In defense of the U.S. public

I'm a little shocked to be taking this position, since I have been known myself to bemoan the sad state of citizen participation in this country. I've criticized the U.S. education system's disinterest in critical thinking and our disheartening tendency to evaluate political candidates on charisma rather than policy.

However. I feel compelled to write about the new study, "Our Fading Heritage," by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The study found that seventy-one percent of the 2,508 U.S. adults who took a 33 question test on US political and economic concepts failed that test (I believe they used 60% as their cut-off for failure). The study focused especially on how well college prepared people for civic life, concluding that "after all the time, effort, and money spent on college, students emerge no better off in understanding the fundamental features of American self-government." By the numbers, the average score for a person with a bachelor's degree was 57% while the average for those with a high school diploma was 44%.

The study also asserts that "only 24% of college graduates know that First Amendment prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States."

Which brings me to my specific criticisms.

The quiz includes thirty-three questions. Some test "basic" civics knowledge: what are the three branches of government? Name one right or freedom guaranteed by the first amendment (the options are "right to bear arms," "due process," "religion," and "right to counsel"). Others test more specialized knowledge, asking questions such as "what was the main issue in the debates between Lincoln and Douglas in 1858?" and "What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the US Constitution?"

Thirteen of the thirty-three questions fall squarely into the category I would call "requiring special knowledge." Those questions touch on theories of free market capitalism, the content of Thomas Jefferson's letters, and FDR's threats about the Supreme Court. I'm not sure those last two are "basic" knowledge required for civic engagement and, more importantly, it doesn't surprise me that a substantial portion of the US public, including college students, don't know the answer. If you didn't take a US history class in college that specifically covered that era and those issues, you probably wouldn't. I was able to identify that building a "wall of separation" between state and religion came from Thomas Jefferson's letters and that the anti-federalists were instrumental in making the bill of rights happen only because I have gone through the Library of Congress' awesome exhibit on the making of Constitution twice in the last month. Maybe prior to that experience I was, as Kathleen Parker suggests in a Washington Post editorial this morning, "too stupid to vote," but I beg to differ.

I also have to take issue with the assertion that "only 24% of college graduates know that First Amendment prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States." What they mean, actually, is that only 24% of college graduates correctly chose "religion" when given the options "right to bear arms," "due process," "religion," and "right to counsel." In other words, and I know this is still a bit sad, only 24% of college graduates can distinguish the contents of the first amendment from the contents of other amendments in the bill of rights. I'm guessing that the percentage getting the question right would be significantly higher even if the four options included rights guaranteed in later amendments. I would still like both high school and college graduates to know what's in the first amendment. I think it's useful knowledge for understanding civic information. But I'm skeptical that the situation is quite as dire as the ISI would like to make it.

The report also asserts "If there is any presidential speech that has captured a place in popular culture, it is the Gettysburg Address ... the truth is, however, Lincoln's most memorable words are now remembered by very few." This argument is based on the fact that only 21% of people accurately identified the phrase "government of the people, for the people, by the people" as coming from the Gettysburg Address. The other options? the speech "I have a Dream," the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. I guess I think people can be forgiven for thinking that those famous words that do, in fact, reference the Constitution, might appear in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The fact that they got the question wrong doesn't necessarily mean that people don't recognize the words. In fact, it suggests that they are now so much a part of our understanding of US government that people assume they belong in a more foundational document than Lincoln's address. It suggests that Lincoln's words successfully redefined what's going on in the Constitution. I also wonder how the percentage would have changed if they had added the famous line "shall not perish from the earth" to the end of their quotation. It wouldn't shock me if the percent of people responding correctly would increase, at least a bit.

I know that these are, in some cases, small criticisms and the fact remains that people struggled to answer questions that thorough knowledge of government and history should have made fairly simple. But, I also think the small criticisms pile up. And, most importantly, I don't think that failing to answer these questions correctly provides an accurate picture of a person's civic capabilities or even their knowledge about the current issues on which the national public ought to be taking stands. When I complain about the civic laziness of the U.S. population, it's not because, as the ISI seems to suggest, colleges are stealing from the US taxpayer by failing to teach "America's history, key texts, and institutions." It's because we continue to think and act as though a set of basic questions, a standardized test, or a crash course in U.S. history is what is needed to prepare people for life in a democracy. I care far more that my students be able to launch a well-reasoned and well-researched argument outlining their position on domestic HIV/AIDS funding or, yes, even abortion, than that they be able to respond correctly to more than 18 out of 33 questions on a civic literacy quiz. Indeed, I care more that my students know how to use the internet and the library to find the answers to those quizzes when they need them than that they know them off the top of their heads.

Finally, I think that the report's suggestion that the fact that federal, state, and local government gave $114 billion to public colleges and $17 billion to private colleges in 2005 obliges those colleges to "[teach] students America's history, key texts, and institutions" as expected by 71% of survey respondents rather than obliging them to use that money for the research agendas, capital projects, scholarships, loans, and other programs to which it was directed, is spurious. Especially when the argument is framed as "what do taxpayers, many of whom cannot afford to send their own children to college, receive in return for this investment?" Putting government funding for higher education on the table because it's doing something other than providing civic education is ridiculous and endangers rather than helps the cause of those parents who can't afford to send their kids to college. I would like to see increased civic education at the college level. I think there are lots of innovative programs out there already making good progress (Campus Compact, anyone?). Access to courses in history, political science, and economics is certainly part of that effort. But, we would be remiss if we caved to the idea that such training is the foundation of an active citizenry.