In response to Adam Siegel's half-hearted attempt to justify academic elitism ["Intellectual Diversity Matters," April 6], I can only congratulate my fellow senior on his willingness to over-rate the educational processes of this country. He has intentionally attributed to the schools of America traits which even the staunchest advocates of public and private education would not dare to speak aloud.
In short, he has accepted wholeheartedly the time-worn fallacy which, more than any other, has managed to undercut all genuine attempts at institutionalized intellectualism in this country: the belief that academic achievement and intellectual prowess are one and the same. How long must we endure this idiocy? How long will it retard our progress in the field of education?
Just as the student who feels he or she has been unfairly graded blindly decries the supposedly unfair mark, the academically successful student conveniently assumes that his or her success, and the grading system underlying such success, portends a future rife with intellectual discourse and high-level logical reasoning. Unfortunately, this is not always the case; indeed, it is rarely enough the case that we must begin to doubt precisely the sort of associations Siegel so blithely assumes. Plainly stated, some of the most uninteresting and intellectually challenged individuals I've met in my four years at Dartmouth were once high school valedictorians or salutatorians. Conversely, some of the most intellectually curious and fundamentally energetic people I've met were once darlings of the waiting-list, men and women who slipped into the hallowed halls of Dartmouth College through the proverbial back door.
In saying this, I do not mean to intimate that there is a connection here -- doubtless there are brilliant valedictorians and not-so-brilliant non-valedictorians. What I'm suggesting is that the correlation between academic achievement and intellectual capacity and/or ability is shaky at best. To date, we have no mechanism by which to measure intellectualism, and simply assuming that the regurgitation of information and the production and criticism of complex ideas are equivalent is extremely unwise.
There is too much data presently available which suggests unequal education in this country for us to feel truly comfortable assigning intellectual value to superficial achievement. How many of us have suffered or seen others suffer as a result of sub-standard teaching, facilities or support networks? Likely very few of us. Nevertheless, if you have ever visited or even read about an inner-city school, you have an idea of what educational inequality entails (and yet, the tendency to turn from public education entirely marks a troubling trend; to many, private school vouchers represent our collective faithlessness, our betrayal of an institution which need not fail, and perhaps, if we look closer, has not truly failed).
What I'm suggesting, then, is that Siegel's conclusion is doubly fallacious: present evidence suggests that his conclusion cannot be drawn, and present circumstances suggest that even if it could be drawn, it should not be.
As to whether or not racial, ethnic, sexual and religious diversity helps to foster what Siegel dubs "intellectual diversity," I would say this: it does not always, and may or may not at Dartmouth, but it certainly can. Siegel seems to assume that political, social and economic discourse stands entirely apart from personal bias, cultural history and present circumstance. Clearly his own brand of discourse fails to achieve this high ideal, so why should that of others fare any better? Siegel, who no doubt has been academically successful at Dartmouth, makes erroneous judgments based on bias and personal circumstance -- what separates him, then, from the "leftist bureaucrats" he so clearly decries?
Until we can ensure that education in this country offers equal opportunity for academic achievement for all citizens, and until we can impart some degree of genuine creativity and intellectualism into our somewhat draconian educational processes, drastic measures such as those Siegel proposes will remain inappropriate, and, hopefully, unwelcome.
