Edward Snowden, according to the BBC, wants to "return home." This spy has forfeited his right to be called an American. He is the contemporary "man without a country."

 The Whiskey Rebellion Tests the Government's Right to Tax

Michael Streich

First Published in Decoded Past in 2012

In the summer 1794 the new American nation was tested when farmers in western Pennsylvania resorted to armed insurrection, prompting a speedy and decisive military response by President George Washington. The rebellion stemmed from an unpopular direct excise tax levied on whiskey by the Congress in 1790. The issue of “no taxation without representation” was part of a national mindset dating back to the causes of the American Revolution.

 

In 1794, as in the coming decades of an expanding nation, angry citizens revived the pre-revolutionary liberty poles, drawing inspiration from past motives associated with arbitrary and unfair taxes imposed by an authority that appeared remote and authoritarian.

 

The Whiskey Tax Rebellion in the Historical Record

 

Although Congress actually lowered the tax placed on whiskey in early 1792, farmers in western Pennsylvania were still angry, refusing to pay the tax and intimidating federal agents sent from Philadelphia to diffuse the situation and collect the tax. Whiskey production was directly linked to surplus grain and was easier to transport to markets using the river systems. The issue was not the production of whiskey as much as the federal tax placed on the commodity. George Washington himself built a whiskey distillery at Mount Vernon, producing several grades of the iconic Frontier liquid.

 

Following the intimidation of tax collectors and federal marshals, Congress submitted a Proclamation calling upon the Pennsylvania insurgents to disband and submit to federal authority. It should be noted that frontier farm families had opposed the new Constitution, fearful that the central government would usurp powers at the expense of the states.

 

The rebellion grew among the western counties and garnered sympathy in Maryland where farmers were also converting grain to whiskey. Washington secured a statement from the new Supreme Court granting him the power to deal with the rebellious farmers directly.

 

The Commander-in-Chief called upon the governors to turn out their militias and, joining the troops at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, led the troops along side Alexander Hamilton. It was the one instance angry farmers in Pennsylvania and Maryland compared the President to King George of England.

 

The Resolution Defends the Sovereignty of the Central Government

 

Washington’s army, comprised of 13,000 militia men, came from New Jersey, Virginia, and - reluctantly,  from eastern Pennsylvania under the conflicted command of Pennsylvania Governor Mifflin. Although President Washington shortly returned to Philadelphia to preside over the next session of Congress, the militia army moved into the insurgent counties and arrested several leaders that were subsequently marched to Philadelphia for trial.

 

These were the first federal “treason trials.” Far more than refusing to pay the tax, the farmers had taken up arms against the lawful agents of a Constitutional government. Several of their number had disrupted and stolen the mails. The conviction of two particularly vocal leaders, which carried a sentence of death by hanging, were eventually pardoned by President Washington.

 

The entire event involved the Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, citizens on both sides of the issue, the militia, and a host of reporters who sent human interest stories back to readers in the east. The rebellion had all of the components of a uniquely American experience and one that strengthened the central government, the power of the President, and demonstrated the power of everyday citizens.

 

The Motives of Governmental Taxation Schemes

 

The earlier taxation motive associated with the American Revolution involved the British Parliaments efforts to recoup monies spent on protecting the American colonies first from the French and later from the on-going threats of Native American attacks. Taxes like the hated Stamp Act tax dramatically altered colonial loyalties to the Crown. The tax issue and East India tea led to the colorful Boston Tea Party, a name adopted by twenty-first century conservative Republicans seeking to identify with their colonial forefathers concerned with unbridled government spending and the levying of highly unpopular taxes.

 

The great tax debate helped define a moment in history that radically changed Americans’ perception of the role of government. When President Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives failed to produce a robust and growing economy, a new recession resulted in 1937-1938. Roosevelt rejected the “balanced budget” notion being explored by Congress and instead embarked upon a plan to tax wealthier Americans at a higher rate as well as increasing taxes on corporate earnings not redistributed to shareholders.

 

Taxes are traditionally raised to pay for government debt or to permit the government to spend on services and what contemporary Americans call entitlement programs. The 1790 excise tax on whiskey was to pay for the consolidated debt incurred not only by the government under the Articles of Confederation, but the war debts incurred by individual states.

 

The Contemporary Tax Mindset in America

 

Emotions over a “tax and spend” Congress have been enough to elect popular Presidents like Ronald Reagan but in 1992 the same emotions vilified President George H.W. Bush because he had said four years earlier, “Read my lips; no new taxes,” and then allowed new taxes. “No Taxation without Representation” has become a phrase every student in American History can readily understand and identify with. They may not understand the complexities of government debt or the spending mechanisms, but they understand what the Pennsylvania farmers knew and what human beings have known since the first civilizations began: avoid the tax collector and treat him as a pariah within the community.

 

References:

 

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1976).

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980).

(Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich; reprints of any type require written permission)

 

Exceptional Woman of the Middle Ages:

Hildegard of Bingen - Mystic, Reformer, Challenger to the Norms of Medieval Political and Religious Leadership

Michael Streich

 Women in the Middle Ages had very limited roles. Philip of Novare’s admonition to “teach women neither letters nor writing,” reflected the view that women’s status was chiefly that of child bearer; education was not part of that status. Hildegard of Bingen, a 12^th Century nun, is a rare notable exception. In her eighty-one years, Hildegard wrote books, composed music still popular today, corresponded with popes and emperors, and founded two religious communities.

 

Born in 1098 to well-to-do parents, she was the tenth child. Her parents dedicated her to God as a tithe and sent her to a hermitage at the age of eight. Under the care and tutelage of Jutta of Sponheim, she learned Latin. As other women entered the hermitage, a convent was formed.

 

Hildegard began having visions as a young child. In 1141, she began writing Scivias or Scito vias Domini (Know the Ways of the Lord). Scivias was the result of her many visions. Her writings were approved by Pope Eugenius III in 1148 and Bernard of Clairvaux endorsed her visionary gifts. Her book Physica was a scientific and medical encyclopedia. Barbara Newman, in Sister of Wisdom, writes that, “her universe rings with the most intricate and inviolate harmonies, yet seethes with the strife of relentless warring forces.” Hildegard had seen the antichrist in one her visions, with “fiery eyes and ears like an ass’…” Paralleling her own personal struggles with Church leadership, the visions of warring opposites fit into the medieval comic world order. Despite her many visions, Hildegard is not considered a mystic. According to historian Caroline Walker Bynum, “she wrote not about union but about doctrine.”

 

An Atypical Medieval Woman

 

Hildegard lived during a time when the cult of the Virgin Mary was growing in popularity. Although she saw herself as a “poor, uneducated woman,” her preaching journeys and relationships with church leaders enhanced her own prestige. Her visions, according to historian Danielle Regnier-Bohler, allowed her to be compared to the Virgin Mary.

 

Unless a woman was fortunate enough to have been born into a wealthy noble family where some status was possible, the only other route was through the Church. Like other exceptional women of the time, Hildegard’s role as nun and later as Abbess permitted her a greater sense of freedom of expression, resulting in a repertoire of writings and music. Margot Schmidt, in her book Die Fragende Schau der heiligen Hildegard, asserts that, “Hildegard marks the beginning of the history of feminine Christian mysticism.”

 

Final Struggle

 

Hildegard’s religious community was placed under interdict in 1178 for her refusal to remove the remains of an errant knight buried in the Abbey’s graveyard. Perhaps a legal “loophole” of the time, Hildegard was successful in having the interdict lifted but died six months later. She has never been canonized but is regarded as a saint.

 

Sources and Further Reading:

 

Danielle Regnier-Bohler, “Literary and Mystical Voices,” A History of Women: Silences of the Middle Ages (Harvard University Press, 1992)

 

Caroline Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and Hold Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women (University of California Press, 1987)

 

Barbara Newman, Sister of Wisedom: St. Hildegard’s Theology of the Feminine (University of California Press, 1987)

 

Margot Schmidt, Die Fragende Schau der heiligen Hildegard (Johannes Verlag, 1992)

(Copyright of this article owned by Michael Streich;reprints in any form require written permission. Article first published on-line at Suite101 in 2008)

 

 Why Marbury v Madison Still Matters

The Election of 1800 dramatically changed the fabric of the new United States. A bloodless change of leadership enabled Republican Thomas Jefferson to defeat the incumbent Federalist president John Adams. Federalists also lost control of the Congress. Only the third part of the new government, the Judiciary, represented Federalist ideology, in part due to the “midnight” judicial appointments made by Adams. One of those appointments went to William Marbury.

 

When the new Secretary of State for Jefferson, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission, Marbury looked to the Supreme Court for a remedy, relying upon Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Thus was born the case Marbury vs. Madison, which every history and political science student has come to equate with the principle of Judicial Review.

 

The Independence of the Federal Judiciary Must be Inviolate

 

The role of the Judiciary was already being debated in the Congress at the time Chief Justice William Marshall delivered his opinion. According to Constitutional scholar Alfred Kelly, it was, “…his most celebrated opinion, if not his most important one.” Marshall began with the question: did Marbury have a legal right to the commission? The commission had been signed and sealed as well as approved by the Senate. These actions made the commission legal, whether it was delivered or not.

 

Political Aspects of the Case

 

The Marbury case, however, had the ingredients of a significant political battle, pitting the Legislative and Executive branches against the Judiciary. In his Farewell Address, President George Washington had warned against factionalism or political parties. Marshall knew that if he directly attacked Jefferson or the Congress, the High Court could be weakened; there was no guarantee Jefferson would comply with Marshall’s decision.

 

Did Marbury have the Expectation of a Remedy?

 

Thus, Marshall addressed the question of whether Marbury had a remedy under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Although Section 13 allowed petitioners to bring actions before the court in order to force government officials to do their duty, in this case a write of mandamus, this action violated the Constitutional nature of the court as an appellate court in such matters, as opposed, for example. to a trail court. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the case of William Marbury. On that basis, Marbury could not receive his commission and the Judiciary Act of 1789 was declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was not the first court Marbury should have brought his complaint to.

 

In the Strictest Definition, Did Marbury v. Madison Define Judicial Review?

 

Declaring an act of Congress as unconstitutional has been equated with the term Judicial Review for much of constitutional history,  although Kelly, writing in the mid-twentieth century, states that, “the importance of Marbury vs. Madison in the history of judicial review has been somewhat exaggerated.” Various state courts had already voided state legislative acts and Marshall’s opinion never asserted judicial review as a constitutional mandate.

 

The importance of the Marbury case speaks to the importance of the Constitutional separation of powers and carries a subtle warning against using the Judiciary to achieve political goals. This concern continues. On April 26, 2013, for example. Former Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Conner stated that the Supreme Court should not have heard the 2000 case Bush vs. Gore. That decision continues to be viewed by many Americans as one supporting a particular political agenda.

 

The Post Modern Surpreme Court Attempts to Dodge Politics

 

During an April 9, 2013 interview with CSPAN, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, answering questions regarding his view of an African American Chief of State, finally argued that, “I like history…I don’t understand politics.” In 1803, John Marshall may have been more political than either O’Conner or Thomas today, but his opinion in Marbury demonstrated a brilliant resolution designed to remind the other two branches of their Constitutional prerogatives while strengthening the Court as an independent entity that would not become a “political football.”

 

Playing Fast and Loose with the Law of the Land

 

During the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt devised a plan to enlarge the High Court, which declared some of his Depression era programs unconstitutional. This action was strenuously opposed by the Congress, including key members of his own party, as well the opinion of the American people. Vetting potential justices, a practice begun with almost circus-like hearings, began in the mid-twentieth century when the divide between conservatives and liberals became more pronounced.

 

During the time of Jefferson and up until the end of the Civil War, both the Congress and the Chief Executive debated the constitutional merits of a bill. Acts of Congress were vetoed by presidents on the basis of constitutionality. Marbury was one early and brilliant attempt to preserve the equilibrium of the three branches of government and a reminder that constitutionality was the responsibility of every branch of the new government.

 

References:

 

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development, fifth edition (New York: W.W.Norton & Company, 1976)

 

Kristen A. Lee, “Clarence Thomas: ‘Always Knew’ black U.S. President must be ‘approved by the elites’ Daily News, May 3, 2012  accessed May 6, 2012

 

Steven Nelson, “Sandra Day O’Connor Now Doubts Wisdom of Bush v. Gore,” US News and World Report, April 29. 2013, accessed May 6, 2012

 

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic, Volume Three (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980)

(published in 2012 in Decoded Past. Copyright owned by Michael Streich; any reprints in any form require written permission)

 The Russo-Japanese War Elevates Japan to Major Power Status and Demonstrates the Growing Weakness of Imperial Russia

Article Written by Michael Streich for Suite101 in 2010

Korean independence was a casualty of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Japanese occupation would continue until the end of World War II in 1945 and serve as an object lesson to anyone who doubted that the start of the twentieth century heralded an entirely new century identified with the most horrific wars in human history. In November 1905, the Koreans still looked to the United States to assist in their efforts against Japanese conquest. According to the New York Times, however, these assumptions were based on “false hopes.”

 General Causes of the Russo-Japanese War

 The Russo-Japanese War began with the surprise attack against the Russian naval flotilla at Port Arthur on January 27, 1904. Japanese forces subsequently overwhelmed the poorly trained Russian troops, ultimately destroying a second Russian fleet on May 14, 1905 at the Battle of Tsushima. For the first time since imperialist western forces had begun the carving up of Asian spheres of influence, an Asian people had masterfully and soundly defeated a European power.

 Russia, led by the weak Tsar Nicholas II, needed a war to instill patriotic feelings among an increasingly restless and revolutionary-minded population. The millions of peasants would follow the Tsar’s summons as if it were an order from God, but the same was not true of the more literate urban populations. Foreign adventures, especially those resulting in easy victories, diverted the curious away from radical ideologies. But, as historian Virginia Cowles wrote, “As usual everyone thought Russia would win, and as usual everything went wrong.”

 Japan also had reasons to believe that war would change perceptions of the empire of the sun. Japan had modernized rapidly since western warships had forced the “opening” of the nation in 1853-1854. By 1873, Japan invaded Taiwan but received little for her efforts. As the United States entered the race for imperialist control of Asian spheres of influence, notably with the acquisition of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, Japan looked for an alliance, supporting the Open Door policy in China. Her principal ally in the region was Great Britain.

 Roosevelt’s Asian Balance of Power

 The President most interested in Japan and her future intentions was Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt preferred Japan over Russia during the 1904-1905 war, privately endorsing Japanese war aims and post-war claims even as he attempted to portray himself as an honest broker during peace negotiations at Portsmouth in New England. Japan’s taking of independent Korea as a protectorate was an immediate effect of this brokered peace; it would lead to continued Japanese aggressions in Manchuria and China, paving the path toward an inevitable conflict with the United States in 1941.

 Another effect of the Russo-Japanese War was the influence of Japanese sea power. The Battle of Tsushima resulted in the obliteration of Tsar Nicholas’ Baltic fleet, which had sailed around Africa to confront the Japanese. Historians argue that the Russian fleet was unequal to the newer Japanese ships under the skillful leadership of Admiral Togo.

 While that was true, of greater importance was the perception: Europeans could not imagine that a western power would be susceptible to Asian victory on the scale of Tsushima. It was the same faulty perceptions that allowed the Japanese to overwhelm Singapore in early 1942 and prove the superiority of air power over sea power at the start of the Pacific War.

 Long Term Results of the Peace Treaty

 Although Teddy Roosevelt worked toward an Asian balance of power in the aftermath, according to historian Warren Zimmermann, “…he wanted Japan to succeed but not too overwhelmingly.” Part of the balance of power involved the sacrifice of an independent Korea – despite earlier American assurances to the contrary, in return for a Japanese pledge to recognize U.S. hegemony in the Philippines. This quid pro quo was consolidated through Roosevelt’s envoy, Secretary of War William Taft, during his visit to Tokyo in 1905.

 Tsar Nicholas II refused, however, to pay any indemnity to the Japanese. This refusal became a source of antagonism in Japan and almost provoked a resumption of hostilities. The legacy of Russian defeat, however, was swiftly turned into internal revolution in what some historians regard as the first phase of the Russian Revolutionary movement that eventually ended Romanov rule in March 1917.

 The first modern war of the twentieth century featured all of the players that would, to some degree, play decisive roles in the ensuing world wars. In terms of Asia, Japan was the long term victor, demonstrating the invincibility of the west and devoting the national psyche toward further regional conquests. The United States played a double game, clandestinely supporting Japan over Russia in the hopes of maintaining the China Open Door while preserving her own colonial outposts.

 Myths and Realities of the First 20^th Century War

 As in the Crimean War and the Russo-Turkish War, the Tsar’s military was out-maneuvered and ill-prepared, this time by the better equipped Japanese. Despite these realities, the myth of the “Russian steamroller” would prevail into 1914. Having learned from these successes, including the surprise attack at Port Arthur, Japan would use similar techniques at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii in 1941 and Singapore in 1942. Korea remained occupied by Japan until 1945, at which time it was divided between the democratic South and the Communist North. It remains so to this day.

 References:

 James Bradley, The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War (Back Bay Books, 2009)

Virginia Cowles, The Russian Dagger: Cold War in the Days of the Czars (Harper & Row, 1969)

Lynn Montross, War Through the Ages (Harper & Row, 1960)

New York Times, various articles from November 15 – December 5, 1905

Constantine Pleshakov, The Tsar’s Last Armada: The Epic Voyage to the Battle of Tushima (Basic Books, 2002)

Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia (Oxford University Press, 1969)

Warren Zimmermann, First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002)

(Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich; written permission required for reprints in any format)

The Babi Yar Atrocity of 1941 was Finally Commemorated Today with a Monument in Kiev.  

The Babi Yar Massacre: Extermination of the Kiev Jewish Community by Occupying Nazis and Ukrainian Collaborators

 Article by Michael Streich from January 2010

By the end of 1943 Nazi atrocities were being reported with greater frequency and accuracy. On November 29, 1943 New York Times journalist W. H. Lawrence disclosed one of the worst atrocities and possibly the largest mass killing perpetrated by SS mobile killing units. His story detailed the massacres at Babi Yar, a ravine northwest of Kiev that began in September 1941 when over 30,000 Jews were machine-gunned and buried. Later executions of the Roma, political prisoners, and communists raised the toll to between 80-100,000 people. Immortalized in a haunting poem by Russian writer Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Babi Yar must never be forgotten.

 The Truth Reaches the West

 Newsweek reporter Bill Downs may have been one of the first western journalists to be taken to Babi Yar after Soviet forces drove out the Germans. In a December 6, 1943 story, he recounted what he saw and gave his readers the historical background of the atrocity. It began in September 1941 when Nazi officials ordered all of Kiev’s Jews to Lukyanouka. Most of Kiev’s Jews had already fled. Those left behind were women, children, the elderly, and the sick.

 The Jews expected to be transported to another location. But at Lukyanouka their suitcases and possessions were taken and they were ordered to undress. Marched in small groups between corridors of SS soldiers, they were led to the ravine and shot. The killings were carried out by Einsatzgruppe C, one of several so-called mobile killing units operating on the Eastern Front. Although the mass killings were, according to Nazi officials, revenge for earlier anti-German partisan acts of violence, the atrocity corresponded to what historian Arno J. Mayer calls the “radicalization of the war against the Jews.”

 The Attempt to Hide the Truth

 Sources differ as to the exact numbers of people murdered at Babi Yar between 1941 and 1943. They may be as high as 100,000 people. This included tens of thousands of Roma, members of Gypsy communities. As the Germans were put on the defensive following the battle of Stalingrad and began to retreat, they attempted to obliterate all evidence of their atrocities.

 At Babi Yar, Russian prisoners of war were used to “disinter all the bodies in the ravine” (Bill Downs, Newsweek). The remains were burned atop headstones removed from a nearby Jewish cemetery that had been arranged as a marble stage for the pyre. The ashes were then taken and scattered in fields near the ravine. Reporter Bill Downs, however, relates that he saw, “bits of hair, bones, and a crushed skull with bits of flesh and hair still attached.” According to Downs, the Nazi efforts to hide their war crimes pointed to their fears of “the possibility of defeat.”

 Never Forget! Remembering Babi Yar

 In 1961 Yevgeny Yevtushenko penned Babi Yar. Although not Jewish himself, he decried the anti-Semites and “pogrom bullies.” Of Babi Yar he wrote: “And I myself am one massive, soundless scream above the thousand buried here. I am each old man here shot dead. I am every child here shot dead. Nothing in me shall ever forget.”

 His poem is both the monument that, in 1961, did not exist as well as the exposure of a lie. While the Nazi SS murdered tens of thousands, they had assistance from local Ukrainians he identifies as anti-Semites. There is also the pervasive silence of others – neighbors and friends that shuttered their windows when the Jews were being led away. The poem was Russian and in his final stanza, Yevtushenko identifies himself as such but links that identification to solidarity with the Russian Jews. Remembering the victims of Babi Yar is a universalization of peoples everywhere in a common cause.

 Sources:

 Robert H. Abzug, America Views the Holocaust 1933-1945: A Brief Documentary History (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1999)

Bill Downs, “Blood at Babii Yar – Kiev’s Atrocity Story,” Newsweek, December 6, 1943, p. 22

W. H. Lawrence, “50,000 Kiev Jews Reported Killed,” New York Times, November 29, 1943, page 3

Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution” in History (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988)

Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Babi Yar

(Copyright of this article is owned by Michael Streich; any reprints in any format require written permission from the author)

 

What College Freshmen Don't Know

Deficiencies in Basic Knowledge Begin in High School

Oct 25, 2009 Michael Streich

The dearth of knowledge in what is considered basic in Arts and Science classes is decreasing every year among college freshmen and may be traced to earlier education.

In regard to Arts and Sciences, most college freshman entering four years of undergraduate studies know very few basics, despite having been in numerous required History and English classes. Part of the blame lies with high school teachers that often have only a rudimentary understanding of their subject area. These teachers rely daily on their “wrap-around” teacher editions that specify questions to be asked and provide a variety of classroom activities. Blame must also be placed with school administrators, parents, and students themselves.

Significant Gaps in Basic Knowledge

Typical objective and subjective answers from college freshmen taking Western Civilization and American History survey courses frequently include answers such as the following:

• During the French Revolution, the army communicated by radios.
• Benedict Arnold commanded the American Continental Army.
• Rome is located in Greece.
• The Boston Massacre resulted in the destruction of the city by a British army.
• Abraham Lincoln is best known for freeing Native Americans.
• Early Christianity was spread in the Eastern Empire by Spartacus.
• The Nile River separates Western and Eastern Europe.
• Shakespeare’s plays were written in a dead language.

The list goes on and on and many instructors can share equally foolish answers, often from students that graduated high school with honors.

Severe weaknesses also occur in art and music history. 19th Century Romanticism is a staple in every Western Civilization text book, yet most students have no past experience with the music of Beethoven or Mendelssohn. Most have never heard of Franz Schubert. Although it is often asking too much, they cannot differentiate between Delacroix, Goya, or David.

English and Geography

Although most states require British Literature as the standard course of study in high school senior year, freshmen usually cannot name one Romantic poet. Teaching the Crimean War and mentioning Alfred Lord Tennyson’s “Charge of the Light Brigade” heroic poem elicits only incomprehension. It is little wonder that many freshmen papers and essays are decidedly sterile because the writers have no background of common knowledge that would bring life to a chosen topic.

One Western Civilization class was given an unlabeled map of the Roman Empire at its height, after being told to study the maps in the text. Thirty percent of the students attempted to label items on the map by holding it upside down. These students could not even recognize the iconic Italian boot jutting into the Mediterranean Sea.

Accountability of Teachers

These collective weaknesses can be traced to high schools and perhaps even earlier grades. Accountability begins with teachers and administrators:

• Many teachers, especially younger ones, are not fluent in their discipline.
• Almost all in-school professional development is geared toward educational methodology and not subject enrichment.
• Most advanced degrees earned by teachers are in Education, not the subject area.
• State certification programs focus more on Education than on subject fluency.
• Administrators and curriculum coordinators fail to see the impact of subject area deficiencies.
• Teachers are generally not encouraged to keep up with the literature about their discipline.
• 
  

Ironically, in many states a teacher applicant with an MA in a particular field of study will not be hired until they have taken a number of graduate courses in Educational methodology even if they scored in the highest percentiles on the national Praxis exam.

Solutions are Elusive in Long Term Educational Reform

Rather than addressing subject knowledge or the decline in high school student reading and writing, some school systems are considering salary changes tied to merit rather than obtaining graduate degrees in Education or achieving National Board certification. Compensation based on merit, however, is tied to standardized testing and does nothing to address subject competency by the teacher.

The result of this on-going tinkering will not affect the lack of basic knowledge exhibited by freshmen. As the cycle continues, college professors may be forced to “bump down” expectations and require less.

The copyright of the article What College Freshmen Don't Know in Educational Issues is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish What College Freshmen Don't Know in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.