Jargon Galore
Thomas C. Reeves, The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute

[Editor's Note: This entry also appears HERE on the History News Network.]

Long ago, I took some summer school education courses at the University of Washington. I found myself trapped in a world of jargon, a feeling I had experienced earlier in sociology, psychology, and philosophy classes. The teacher-training classes reaffirmed my view that jargon is designed to paper over meaningless concepts. During 40 years of college teaching, I encountered jargon routinely, and for the same reason. It usually stemmed from administrators. The creation of confusing and vapid memos, reports, press releases, and speeches keeps many an assistant to the Vice Chancellor busy after the latest job openings in the Chronicle of Higher Education have been digested and there are no more meetings to attend.

The discipline of history is no stranger to jargon, of course, especially from the Left, but our literature is usually made bearable by the need to tie ideas and theories to historical facts. Moreover, there have long been historians who stressed clarity as well as originality. Carl Becker, Samuel Eliot Morison, Carl Degler, David Potter, T. Harry Williams, David Pletcher, R. R. Palmer, Leo Gershoy, William B. Hesseltine, and Richard Hofstadter were my models as a young historian. James T. Patterson, Stephen Ambrose, Alonzo Hamby, Sam Tanenhaus, and James Hitchcock are among the current scholars of this bent I particularly admire.

One of the most familiar examples of jargon in the entire field of education emerges at budget time. We’ve seen it in Wisconsin of late because Democratic Governor James Doyle has been using his extraordinary veto power to pay off his teachers’ union supporters. Millions of dollars allocated elsewhere by the legislature have been redirected into the public schools. Without this brave move, we learn, “educational quality” would be damaged. After the veto, the governor had his photo taken with smiling minority children, showing how sincerely he champions this sort of thing.

But what exactly does “educational quality” mean? Whatever we say it means, of course. If more money could be shown objectively to produce literacy, knowledge, and character, taxpayers would be more generous. But the connection between cash and test scores is very, very shaky. The Milwaukee public high schools, for example, are highly funded disasters. Even the impact of small classes on learning is controversial. Still, educational leaders continue to warn that funding must remain high and continue to grow in order to protect “educational quality.” They will do so as long as no one asks them specifically what they are talking about. Salaries, pensions, and highly paid administrators should at least be mentioned in the explanation, but don’t count on it. I’m all for high teacher salaries, but I’m also one who appreciates clarity and integrity.

Another good example of educational jargon is in the news these days in Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents has just discovered that administrators in the System and elsewhere protect one another by guaranteeing backup jobs and paid leaves after resignations. Even the housekeeper for the System’s Chancellor is guaranteed a three-year academic staff position. This highly common practice came to the attention of the Board after newspapers blew the whistle on a U.W.-Madison official involved in a sexual incident who was given a paid post after stepping down. That soon led to evidence that four U.W.-Milwaukee administrators were paid more than $600,000 for year-long leaves that followed their resignations. Hundreds of administrators were soon revealed to be in line for such guarantees. The practice has been stopped.

The rejoinder from System officials is that they will now have difficulty recruiting “talented administrators.” The System will now be at a “competitive disadvantage” to find “top notch talent.” But what exactly is a “talented administrator?” Someone who actively encourages and assists professors in their pursuit of scholarship and effective teaching? Someone eager to raise academic standards to improve the quality of his institution? Someone resistant to fads and determined to eliminate silly and easy courses and majors? Someone committed to combating all attempts to cheapen admission standards with reverse racism? Someone determined not to buckle under to leftists and feminists, creating a campus that is truly diverse in political outlook as well as color and race? Someone open, honest, and compassionate? Someone frank about all financial matters? Someone wholly committed to free speech on campus? If this is what a “talented administrator” is, I’ve never met one. Or even read about one on a major campus.

But the cry will continue to be heard about the need for these imaginary figures until, again, someone asks for a precise definition. Mere jargon should not be tolerated, especially from educators.














NAS3:36 PM