Whenever I read a news story, I check the readers comments wherever they're available. The good news is that more and more people are adding their two cents. A few years ago, even the more controversial stories would have no more 200-300 comments. Now, that number has increased, sometimes exponentially, with respect to certain stories. The bad news? Logic and reasoning run a distant second to name-calling and overt stupidity.
The most fascinating comment I saw this past week followed a column that made a reference to Aesop's Fables. It was written by someone who spoke to his teenage nephews and nieces about these timeless tales of morality. At least they used to be timeless. The kids told their uncle they had never heard of Aesop's Fables. My initial reaction was shock, something akin to thinking that such a profound lack of knowledge was equivalent to saying one had never heard of the Bible or the Constitution.
A second later I caught myself: why should this be surprising? As I related in a column late last year, a tenth-grader manning the cash register at the local market couldn't subtract $8.32 from $20.32 when I produced the change. She had already rung up my purchase on the register, and whatever it said she owed me, that was that, no questions asked. It's now fair to assume that most kids her age are functionally innumerate, since the leaders of our "cutting edge" educational system decided a calculator is a viable substitute for actually learning how to subtract, add, multiply or divide.
So why should functional illiteracy be a surprise? No doubt most kids can read, even though I'd bet my life that their skill level in that regard has also deteriorated dramatically. How to tell? Writing is a great barometer of the skills one acquires by reading. All one has to do is peruse the myriad number of comments left by people that contain nothing in the way of proper spelling, punctuation or sentence structure. They resemble a kind of written diarrhea, words tumbling non-stop on top of one another, without the slightest effort to organize them coherently. And that's when people are still using actual words. Perhaps somewhere in the not-too-distant future, all writing will be reduced to symbols of words such as OMG, IMHO, LOL, etc., etc.
Cultural illiteracy
Yet even illiteracy with respect to reading is a bit off topic. Having never heard of Aesop's Fables amounts to cultural illiteracy — and nothing threatens our nation more than that. It is truly remarkable how little even the brightest students know about their own nation's history, much less that of the world. Equally pernicious is an utter lack of knowledge regarding basic economics. When a high school sophomore can't subtract round numbers, what are the chances she can comprehend free-market capitalism? Moreover, why would one want to defend and protect that which is largely unknown to them?
Is there a "solution" on the horizon for such deficiencies? You betcha — in the Orwellian sense. An "informal discussion letter" sent from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to businesses is warning them that requiring a job applicant to have a high school diploma may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). "While an employer is not required to 'prefer' a learning-disabled applicant over other applicants with more extensive qualifications, it is clear that the EEOC is informing employers that disabled individuals cannot be excluded from consideration for employment based upon artificial barriers in the form of inflexible qualification standards," writes Maria Greco Danaher, a lawyer with the labor and employment law firm Ogletree Deakins.
One can only imagine what will eventually constitute "learning disabled" when the minions of most litigious nation on earth begin to ply their trade in earnest regarding this newly expanded region of the ADA. Once again, the progressive worldview — and make no mistake, these are the folks for whom any expansion of the state they consider "noble" is totally acceptable — remains unattached to reality. If employers are afraid of being sued for refusing to hire someone dumber than a box of rocks because that particular "disability" may no longer be considered a legitimate criterion for turning down a job applicant, what is the more likely scenario: a) they will take their chances, and face possible litigation, or b) they will stop giving job interviews altogether?
Once again the comment section following this particular news story from the Washington Times provided the typical array of posts one expects to see. Yet one comment stood out above all the rest: "If a high school diploma is not necessary, then the Education Department is now officially obsolete making it item #1 on list of programs to cut. Thank you for your help, EEOC!" wrote one commentator.
I'm guessing he graduated high school.
