In my earlier entry on the disastrous June 2003 NY Regents exam, I mentioned that the exam had previously come under fire, after it was discovered that the text used in certain reading passages had been sanitized in ways that made the text more politically correct and/or less challenging. What's more, this was done often without the knowledge or permission of the passage's author. Diane Ravitch discusses this at length in her accomplished new book, The Language Police, and Reader Laura had this comment:
I don't think enough fuss has been made about the sanitizing aspect. If a kid is actually so well-read as to be familiar with the unaltered text, the sanitized text could throw her off. Not to mention how cottonpickin' stupid it is. If dumbed-down texts of standard works are all we can expect the rank and file of high schoolers to deal with, why bother to educate past eighth grade.
You know, when the scandal surrounding the text changes on the Regents exam first hit, I was crazy enough to try to defend sanitized essays, because I knew from a test developer's point of view just how lawsuit-happy test takers and their parents could be. I have seen, with my own eyes, the reams of unsubstantiated complaints about test content from examinees trying to get items discarded.
For example, I actually did research to defend the test (at my old job) against a test-taker who was repeating the old canard about the origin of the phrase, "rule of thumb." No, the phrase doesn't come from an old English common law rule about the width of a branch a husband could use to beat his wife; it's been around for centuries as an idiom meaning, "rough or approximate measure." I had to go look this up, because it had been used in one of our test items, and the test taker was threatening to sue us for sexism and harassment and emotional distress and probably everything else her lawyer thought she could get away with.
Despite cases like that, I was, at the time, sympathetic to the test developers, and still sympathetic to test takers as well. Here's what I said back then:
Now, I'm a free-speech advocate, but I'm not siding with Nando on this topic. The main error the test developers have made here is that they didn't inform the authors of the chosen passages that changes might be made, and I find it surprising that these authors didn't sign a contract agreeing to the use of their works in the original or in an altered form. The New York State alumni assistant commissioner cited in both articles emphasizes that "the 'fair use' provision of copyright law allowed the excising of passages for testing purposes."
Regardless, the test developers are right to remove as much potentially controversial material from the reading passages as possible. Yes, it can alter the meaning of the text; yes, it can make the reading experience less enjoyable. That's preferable to the alternative, which is putting kids in a high-stress situation and testing them on material that may be distracting or emotionally disturbing enough to interfere with their performance. This is not the same situation as teaching emotionally intense material in class (where I feel that altering or ignoring certain texts would indeed be censorship). Controversial reading material should be taught slowly and carefully in a classroom, so I don't see the benefit of presenting it suddenly and out of context in a high-stakes testing environment. A few indignant authors are nothing compared to the potential lawsuits from test takers.
Following this post, however, I discovered that NOBODY - no reader, no pundit, no fellow blogger - agreed with me on this one. So I pondered the topic a bit (aided by commenters like Laura), and while I still sympathize with the test developers, the fact is that the willing bowdlerization of test content only contributes to the litigious attitude of some test takers. In fact, the sanitizing process can be interpreted in such a way that it seems the test developers don't respect the test takers and don't expect them to be able to control themselves for a few minutes if they happen to read a test item they don't like.
It's true that some test takers don't have that control. I'm no longer convinced, however, that this is a good reason to continue to sanitize test items. And, as Reader Bill B. points out:
My concern is that making the test texts PC would inevitably lead to altering the texts used in class also. Lest you think this is a new trend I saw altered texts used in my children's high school as far back as 15 years ago...so the danger is clearly there.
A very good point. Which comes first, the sanitized test or the sanitized textbook?