This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
CHICAGO • A recent essay in The Atlantic, "The War on Stupid People," should make us ponder the nature of what "stupid" really means. The dictionary says that stupidity is "behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment; the quality of being stupid or unintelligent."
The term is worth contemplating when elite media publications, which serve as agenda-setters for mainstream media, tackle the subject of people's intrinsic value in society.
Writer David H. Freedman's premise, that the intellectually gifted are reaping ever-greater rewards and we are increasingly mistaking smarts for human worth, deserves thoughtful consideration.
He notes that SAT scores are used to winnow down employment applications and that many of the super-smart are flocking to Silicon Valley with the goal of automating the few jobs, like driving and delivery, that are still accessible to people without college degrees.
Freedman also rails that: "Even in this age of rampant concern over microaggressions and victimization, we maintain open season on the nonsmart. People who'd swerve off a cliff rather than use a pejorative for race, religion, physical appearance or disability are all too happy to drop the S-bomb: Indeed, degrading others for being 'stupid' has become nearly automatic in all forms of disagreement."
And yet ... perhaps Freedman doth protest too much.
In all the data he presents about longitudinal studies of IQ as it relates to one's ability to attain a well-paying job or the likelihood of becoming obese, suffering from certain types of mental illness and ending up in prison Freedman fails to make a clear distinction between low intellectual capacity, middling grades, unexceptional SAT scores, and the alternative life choices that don't revolve around the attainment of a "good job."
Not everyone wants the kind of "good jobs" that are on offer these days.
Unfortunately, it's true that the realities of the current "information economy" practically demand a college degree in order to access high-tech and well-paying jobs.
According to newly published research from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, out of the 11.6 million jobs created in the post-recession economy, 11.5 million went to workers with at least some college education. Of these jobs, 8.4 million went to workers with a bachelor's degree or higher and employment of workers with a high school diploma or less only grew by 80,000 jobs in the recovery.
But not doing well in school or in the new economy doesn't mean you're stupid. Not wanting to go to college doesn't necessarily mean you have low intellect. These are assumptions that someone who looks down on others for their perceived smarts might mistakenly conflate with not being capable of jumping through educational hoops to attain a middle-class life.
There are plenty of people who don't want to take on a lifetime of debt for a college degree that may or may not get them a job. Others want to make things with their hands, or interact primarily with other human beings and not computers. And that has to be OK.
Promoting high intelligence levels, preparing children to attain the highest amount of academic success possible, and providing excellent educational opportunities for all students are vitally important to our nation's progress. And these goals are important in their own right, not simply for the purposes of getting as many people into college as possible because there is practically no other way to ever be gainfully employed.
Freedman's essay has made waves, with commentators weighing in on whether intelligence really is impacting the nation's inequalities and whether government could curb the ravaging of manufacturing jobs by, say, "[providing] incentives to companies that resist automation, thereby preserving jobs for the less brainy."
You could argue every bit of evidence Freedman presents and still agree with his conclusion that, "We should ... begin shaping our economy, our schools, even our culture with an eye to the abilities and needs of the majority, and to the full range of human capacity."
Of course we should.
Indeed, the current populist political revolution is founded on the rebuke of corporations offshoring manufacturing jobs to cheap-labor countries and venture capitalists making money on technology that cuts humans out of the job market.
But retooling society will require that great thinkers and policymakers in our country respect the reality that low intelligence and reluctance to join the college-required rat race are not necessarily issues that go hand in hand.