducable for a wide variety of reasons other than stupidity. They may be too scared, too slothful, too unloved, too mentally or physically ill, too preoccupied with meeting primal needs, too angry, too substance dependent, too distracted, too bent down in soul wasting misery, too little in awe of the power of nature, to be educable. Any one of these causes, plus a number of similar factors, can block, or seriously impede, critical thinking even when it's vitally necessary.

What Proportion?

What proportion of the American population is rendered uneducable by one or more of these various causes? Is it, say 10%? According to the US Department of Education, that is the approximate population of Americans who qualify for special education. How about 76%? That's the percent of people who try to get into the U.S. military but fail to qualify. Is it somewhere in between and if so where on the continuum? You decide. 

But one thing is certain. Education, however well conducted, has strict limits. Schiller was right when he observed: "With stupidity the Gods themselves struggle in vain." When we add a host of alternative obstructions such as those just listed, it's enough to have a seriously negative impact on our species future on this tiny planet that is our only home.

 To further examine these and similar issues, visit www.newfoundations.com 

TESTING THE CANDIDATES: spotlighting the unqualified

 

Here we shortly after the presidential election and a lot of us could still use more actual information about the candidates. We could easily add more vital information in future elections. Offer each candidate the opportunity to take a battery of standardized tests on subjects such as the U.S. Constitution, Federal law, American history, basic economics and climate science, then publish each and every one of their scores. Should they refuse to take the test, make their refusal VERY public.

Donald Trump would have had to take such a test battery and have his scores made public knowledge OR publicly turn down the opportunity. Kamala Harris also would have the same opportunity to take them, have her scores reported or publicly decline. My guess is well-qualified candidates would take the opportunity while ignorant blowhards and clever bullshitters would not. Voters could still choose those who decline, to be sure, but their refusal would provide voters with useful information.

Why not require such tests? Because the Constitution sets the criteria for candidates and such an additional requirement would necessitate a Constitutional amendment. But we certainly could offer each candidate the opportunity and make the offer very public. It would function much like the debates. Except that bullshit doesn't fly on an objective test.

A professional testing corporation such as the Educational Testing Service to devise these tests. It's fun to imagine possible questions. I'm imagining serious questions involving knowledge relevant to future duties. But I can't resist adding a few that I would like to ask:

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. Given an enormous federal budget deficit, which of the following would be best?

a. borrow still more money 

b. cut taxes for the middle class 

c. cut taxes for the super rich 

d. spend only what is taken in 

2. If an attractive female intern offers oral sex, a male public official should: 

a. quickly agree before she changes her mind 

b. make sure she doesn't keep the dress afterwards

c. politely decline 

d. ask her what she means by "sex." 

3. Should our schools decide to emphasize “good character,” the best person to exemplify such character would be: 

a. J. Edgar Hoover 

b. Richard Nixon 

c. Bill Clinton 

d. none of the above 

4. If a terrorist attack on the U.S. originates in country A, the best U.S. course of action would be to: 

a. turn the other cheek 

b. invade country C 

c. invade country B 

d. none of the above

5. The Second Amendment is predicated on the necessity of :

a. self-defense

b. maintaining a well-regulated militia

c. preserving a viable small arms industry

d. none of the above 

TRUE FALSE:

6. With the exception of James Buchanan, every U. S. President played par golf

7.  Mexico is actually paying for "the wall," but in small, discreet installments

8.   James Madison, the man behind the US Constitution, barred any and all Christian elements from that document.

9.  During the Trump administration, Denmark really did have Greenland up for sale

 

10. The Bill of Rights contains a total of 12 rights

Alright, enough of this whimsy. We might also want to test all potential appointees to key administrative offices. These could be required by law. Attorney General or Secretary of Defense, for example. The tests would be keyed to the anticipated areas of responsibility. For instance, every aspiring state Secretary of Education would have to pass the same battery of tests required of aspiring teachers. If we use Pennsylvania as a model, for example, the candidate would have to pass separate NTE tests in Reading, Writing, Listening Skills, Mathematics and Principles of Teaching and Learning. We might also want to add a content specialty test in their college major -- aspiring secondary educators have to take one of these. We could even also require standardized tests in Elementary Education Content and Curriculum. After all, officials in the Department of Education tell teachers at every level what to do. 

 

Of course, in any test of aspiring politicians or potential office holders, cheating will be an especially significant problem. Safeguards are absolutely required. At a minimum we must have different forms of the test in order to eliminate would-be candidates from copying each other's work. We also must put the tests under the tightest possible pre-use security.  Remember we're usually dealing with would-be politicians and their minions!

That, in broad outline, is the plan. But it needs filling in. That’s where you can help. Tell us what you think. Should aspirants for and holders of public office take standardized content area tests? If so should we also measure wisdom, rectitude, practical knowledge, sexual predilictions, or what? Additionally, should we test just once, or test longitudinally every year that the person is in office? (Longitudinal testing has the obvious advantage of measuring whether or not the subject is learning while “serving” and/or declining mentally) 

 You might like to suggest specific test items. They need not be multiple choice or true/false as exemplified in this commentary. Any type of questions typically found on standardized tests are welcome. Short answer, etc, Rush your comments and suggestions to the Worm Turns Foundation. org, or post them here. 

P.S. I also suggest asking them to publish their college transcripts. These folks are asking to be hired by us. So it certainly is appropriate to look into their academic record. (Donald Trump threatens Penn with legal action if they ever release his.)

 To examine like issues, see articles at www.newfoundations.com