> [NOTE: At one time we also displayed a "brain-twister" type literacy test with questions like "Spell backwards, forwards" that may (or may not) have been used during the summer of 1964 in Tangipahoa Parish (and possibly elsewhere) in Louisiana. We removed it because we could not corroborate its authenticity, and in any case it was not representative of the Louisiana tests in broad use during the 1950s and '60s.]
Each parish in Louisiana implemented their own literacy tests, which means that there wasn't really much uniformity in the process. Another (maybe more typical) test: https://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf
This is super interesting. The Slate author who originally posted the Tangipahoa test followed up, with a bunch of extra information, and a pointer to a '63 Louisiana District Court case ruling the constitutional interpretation test you linked to unconstitutional:
The follow-up explicitly notes that the word-processed version shown in the original article is a modern update; a typewritten version that is supposedly closer to the original is shown at the bottom of that article (and available at https://web.archive.org/web/20160615084237/http://msmcdushis...), although the provenance of this version is also unclear ("McDonald reports that she received the test, along with another literacy test from Alabama, from a fellow teacher, who had been using them in the classroom for years but didn’t remember where they came from.")
It's been cited in other scholarly work that cites crmvet, so it's not surprising that, if it's not authentically a Louisiana test, it'll take awhile to clean up in the literature.
This one seems deliberately difficult to answer correctly, even with the requisite civics knowledge:
> The President of the Senate gets his office
> a. by election by the people.
> b. by election by the Senate.
> c. by appointment by the President.
The Vice President is the President of the Senate, but the duties are typically exercised (save the tie-breaking vote) by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, a Senator chosen by whichever party currently has a majority. It seems both a. and b. could be considered correct.
Question 5 is also quite (intentionally) ambiguous:
> The Constitution of the United States places the final authority in our Nation in the hands of...
> a. the national courts.
> b. the States.
> c. the people.
The answer key says c. is correct, but I think I would have answered a. You could also argue the States is correct, since they have the authority to amend the Constitution. The very concept of "final authority" is sort of antithetical to the Constitution.
The key issue and the whole purpose of that question is that also both a. and b. could be considered wrong.
If the person answers A, then the grader can state that this is correct if they like them, or assert that instead B is correct if they don't, so that the test can always provide the desired outcome.
The Vice President is elected by the Electoral College, not the people, and the President Pro Tem of the Senate is not the President of the Senate, despite frequently performing the functions of the President, so, strictly speaking, all of the answers are wrong.
Except in the case where a vacancy occurs in the Vice Presidency during a term, in which case the President does appoint a Vice President who is confirmed by the House of Representatives, so (c) would in that case be correct -- but that wasn't true until 1967.
Agreed, from my limited web research the actual existence of use of this document has been questioned for many years. This is not a new topic, or a new artifact. I've found references to this verbiage going back as far as the 1960's.
Racism and/or vote fixing via the methodology claimed in this article would be a serious and despicable thing, however, as far as I'm aware, we are protected from this now and have been for a long time.
Speaking to many of the outraged commenters, Do you think that the example test is a reasonable analog of any state's voting process currently in use? If not, do you think an analog of this test could be enacted legally under current legal statutes? If so, what additional changes would you propose to supplement current statutes?
We may be protected from the specific literacy tests mentioned here, but there are modern variations that accomplish the same goal of disenfranchising black voters.
North Carolina's legislature asked for data showing how white folks and black folks used various voting techniques (in person vs by mail, preregister vs day of register, etc) , and then modified the voting rules to specifically lower black votes. One judge used the phrase "with surgical precision".
They were so blatant about their true intention a federal court struck it down.
But other states saw what they did and managed to pass similar laws with just a tad more subtlety and plausible deniability.
> Racism and/or vote fixing via the methodology claimed in this article would be a serious and despicable thing, however, as far as I'm aware, we are protected from this now and have been for a long time.
The protection took a major hit in 2013, when the US Supreme court made a 5-4 decision in Shelby vs. Holder [0], permitting some areas to (re-)start a strategy of imposing unconstitutional and discriminatory laws just before an election, with local authorities knowing that any court-case voiding their law can't arrive in time to matter. Then they just enact the same kind of discriminatory law before the next major election, over and over, with no real punishment.
While state legislatures aren't currently choosing to enact things quite as blatant as before, the same exploit makes it possible.
As other commenters have noted, in Louisiana specifically, these types of tests would have been per parish and would not have been uniform.
For a bit of a happier perspective and a personal american story - I descend from this area from emancipated slaves. The farm they worked on was given to them when the owner died, and they became prominent and educated members of the community and established a legacy that still exists today. I am always amazed at the adversity they must have faced when achieving success in reconstruction era - but from my research at least, the really bad systemic stuff didn't come til 40ish years after emancipation, like the "one drop" laws and stuff that was attempting to roll back the progress made during reconstruction. It's a really fascinating part of history I always try to learn more about.
> It's a really fascinating part of history I always try to learn more about.
I suspect the regressive cultural backlash at the US at the moment as the "next generational" response the the civil rights campaigns in the mid-late 20th century.
In my personal opinion directly race based stuff is behind us at this point. There's only one generation alive today who remember a time where it wasn't just taken for granted that all races have equal potential to yield high (and very low) achieving people and that generation is above "shaking things up" age.
I think regression will be along some other axis. My personal two suspects are a) some variant of gender roles and the way they've changed since the 1960s and b) the widespread acceptance of cultural diversity being a good thing and the idea that there can not be superiority between cultures. The "goodness" of both of these things has been challenged quite a bit recently either directly or by shifting circumstances on other fronts causing people to need to think more critically about those subjects. In contrast, the goodness of not being racist (at least on a first order level) has been sailing along quite successfully recently.
Australia had something similar to implement its "White Australia" policy. Apparently, British authorities objected to explicitly racist rules. So the scheme they came up with was that the border officials could, at their discretion, ask somebody coming into the country to pass a dictation test to prove their literacy. The test could be administered in any European language. Very few people managed to pass. Details:
And the immigration officer could pick the language you were to be tested in.
Which led to one account I read of an immigrant who was polyglot with an interest in different languages. He could handle all of the languages the officer tried, until Welsh.
As I recall, this ended up in court, where the judge allowed the immigration, and pointed out that none of the immigration officers could understand Welsh themselves.
I have been told that relatives (born in Sri Lanka) were able to emigrate to Australia later in the 20th century (I would guess 50s or 60s) because they were able to prove that more than half their ancestry was European. I do not know whether this exempted this from the test or whether there was a simple race based bar to immigration later on.
Btw — how hard are these problems nowadays? Back then, 8 top Soviet students solved only half of them in a month — has anyone tried giving them to students now?
What a strange idea for someone from Germany. Here you are registered as a citizen and get a letter to your registered address and you take that to the voting station. Vote. Done.
There's no Anmeldung system in America. Actually voter registration is the closest thing you have to an official current address, and it's a lot easier to do (no appointment required).
Yes I know, which is strange, and I know many Americans are proud of it (no snooping state etc.) but overall I think there are more downsides to it. I feel this is an artifact from times without phone lines and computers with many small towns hundreds of miles apart (also see electorial college) and was a necessity but is now kept b/c of identity and tradition.
I wish my home country could be as brutally honest with itself about its past and work as hard to make things right as Germany has been the last several decades.
The disturbing party coming up on the Right feels like Germany has blamed itself for too long. That “self-blame” is a lot of what has enabled modern Germany to be a much better place than it was before the war.
(I’m an American living in greater Nuremberg, and get to see monuments to Germany’s failures on a regular basis)
Not sure someone suggested that. Not sure what the argument is. The "Because" looks like it should be an argument. Also the sarcasm seems to make it an argument somehow.
Was it just an expressed opinion of "Germany was most of the time undemocratic, unfair and discriminating"? Yes, it wasn't democratic in the Kaiserreich from 1871 until 1918, it had huge democracy deficits in the Weimar republic from 1918 to 1933, it was a murderous, facist dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, and a Russian puppet state with fake elections from 1945 to 1989 in the East. So I would agree with that expressed opinion.
Also because residents of Germany have a duty to always maintain an accurate registration of their current address with the county. So the German state actually knows where its voters live, making voter registration superfluous.
In case that was sarcasm, then I have to disagree. The current German state has an excellent track record when it comes to voter enfranchisement. Its shortcomings with the democratic process lay elsewhere. The last really questionable action relating to elections was the questionable ban of the communist party - in 1956.
I doubt this is real even for 1964 Louisiana. Whenever I move I change my drivers license and it automatically changes my voter registration and selective services (draft). Then they send your voter registration and you go vote there.
This very same cynical and manipulative approach is used today by many apps, websites, forms, data harvesters, data resellers, marketers, tech companies, and governments - with the same basic purpose.
Leaving aside the topics of authenticity and the questions' historical context, it's interesting that the article claims that "most" of the questions are impossible, while >80% have a single clear interpretation. For example, "draw a line under the last word in this line."
I think whether some questions seem straightforward is a distraction. Most of us on this site have been specifically trained on strategies for test-taking, giving us an unfair advantage that we false attribute to intelligence.
> I was preparing for my last major standardized test, the Graduate Record Exam, or GRE. I had already forked over $1,000 for a preparatory course, feeding the U.S. test-prep and private tutoring industry... I wondered why I was the only Black student in the room...
> The teacher boasted the course would boost our GRE scores by two hundred points, which I didn’t pay much attention to at first— it seemed an unlikely advertising pitch. But with each class, the technique behind the teacher’s confidence became clearer. She wasn’t making us smarter so we’d ace the test—she was teaching us how to take the test....
> It revealed the bait and switch at the heart of standardized tests— the exact thing that made them unfair: She was teaching test-taking form for standardized exams that purportedly measured intellectual strength. My classmates and I would get higher scores— two hundred points, as promised— than poorer students, who might be equivalent in intellectual strength but did not have the resources or, in some cases, even the awareness to acquire better form through high-priced prep courses. Because of the way the human mind works— the so-called “attribution effect,” which drives us to take personal credit for any success— those of us who prepped for the test would score higher and then walk into better opportunities thinking it was all about us: that we were better and smarter than the rest and we even had inarguable, quantifiable proof.... And because we’re talking about featureless, objective numbers, no one would ever think that racism could have played a role.
> Excerpt From How to Be an Antiracist, Ibram X. Kendi
The argument seems self-defeating: let's accept at face value Kendi's claim (following the teacher of the course) that students taking the course can expect a 200 point advantage, on average, over those not taking the course, then an average black student taking the course would gain a 200 point advantage compared to an average white student. That doesn't mean the testing is racist (in fact, if true, it would mean the testing is not racist), it means it favours the relatively wealthy. That's an injustice, and a flaw in the testing process, but it's not about racism, but about family wealth.
Of course, there are historical reasons for why the average black family is not as wealthy as an average white one, but the testing is not it - i.e. a poor white family is just as disadvantaged as a poor black family, according to the test - and Kendi was not so disadvantaged, by his own account.
>Most of us on this site have been specifically trained on strategies for test-taking,
I struggle to imagine why you would believe this to be the case. (I say this as someone who wrote, and did quite well in, several high school math competitions without making any particular effort to prepare for them.)
>giving us an unfair advantage that we false attribute to intelligence.
I struggle to imagine why this would be considered unfair, or not an actual sign of intelligence (assuming that the training worked).
I will refrain from providing the bulk of my rebuttal to Kendi, except to note:
> And because we’re talking about featureless, objective numbers, no one would ever think that racism could have played a role.
... Yes, that is exactly why racism could not possibly have played a role. The kind of "disparate impact" that Kendi seems to be alluding to here, is simply not compatible with the lay understanding of the concept of "racism", but only with a specialized academic one; but the potential for moral outrage attaches to the lay definition. The conflation that Kendi attempts is a classic example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy .
Perhaps a better explanation might be that they're all capable of being considered ambiguous whenever and however the clerk administering the test desires them to be? In that sense, they were impossible because a clerk could reject any answers to that particular question for all sorts of absurd reasons: the line wasn't perfectly parallel to word, it was too far--or too close--to the word itself, the start and endpoints didn't align perfectly with the word, your line curled upwards at the end as you lifted your pen from the paper, etc.
Quite frankly, I doubt they even bothered with even that token effort to find excuses for failing people. They didn't need them. Everyone knew the game; if you were black under Jim Crow, you pretty much failed the moment they forced you to take it, regardless of your answers.
Literacy tests were only meant to give the threadbare illusion of objectivity to their disenfranchisement efforts and make that effort more efficient in the process. It's unlikely any state or county ever bothered to assemble a common "official" literacy test, or that officials ever put much effort into crafting a perfectly ambiguous question no one could every answer correctly. There was no need, and to the extent any did, it would likely have been just to make taking the tests as painful and humiliating as possible to punish the test-taker for not accepting that the fix was in, and to further discourage anyone else from bothering them.
Truthfully, the humiliating aspects of the various disenfranchisement mechanisms were almost certainly quite intentional. Fury over the perceived humiliation of the loss of the Civil War, and the changes wrought by Reconstruction, was the constant underlying theme of Redeemer[1] messaging. Simply regaining political power wasn't enough to slake that anger.
Ambiguous: 1 10 11 20 21 22 26 27
Ambiguous execution (e.g. "draw a line around"): 4 5 7 8 9 12 14
Easy on the face of it: 2 3 13 15 16 17 18 25
Nonsense: 6 23 24 28 29 30
Difficult to execute (e.g. "draw this complicated set of shapes in a small space while under time pressure without making any mistake"): 19
That's just my quick assessment and might vary for you but I probably took more than 10 minutes just to think about this. At best (and I was generous) 7 out of 30 questions are clear.
And that is assuming the questions have been formulated in good faith, which is evidently not the case. Question 2 could mean just as well instruct you to draw a line under the whole expression "the last word" in that line, or a line under "the last word in this line", or just under "line". Who's to say?
I feel like a rather large number of individuals are missing a key detail about these questions. It was intentionally about ambiguity. It was intentionally designed to allow the test grader to decide pass or fail, regardless of what the "correct" answer was. Do you realize that these "tests" weren't graded by an impartial judge. They were graded by people who saw it as their duty to deny certain individuals the right to vote.
Too many "rational" people who think that these were just clever word games and that "they seem fair," when being unfair was the entire point. As if the law, and the test givers were going to treat the people taking these tests fairly. I guess it's nice to have so many people who seem to think that the system would treat these people rationally and fairly. But that wasn't how it was. (Also, if you do think that, I highly recommend you go read some history books.)
Readit News
> [NOTE: At one time we also displayed a "brain-twister" type literacy test with questions like "Spell backwards, forwards" that may (or may not) have been used during the summer of 1964 in Tangipahoa Parish (and possibly elsewhere) in Louisiana. We removed it because we could not corroborate its authenticity, and in any case it was not representative of the Louisiana tests in broad use during the 1950s and '60s.]
Each parish in Louisiana implemented their own literacy tests, which means that there wasn't really much uniformity in the process. Another (maybe more typical) test: https://www.crmvet.org/info/la-littest2.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20161105050044/http://www.laed.u...
The follow-up, in which the author chronicles their (unsuccessful) search for an original: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/07/louisiana-literacy-....
The follow-up explicitly notes that the word-processed version shown in the original article is a modern update; a typewritten version that is supposedly closer to the original is shown at the bottom of that article (and available at https://web.archive.org/web/20160615084237/http://msmcdushis...), although the provenance of this version is also unclear ("McDonald reports that she received the test, along with another literacy test from Alabama, from a fellow teacher, who had been using them in the classroom for years but didn’t remember where they came from.")
> The President of the Senate gets his office
> a. by election by the people.
> b. by election by the Senate.
> c. by appointment by the President.
The Vice President is the President of the Senate, but the duties are typically exercised (save the tie-breaking vote) by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, a Senator chosen by whichever party currently has a majority. It seems both a. and b. could be considered correct.
> The Constitution of the United States places the final authority in our Nation in the hands of...
> a. the national courts.
> b. the States.
> c. the people.
The answer key says c. is correct, but I think I would have answered a. You could also argue the States is correct, since they have the authority to amend the Constitution. The very concept of "final authority" is sort of antithetical to the Constitution.
If the person answers A, then the grader can state that this is correct if they like them, or assert that instead B is correct if they don't, so that the test can always provide the desired outcome.
Except in the case where a vacancy occurs in the Vice Presidency during a term, in which case the President does appoint a Vice President who is confirmed by the House of Representatives, so (c) would in that case be correct -- but that wasn't true until 1967.
Deleted Comment
Racism and/or vote fixing via the methodology claimed in this article would be a serious and despicable thing, however, as far as I'm aware, we are protected from this now and have been for a long time.
Speaking to many of the outraged commenters, Do you think that the example test is a reasonable analog of any state's voting process currently in use? If not, do you think an analog of this test could be enacted legally under current legal statutes? If so, what additional changes would you propose to supplement current statutes?
But other states saw what they did and managed to pass similar laws with just a tad more subtlety and plausible deniability.
The protection took a major hit in 2013, when the US Supreme court made a 5-4 decision in Shelby vs. Holder [0], permitting some areas to (re-)start a strategy of imposing unconstitutional and discriminatory laws just before an election, with local authorities knowing that any court-case voiding their law can't arrive in time to matter. Then they just enact the same kind of discriminatory law before the next major election, over and over, with no real punishment.
While state legislatures aren't currently choosing to enact things quite as blatant as before, the same exploit makes it possible.
[0] https://www.naacpldf.org/shelby-county-v-holder-impact/
Dead Comment
For a bit of a happier perspective and a personal american story - I descend from this area from emancipated slaves. The farm they worked on was given to them when the owner died, and they became prominent and educated members of the community and established a legacy that still exists today. I am always amazed at the adversity they must have faced when achieving success in reconstruction era - but from my research at least, the really bad systemic stuff didn't come til 40ish years after emancipation, like the "one drop" laws and stuff that was attempting to roll back the progress made during reconstruction. It's a really fascinating part of history I always try to learn more about.
I suspect the regressive cultural backlash at the US at the moment as the "next generational" response the the civil rights campaigns in the mid-late 20th century.
I think regression will be along some other axis. My personal two suspects are a) some variant of gender roles and the way they've changed since the 1960s and b) the widespread acceptance of cultural diversity being a good thing and the idea that there can not be superiority between cultures. The "goodness" of both of these things has been challenged quite a bit recently either directly or by shifting circumstances on other fronts causing people to need to think more critically about those subjects. In contrast, the goodness of not being racist (at least on a first order level) has been sailing along quite successfully recently.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1556
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/white-aust...
And the immigration officer could pick the language you were to be tested in.
Which led to one account I read of an immigrant who was polyglot with an interest in different languages. He could handle all of the languages the officer tried, until Welsh.
As I recall, this ended up in court, where the judge allowed the immigration, and pointed out that none of the immigration officers could understand Welsh themselves.
Dead Comment
There's no Anmeldung system in America. Actually voter registration is the closest thing you have to an official current address, and it's a lot easier to do (no appointment required).
The disturbing party coming up on the Right feels like Germany has blamed itself for too long. That “self-blame” is a lot of what has enabled modern Germany to be a much better place than it was before the war.
(I’m an American living in greater Nuremberg, and get to see monuments to Germany’s failures on a regular basis)
Was it just an expressed opinion of "Germany was most of the time undemocratic, unfair and discriminating"? Yes, it wasn't democratic in the Kaiserreich from 1871 until 1918, it had huge democracy deficits in the Weimar republic from 1918 to 1933, it was a murderous, facist dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, and a Russian puppet state with fake elections from 1945 to 1989 in the East. So I would agree with that expressed opinion.
In case that was sarcasm, then I have to disagree. The current German state has an excellent track record when it comes to voter enfranchisement. Its shortcomings with the democratic process lay elsewhere. The last really questionable action relating to elections was the questionable ban of the communist party - in 1956.
Deleted Comment
> I was preparing for my last major standardized test, the Graduate Record Exam, or GRE. I had already forked over $1,000 for a preparatory course, feeding the U.S. test-prep and private tutoring industry... I wondered why I was the only Black student in the room...
> The teacher boasted the course would boost our GRE scores by two hundred points, which I didn’t pay much attention to at first— it seemed an unlikely advertising pitch. But with each class, the technique behind the teacher’s confidence became clearer. She wasn’t making us smarter so we’d ace the test—she was teaching us how to take the test....
> It revealed the bait and switch at the heart of standardized tests— the exact thing that made them unfair: She was teaching test-taking form for standardized exams that purportedly measured intellectual strength. My classmates and I would get higher scores— two hundred points, as promised— than poorer students, who might be equivalent in intellectual strength but did not have the resources or, in some cases, even the awareness to acquire better form through high-priced prep courses. Because of the way the human mind works— the so-called “attribution effect,” which drives us to take personal credit for any success— those of us who prepped for the test would score higher and then walk into better opportunities thinking it was all about us: that we were better and smarter than the rest and we even had inarguable, quantifiable proof.... And because we’re talking about featureless, objective numbers, no one would ever think that racism could have played a role.
> Excerpt From How to Be an Antiracist, Ibram X. Kendi
Of course, there are historical reasons for why the average black family is not as wealthy as an average white one, but the testing is not it - i.e. a poor white family is just as disadvantaged as a poor black family, according to the test - and Kendi was not so disadvantaged, by his own account.
I struggle to imagine why you would believe this to be the case. (I say this as someone who wrote, and did quite well in, several high school math competitions without making any particular effort to prepare for them.)
>giving us an unfair advantage that we false attribute to intelligence.
I struggle to imagine why this would be considered unfair, or not an actual sign of intelligence (assuming that the training worked).
I will refrain from providing the bulk of my rebuttal to Kendi, except to note:
> And because we’re talking about featureless, objective numbers, no one would ever think that racism could have played a role.
... Yes, that is exactly why racism could not possibly have played a role. The kind of "disparate impact" that Kendi seems to be alluding to here, is simply not compatible with the lay understanding of the concept of "racism", but only with a specialized academic one; but the potential for moral outrage attaches to the lay definition. The conflation that Kendi attempts is a classic example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy .
Quite frankly, I doubt they even bothered with even that token effort to find excuses for failing people. They didn't need them. Everyone knew the game; if you were black under Jim Crow, you pretty much failed the moment they forced you to take it, regardless of your answers.
Literacy tests were only meant to give the threadbare illusion of objectivity to their disenfranchisement efforts and make that effort more efficient in the process. It's unlikely any state or county ever bothered to assemble a common "official" literacy test, or that officials ever put much effort into crafting a perfectly ambiguous question no one could every answer correctly. There was no need, and to the extent any did, it would likely have been just to make taking the tests as painful and humiliating as possible to punish the test-taker for not accepting that the fix was in, and to further discourage anyone else from bothering them.
Truthfully, the humiliating aspects of the various disenfranchisement mechanisms were almost certainly quite intentional. Fury over the perceived humiliation of the loss of the Civil War, and the changes wrought by Reconstruction, was the constant underlying theme of Redeemer[1] messaging. Simply regaining political power wasn't enough to slake that anger.
0. https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/question/2013/july.htm
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemers
Ambiguous: 1 10 11 20 21 22 26 27 Ambiguous execution (e.g. "draw a line around"): 4 5 7 8 9 12 14 Easy on the face of it: 2 3 13 15 16 17 18 25 Nonsense: 6 23 24 28 29 30 Difficult to execute (e.g. "draw this complicated set of shapes in a small space while under time pressure without making any mistake"): 19
That's just my quick assessment and might vary for you but I probably took more than 10 minutes just to think about this. At best (and I was generous) 7 out of 30 questions are clear.
And that is assuming the questions have been formulated in good faith, which is evidently not the case. Question 2 could mean just as well instruct you to draw a line under the whole expression "the last word" in that line, or a line under "the last word in this line", or just under "line". Who's to say?
(That’s actually in the article’s own headline.)
Too many "rational" people who think that these were just clever word games and that "they seem fair," when being unfair was the entire point. As if the law, and the test givers were going to treat the people taking these tests fairly. I guess it's nice to have so many people who seem to think that the system would treat these people rationally and fairly. But that wasn't how it was. (Also, if you do think that, I highly recommend you go read some history books.)