After I initially thought about the concept of “standards,” I looked up the definition of this word. There was actually twenty-eight distinct definitions! However the two definitions that apply to what I was thinking about are:
-those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable
or
-a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment
As far as certain standards go, for whatever reason some individuals just cannot meet them, and in these situations there are basically two options … either keep the standards the same, and insist that everybody abide by the same standards or change the standards to accommodate certain individuals.
For instance many years ago a certain medical school back East admitted two students who did not meet the usual admittance criteria standards. They were treated differently. They were each allowed to take a lighter load each year, and the plan was for them to graduate in five years instead of the usual four years. Even those who had been in the same freshman class do not know if either of them finished medical school. Just to clarify that this was not a racial thing, the nicknames of these two were self-explanatory … “Salt and Pepper.”
Who benefitted from this loosening of standards? Surely “Salt and Pepper” benefitted … that is if they ever graduated. What about the future patients of “Salt and Pepper?” What about the two prospective students whose places were taken by “Salt and Pepper?”
Today we are seeing a similar loosening of standards in reference to the decision by some colleges to no longer use the SAT/ACT as a standard for admission. Certainly this may benefit an individual who for whatever reason doesn’t do well on standardized tests … if that person is actually able to graduate from college. But what about those individuals who typically would do better on these tests. Their place has now been taken because the standards have now been changed.
Towson University recently sponsored an online symposium which “criticized university writing curriculum and programs for being racist and perpetuating whiteness.” One of the speakers, April Baker-Bell — an associate professor of language, literacy, and English education at Michigan State University — stated that standard English usage and teaching perpetuates the idea that “black language” is inferior to standard grammar. (For the sake of clarity, Ms. Baker-Bell is African-American, and obviously a liberal as is clear from her hyphenated last name.)
Does this mean that if someone cannot speak and write proper English, the solution is to change the standards such that improper English language is now okay? Whom does this benefit? What happens when that “black language” speaking person tries to get a standard job that involves speaking or writing? I guess he/she will find out, and then perhaps they can let Ms. Baker-Bell know how much unemployment pays.
Similarly from KGB8 News:
Portland police officers will no longer stop drivers for low-level traffic violations, like expired plates or busted headlights. The standard here has been changed. Who benefits from this change? Certainly not the other drivers who pay the standard license fees, but rather the scofflaws who have decided that they do not need to pay like everybody else.
Thinking more about it, perhaps there should be additional changes to some standards when one segment of the population is disproportionately effected. For example: What about color blindness? It is seen in upwards to eight percent of a certain portion of the population. Should we change the standard colors on a standard stoplight to help them? … Won’t happen, will never fly! Why? … because color blindness is a problem that is mainly seen in white males, predominately of Northern European extraction.
7/1/21