Readers versus Non-Readers
As an educator for over forty years, I found one significant shortcoming among my students: in the main, they did not invest much effort in reading. Books, I mean. Sure, they read enough to keep up with the class, bits of our texts and a flip-through of Cliffs Notes, perhaps. Yes, and they scrolled through screens of social media on their digital devices, maybe scanned the sport’s page left on a cafeteria table, or wetted a thumb and forefinger over a magazine, but read a whole book listed on the syllabus, either fiction or non-fiction, no way. Mind you, I did not assign Moby Dick or Ulysses, or some other lengthy tome. I knew not many would slug through those worthy classics. So I settled for The Great Gatsby or a series of short stories that students might read in a sitting. When more than one student complained about the length of “Bartleby the Scrivener,” a longish short story, I knew that I had somehow failed in introducing my charges to the transformational pleasures of great literature. That conclusion, confirmed by responses on essay examinations, proved correct when I read the bluebook answers that demonstrated little more than a surface understanding, if that, of assigned primary texts.
The proliferation of non-readers is troublesome because this recent crop of learners, the Millennials and the latter end of the X-generation, care more about getting information quickly (snap-snap) than about using critical thinking skills. The notion of reading a novel, say three hundred pages or so, leaves the quick-fixers stunned. No stories, please, nor critical ideas, nor history, no, none of that.
To the point, however, non-readers added together mark a dangerous trend in the cultural and intellectual health of our society. How dangerous? I believe non-readers elected the un-presidential Trump; not many avid readers voted for him, I am sure (no proof for that conclusion, but in the spirit of Trump, we no longer needs to support any conclusion whatsoever). Part of an education has to do with knowing when a person is talking rot or not. Trump is pure rotter. Trump himself is not a reader though he claims that he “is a big fan of reading.” Numerous sources have pointed to indicators that Trump has low-level literacy skills. If true, it is more than worrisome for the President of the United States to struggle reading texts. Such a deficiency carries with it hazards of faulty cognitive abilities, not to mention insecure behavior in order to cover up literacy deficiencies.
Non-readers voted for him in large numbers because, well, they do not read, do not know how to evaluate sources that they reject in the first place. I know how this argument sounds—shame on me for thinking critically in a society that values flock behavior, either sheep or starlings. But, like Trump, I will not apologize for making a brash statement: non-readers beat the readers during the 2016 election cycle. In short, the bad students snatched a political victory from the good students. Further, having much in common with Trump, non-readers could easily spot a comrade with whom they could share the dunce chair.
“Trump’s approach to the campaign—relying on emotional appeals while glossing over policy details—may have resonated more among people with lower education levels as compared with Clinton’s wonkier and more cerebral approach.
“So data like this is really just a starting point for further research into the campaign. Nonetheless, the education gap is carving up the American electorate and toppling political coalitions that had been in place for many years.” (Silver)
Further, Nate Silver juggles conclusions that portend new divisions within the American electorate.
“Education levels may be a proxy for cultural hegemony. Academia, the news media and the arts and entertainment sectors are increasingly dominated by people with a liberal, multicultural worldview, and jobs in these sectors also almost always require college degrees. Trump’s campaign may have represented a backlash against these cultural elites.
“Educational attainment may be a better indicator of long-term economic well-being than household incomes. Unionized jobs in the auto industry often pay reasonably well even if they don’t require college degrees, for instance, but they’re also potentially at risk of being shipped overseas or automated.
“Education levels probably have some relationship with racial resentment, although the causality isn’t clear. The act of having attended college itself may be important, insofar as colleges and universities are often more diverse places than students’ hometowns. There’s more research to be done on how exposure to racial minorities affected white voters. For instance, did white voters who live in counties with large Hispanic populations shift toward Clinton or toward Trump?
“Education levels have strong relationships with media-consumption habits, which may have been instrumental in deciding people’s votes, especially given the overall decline in trust in the news media.” (Silver)
Silver. "Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump." 22 November 2016. FiveThirtyEight. online. 26 March 2017.