Book Virgins

Book Virgins

I recently learned something new when Peter Wood, President of the National Association of Scholars, visited Kennesaw State University.  It seems that battalions of “book virgins” have been besieging the country’s colleges.

What are book virgins?  Why, they are students who have never read a book prior to entering an institution of higher education.  Even though I was aware of the popularity of the Internet and the decline in book sales, this trend astonished me.

Although KSU and Ivy League students both read less than previous generations, I had assumed that K-12 schools still required some book reading.  But no, thanks in part to the common core, these longer works are no longer part of the curriculum.

As a consequence, colleges have begun to assign a single book that all freshmen are expected to read.  This volume tends to be slim and of recent vintage on the assumption that anything more demanding would not be perused.

Is this what we are coming to?  Are we so afraid to challenge the younger generation that we will allow them to wallow in ignorance—yet praise their brilliance.  If so, this is a prescription for disaster.  It guarantees that we will not be able to keep up with nations that turn out more literate graduates.

One of the theories that has been advanced to explain our negligence might be called the “Bill Gates effect.”  Gates is one of the movers and shakers behind the common core.  As a technocrat, he has supposedly encouraged a short answer mindset.  The objective is to get students to pass tests, rather than to think independently.

Books, on the other hand, promote thinking.  They take time to wade through and inspire readers to engage in a conversation with their authors.  They also enable readers to transfer what they encounter from their short to long-term memories.  This provides valuable mental capital. 

Meanwhile a steady diet of computer activities fosters a sound bite mentality.  Little bits of disconnected facts float around in brains that have not learned how to fit them together.  This is not thinking, but mental billiards.

Nowadays students are supposed to be entertained.  The goal is to capture their attention by making sure that they are amused.  Asking them to put in an effort would be off-putting and is therefore discouraged.

This past weekend I ran into a comparable attitude at the Georgia Sociological Association.  The presenter at a teaching workshop urged us to “go where our students live.”  We were advised to use Twitter, Tumbler, and Facebook for class assignments on the grounds that this is where students spend their time.

My response, however, was that I live in a better neighborhood; hence if my students hope to improve their condition they ought to consider moving into mine.  The presenter countered by arguing that this “insulted” our students.

My position is actually tougher than I stated.  I believe that I have a duty to insist my students learn something.  If I do not possess knowledge that is worth sharing, there is no reason they should be sitting in my classroom.

Learning is not easy.  Thinking is not easy.  For that matter, reading is often not easy.  Thus, where did we get the idea that these should be?  If we as a society are to achieve anything worth achieving, then we ought to be willing to put in the effort.  This goes for the young and old alike.

But more than this.  If we want to prepare our children for a better life than our own, we must demand that they learn.  We need to insist that they learn to read—and to write as well.

Books are key to acquiring these skills.  Because they convey complex ideas, they provide training in complex thinking.  Why then would we eliminate them from the curriculum?  How does this help our children to prosper?  Virginity may be a desirable characteristic—but not when it comes to books!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University