Brilliantly Foolish

The Associated Press reported today in my local paper a story, entitled More surrender in SAT scandal, dealing with students cheating.  This report tells of not just a couple of kids getting caught passing notes during a class examination, but of twenty (20) current or former high school students paying money to have local college students bring fake ID's to the SAT or ACT examination site, pretend to be the paying customers, and complete the test for them.  These are no regular tests, but college entrance exams - and not just typical high schools, but top flight schools that already have college acceptance rates of almost 100%.  What we are talking about is well-to-do, intellectual high school students with the ability to pay between $500 and $3,600 each to these college students (totals that presumably do not include the cost of production for a fake ID).

What is most disturbing about the story is the response.  "Honest, hardworking students are taking a back seat to the cheaters, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said.  'This is a system begging for security enhancements."  Did you catch that stated solution: security enhancements.  The problem apparently is that security measures were not adequate enough to catch the cheaters until after the fact.  New York agreed as they convened a special meeting and retained former FBI Director Louis Freeh to review the security measures.  Mr. Freeh is a busy man today and in great demand by prestigious High Schools and Universities alike as he is currently leading the Penn State internal investigation for the Sandusky matter.

It seems so simple to just understand that human nature is that we know what is right and we don't do it.  Security measures are not the problem.  They may be necessary in light of the recognition of the truth of the nature of man just stated, but they are not the problem.  What is probably a better question is why are the young men being brought up on charges and treated with such disdain?  Aren't they being taught that human existence is purposeless, meaningless and arbitrary?  Aren't they being taught that language, history, literature and any other written text is to be interpreted by the individual with complete autonomy?  Aren't they being taught that morality is relative and based solely on current acceptable societal norms and concepts of benefit to the greater good and human flourishing?  Why are we punishing them for living out exactly what they are being taught?

These are questions not easily addressed by the former Director of the FBI or any other DA or instructor of higher learning if they are living with the Existential, Materialistic and Naturalistic framework on which they so freeing and staunchly hold in their classes.  These twenty young men could have simply interpreted the rules of the High School the way they felt worked out best for themselves, decided in their own minds that it harmed no one, felt that the risk of penalty was worth the potential benefit and altered the relative standards of morality according to their own understanding.

If we are going to stipulate that there are no absolute moral standards to which all humankind must adhere, if we refuse to acknowledge attributes of humanity that are intrinsic to all (Truth, guilt, shame, etc.), if we are going to teach relativity and deconstructionism as part of a postmodern metaphysical presupposition on which all of society is based, and if we are going to plump for an existence devoid of any ultimate purpose, meaning or value then why are we so surprised when our children grow up and decide to do whatever makes them feel good and works out for their own benefit, regardless of what rules are broken and who else is hurt in the process?  These students are brilliant and foolish because they have been trained to be so.

Until we realize that we cannot posit a blank slate of morality on which everyone gets to write in their own system and correctly identify the problems in humanity as sinful instead of misguided, there will exist in this nation a continued and increasingly complicated arms race between those whose very nature is to live opposite to the purpose of their existence and those who are trying to build a better mousetrap.  The United States of America is racing with abandon toward a completely secular society, laughing, cheering and celebrating all along the way.  It is inevitable, however, that the closer we get to the finished line the busier Mr. Freeh will become.