tional Endowment for the Arts? If thisnwas the summer of Batman, it was alsonthe season of flag-trampling innChicago’s Field Museum, of PissnChrist and Mapplethorpe’s homosexualnphotos brought to the Americannpublic as a gift from the tax-supportednNEA. If there is a sequel to Batman,nthe Joker ought to come back as the artncritic for The New York Times. (TF)nGiRLS’ SAT SCORES are lowernthan boys because of bias in the questions,ncharges a Center for WomennPolicy Studies report. Nationally, boysnscore higher on 4 of the verbal questionsnand 17 of the math, and the factnthat they do better is alone prima facienevidence, according to Phyllis Rosser,nthat the Educational Testing Service’sn(ETS) SAT test is weighted in favor ofnthe male sex.nWhat we should be asking, ofncourse, is not just on what questions donboys do better, but why? In Rosser’snstudied sample of about a thousandnupper-middle-class New York area students,nshe found the boys did substantiallynbetter on 10 out of 60 mathnquestions. Of those 10 questions, 3nwere specifically about “boys'” enterprises,nsuggesting to her that the contextnof the questions, rather than thenability being tested, was adversely affectingngirls’ scores. For those questionsnthat seem to favor boys (or girls) simplynbecause of the context in which theynare put — figuring out a basketballnscore, for example — a valid argumentncan be made that those questionsnshould be replaced with sex-neutralnsubstitutes. If Rosser has stopped withnthis observation she would be makingnsense.nBut she has gone much further thannthat. She would like the ETS to removenall those questions favoring boysnand replace them with questions favoringngirls. Her reasoning is that there isnno legitimate discrepancy in test scoresn— girls, she points out, get betterngrades than boys do their first year inncollege, ipso facto girls’ getting lowernSAT scores is clear evidence that thentests are warped.nRosser is not asking the ETS tonchange those two verbal questions thatngirls seem to do better on, just those onnwhich boys do better — includingnseemingly sex-neutral problems thatnboys may well be getting right simplynbecause they have taken more mathncourses, or because their brains arenbetter wired to manipulate x’s and y’s.nWhat is she advocating but sexism,nplain and simple?nInterestingly enough, the very datanRosser cites as to what questions girlsnand boys seem to do better on isnfurther evidence for researchers lookingnfor sex-related differences in interestsnand abilities. She also quotesnETS’s own statement to the effect thatn”categories designated ‘world of practicalnaffairs’ and ‘science’ are typicallyneasier for males, whereas the categoriesndesignated ‘aesthetics/philosophy’ andn’human relationships’ are easier fornfemales,” and points out, quite righdy,nthat any test can be skewed in favor ofnone group or another.nBut we shouldn’t be worrying aboutnfavored groups. We should be worryingnabout what it is we are testing. We arennot testing for virtue or wisdom orncommon sense, but for academic abilitynin certain subjects. Now, I am no fannof the ETS or of its near-monopoly onntesting, and to the extent that this kindnof report will clarify just what it is thesenall-important SAT scores have tested, Inwelcome criticism like Rosser’s. Butnwhen we start with the position thatnfairness requires girls’ scores to be justnas high as boys’, we are putting the cartnbefore the horse. (KD)nTHE YELPING BEGAN almostnas soon as Jesse Helms proposed hisnplan for bringing the National Endowmentnfor the Arts under control.nHelms’ amendment would forbid thenuse of federal funds to “Promote, disseminatenor produce indecentnmaterials.” There was hardly a respectablennewspaper that did not yell “censorship”nand decry this attempt ton”politicize the arts.” Why is itnpoliticization only when somethingnhappens to conflict with their politics?nTom Wicker, as usual, had the bestncomment. Calling Senator Helms “thenSenate’s most persistent yahoo,” henwarned that his efforts will have anchilling effect on creativity and artsnpatronage.nGod bless the Yahoos, if it does.nEven under a sober and responsiblenNEA administration—which we havennever had and will never have—itnnnwould still be hard to justify the expenditurenof public funds on thenpersonal hobbies of assorted screwballs,nbut in the current climate of “the arts”nin America, giving grants to paintersnand sculptors is like subsidizing pushers.nIf the President or Congress wantnto play the patron with the publicnpurse, let them go out and buy art fornpublic places where the politicians cannbe held accountable for their bad taste.n(TF)n”HASIDIC VILLAGE in NewnYork wants own public school district”nblared The New York Times (July 21).nThe Hasidic community of Kiryas Joel,nNY, already runs its own privatenschools, but the town (100 percentnHasidic) has been pushing for specialnreligious accommodations in the nearbynpublic school’s handicapped programs.nParents are unhappy with thenschool’s mainstreaming of handicappednstudents and fear that the customsnand dress of Hasidic childrennwould expose them to ridicule — itnwould certainly expose them to secularizingnpressures. Several years ago, thenHasidim had sued the district to providenmale bus drivers for their boys,nwho could not by custom be driven bynwomen. The boys walk.nIn exasperation, the village is demandingnits own public school to benrun not in strict conformity with Hasidicnlaw but in a spirit of accommodationnto their traditions. The New YorknCivil Liberties Union and the StatenEducation Department are predictablynopposing the measure, but poor Gov.nCuomo does not know what to do. It isnnot simply a matter of pleasing a Jewishnconstituency, since secularized Jewishnliberals are prominently in the opposition.nThe fear is that today the Hasidim,ntomorrow the Amish, next weeknthe Baptists—where will it all end?nCatholics are right now paying taxesnfor public education while at the samentime supporting the diocesan schoolsnthat educate inner-city minority children.nIt would be a constitutional travestynif they could run Catholicorientednpublic schools in Catholicnneighborhoods. This would underminenthe whole purpose of governmentneducation, which is social indoctrination.n(TF)nOCTOBER 1989/7n