34 / CHRONICLESnTherefore, investigation of the intentnof the Constitution conventionallynconcentrates on the discussions innPhiladelphia. To pursue the meaningnof the Constitution further wouldnthrow us all the way back to thatnancient, once supreme but long discreditednidea of states’ rights.nMcDonald is our best historian ofnthe Founding era. No one has soundednthat era more deeply and fruitfully,nand it is a kind of counsel of perfectionnto ask for more. Yet, if he could benpersuaded to study the polemics of then19th century, between the states’ rightsnschool of Calhoun, Stephens, JohnnTaylor, Dabney, Bledsoe, and numerousnothers, and the consolidators—nsuch as Story, Curtis, Bancroft, andnSumner—then he would gain insightninto how the very context of thenFounding was subtly warped by thenlatter in ways that have affected thenhistorical vision of all later commentators,nincluding, perhaps, even Mc­nDonald himselfnClyde Wilson is editor of The Papersnof John C. Calhoun and professor ofnhistory at the University of SouthnCarolina.nDoctors ofnEducation?nby Gary JasonnEducation’s Smoking Gun: HownTeachers Colleges Have DestroyednEducation in America by ReginaldnDamerell, New York: FreundlichnBooks.nA recent issue of Forbes contained thentruly wonderful news that a corporationnis now selling a video encyclopedianof the 20th century. This is sure tonbe a hot item in the “education technology”nbusiness. Today’s students,nwho dislike ordinary encyclopedias becausenthey must be read, can now “tapninto the visual side of their brains” andnget their history by TV.nAnybody concerned about the dismalnstate of education today can onlynbe depressed at such inventions. Whoncomes up with these nifty new educationalnideas? The answer is, of course,n”educationists,” by which I mean pro­nfessors of education along with consultantsnand educators who have degreesnin education from various “teachersncolleges.” In the burgeoning literaturenon the decline of education, not muchnattention has been paid to the culpabilitynof educationists for the degenerationnof American education. ReginaldnDamerell has written a fascinatingnbook which shines a light on educationists,none that will surely make thenroaches scramble for cover.nDamerell should know what he’sntalking about. After 11 years as a copywriternfor an advertising agency, henwas invited to join the faculty of thenUniversity of Massachusetts (Amherst)nCollege of Education, after the criticalnand popular success of his book Triumphnin a White Suburb, about andesegregation fight. While a professornof education, Damerell discovered annawful truth: Educationists are usuallynfull of nonsense. Those professors innmore rigorous disciplines simply dismissndepartments of education asnworthless. Ph.D.’s in classics or physicsnshow more respect for a driver’snlicense than for an Ed.D., the standardnacademic credential among educationists.nIt is widely understood thatnthe academic losers enter the school ofneducation because they cannot make itnin any of the tougher disciplines (artsnand sciences, engineering, medicine,nlaw, or computer science). But sincenmost professors don’t take the educationistsnseriously enough to bothernpublicizing their failings, and sincenprofessors of education are themselvesneager to keep the public in the dark,nit takes a Mr.-Smith-goes-to-Washingtonn(or more exactly, Amherst) tondo the job.nDamerell’s book is great fun to read.nHe recounts the story of Mary, acceptedninto the doctoral program at Amherstnwith Graduate Record Examnscores of 210 quantitative and 240nverbal—in effect, zero because thenlowest score possible is 200. A roomtemperaturenIQ did not prevent hernfrom attaining the Ed.D. Damerellndiscovered that Bill Cosby receivednone, too—and so did the wife of thendean of the school. All three got theirndegrees by taking lots of “independentnstudy” courses and doing “research”nthat falls far short of what would benaccepted in other disciplines. Seeingnsuch cases firsthand opened Damer­nnnell’s eyes.nAs a field with no body of knowledge,na subject in search of content,neducation is filled with inane ideas.nNone is sillier than the current pushnamong educationists for “visual literacy,”nvaguely defined as:n… a group of visionncompetencies a human beingncan develop by seeing and atnthe same time having andnintegrating other sensorynexperiences.nAs a man who once earned his livingnwriting TV commercials, Damerellnmakes short work of “visual literacy”nbefore moving on to dissect other idio-‘ncies. Damerell explains in detail thendamage education theorists have donento reading instruction, although curiouslynhe does not discuss the excellentnwork done by Rudolf Flesch (author ofnthe 1955 classic Why ]ohnny Can’tnRead) in generating public pressure fornbetter reading instruction. Damerellnalso does a good job of documentingnhow educationists—especially the infamousnMary Futrell of the NEA—nlowered standards for both teachersnand students. (Only recentiy and reluctantlynhas the NEA supported evennweak standards for teacher certification.)nTextbooks have been lowered innquality, tests eliminated or wateredndown, and so on—the whole familiar,ndisgusting scene is reviewed in hisnbook.nDamerell goes beyond the usualn(quite correct) criticisms of currentneducation theory to broach a touchyntopic: the poor academic performancenof minorities. He finds that Asians donbetter academically than blacks ornother minorities not because of differencesnin innate intelligence but rathernbecause of better work habits and highernparental expectations. Asians donwell because they work: They read,nwrite, compute, both in the classroomnand at home. Not for them the nostrumsnof the education-school quacks:nlearning by TV (“visual literacy”); “bilingualism”nas an excuse for not learningnEnglish; “self-image” buildingnthrough inflated grades; substitution ofntouchy-feely electives for math andngrammar. For speaking the simplentruth Damerell will probably be attackednby education bureaucrats asnracist, though he was awarded an