The Gateway: An Argument Against Equity Grading
Imagine a world of adventure that can only be accessed by passing through a gateway. This gateway is the threshold we encounter in fairy tales, myths, and in movies. It marks the boundary between levels and worlds. In their symbolic sense, gateways are often difficult to pass through. They may require a special key, be guarded, or one might have to cross difficult terrain to reach the gateway, yet they have an allure. They loom mysteriously across the reaches of the imagination. With an almost magnetic power, they call to us, and we as humans wish to explore them and see what lies beyond. In the arts, the hero often receives some kind of aid in passing through the gateway. It may be intercession from another hero or wise one; it might be help from a special object; or it may be a challenge that forces the hero to discover hidden strengths within. Within the esoteric tradition, the gateway and the threshold are passed when the student has acquired the knowledge, discipline, and wisdom to participate in the higher mysteries. What we don’t like seeing is a hero crossing the threshold and failing in a devastating way. It is better to fail in the known world, live another day, gather one’s strength, and try again. Gateways are special for this reason and should not be disdained but rather well-loved, for even if we cannot pass through the gateway today, passing through the gateway tomorrow is a marker of how much we have grown and learned.
A few years back, when I was teaching college English, communities of practice were all the rage. Tenured faculty could fulfill service to the college by planning them and providing best practice workshops to all attendees. Basically, for part-time professors, also known as adjuncts, the events offered training paid at a professional development rate and opportunity to get some new lesson ideas or strategies to improve pass and throughput rates. The name community of practice took the edge off, suggesting a partnership and low stakes exchange rather than a high-stake spotlight scenario. Instructors could present topics of their choice so long as they were approved; however, suggested themes were offered by the organizers of these events who were often department coordinators and senior faculty members. There was some flexibility even within the themes of the larger communal sessions. The most attended breakout sessions, however, mainly focused on equity. On the one hand, many people were convinced equity measures truly made sense in terms of student success. On the other hand, for adjuncts struggling to out compete their peers and land full-time, it was critical to buy in and find ways to jump on the pedagogical bandwagon. Once taboo ideas, like grading people more easily, became the norm, lest we act as gatekeepers rather than empowerers. I began to worry as I saw giving people a false idea of their competence in any given subject matter as socially irresponsible, unfair, and potentially dangerous for the most part. Because I didn’t want to stand out, I usually smiled and nodded my head whenever the topic of equity came up, but I was familiar with a case where a university got sued because they were too lenient in grading their athletes. This university is my alma mater where I received my master’s and bachelor’s degree, Cal Poly Pomona.
Despite my hesitation I started becoming more courageous about speaking against equity or voicing concerns in my own low-key way with other professors during the small group activities at these communities of practice. A few other full-time professors voiced their concern. Adjuncts who dissented often did so with hesitation and fear, whether in person or on Zoom. Either way, if I voiced dissent, others often joined me with lowered voices–in order to agree with me but not stand out, lest they gain a reputation of being troublemakers and potentially lose classes because of this reputation. Because professors, whether part-time or full-time, have academic freedom, retributive measures are not technically supposed to happen, but they do.
During one community of practice that stands out, the equity mindset, rooted philosophically in critical race theory, was already the big thing. Though at the time, no one was obligated to adopt the best practices shared, such as contract grading or passing people for attendance and completing assignments even if failing to show college level competence, dissent was frowned upon and infrequently heard. This wasn’t true of even one college: it became a statewide, even nationwide trend, in higher education. Some colleges were less inclined to listen to dissent than others, and asking questions could potentially lead to powerful enemies in the department who would slander you and toss out your job applications for full-time because you didn’t play the role of parrot. I appreciate that at some places, for a while, you could dissent, but eventually even innocent questioning of equity grading or equity measures could lead to on the job discrimination, so good instructors tended to keep their voices down, though some were clueless and couldn’t figure out why they were stuck in their careers. Part-timers who asked the wrong questions were at risk for being labeled as trouble even though the concerns were and are more than valid.
At one of the communities of practice, aside from presenting contract grading or extremely liberal grading practices, a video was shown where students describe their challenges in a way that was meant to be emotionally moving. The students were crying as they discussed having to work and go to school, homelessness, confidence problems, feeling like they didn’t belong, or even abuse. I was moved by the video; however, as a student who faced challenges myself and succeeded, I felt like the video was more emotional manipulation due to the context. Some professors were nearly in tears watching it, and it pulled upon my heartstrings too. Nevertheless, we live in an imperfect world, and when someone enrolls in college as an adult, they are making a commitment to themselves as well as society, and that is to learn and succeed with integrity.
While it would be nice to pass people simply for the effort, doing so has troubling implications. For one, the students would not perform as well as they should in higher level classes and potentially their jobs. This would devalue their degrees and coursework as well as put the institutions that passed underprepared students at high risk for being sued. This is what happened at Cal Poly, and the former athletes won the lawsuit. They sued because they did not have the writing and reading skills to succeed or even keep their jobs, and they blamed the university they had attended.
I don’t think the emotional struggle students go through should be ignored. California colleges offer plenty of aid in various forms whether it be financial, tutoring, or psychological services. Nevertheless, when it comes to grading, grades are earned not given. Instructors can learn more about effective lesson planning and incorporate some flexibility into their class structure, but advocating for an equity grading that unfairly passes people because of their emotional situation is troubling. Certainly, saying something like this, as I did to the small group I was working with at this community of practice, was not a popular move. It’s easy to make someone look apathetic or heartless if he or she questions the socially popular narrative or script that’s presented to them, especially if the script involves heavy emotions. Although emotionally I felt really sad for the students in the video, it was my duty to voice opposition even if at the time I wasn’t very assertive and kept it at the small group level.
Things got real weird during the pandemic. All the professors did their required online teaching training and began teaching online with only the shortest notice during a high stress time in the world, so most of us desperately wanted any and all the professional development we could get, especially since no one was leaving the house. The California Chancellor’s office and each college’s professional development and online learning committees began pumping out more and more critical race theory based pedagogy. They did this in the name of equity, but it was clear that the content was critical race theory based because they kept pushing the idea that people of color were inherently disadvantaged due to their skin tone and because of this legacy of injustice, instructors needed to do everything in their power to boost non-Caucasian students up, including equity grading. They claimed that equity grading did not require anyone to lower grading standards; however, during online department meetings, it was common for coordinators to advocate just that: lowering grading standards. I attended multiple training sessions to learn more about equity, but I recognized that the far left educators were taking advantage of their rapt locked down audience to turn on and pump out the one-sided rhetoric. Any dissent was drowned out whether in independent professional development sessions or department training meetings.
I felt that the intellectual bias and dominance of the forums and the chats that are a large part of online professional training weren’t actually contributing to the improvement of students’ quality of education. It makes sense for instructors to have late policies, some makeup work, timely responses to emails and comments as well as consistent grading based on easily identifiable criteria, such as rubrics, which we were using and had training for anyway, but none of that is about race, and none of it should favor anyone because of their group identification. With the frequent promotion of lower grading standards framed as equitable grading, it meant that some professors were passing students who hadn’t demonstrated adequate competency in the course content.
Another equity related nightmare, quite frankly, was the colleges allowing almost anyone to take college-level English no matter how ill prepared due to the belief that those students had a 50/50 chance of passing if they started right at college level versus a high risk of never entering the college level class if starting at and even passing developmental English. No, nightmare is a strong word: let me explain–the students themselves were often motivated, kind, and hard-working, but if the instructor stuck to college level instruction, the students themselves would feel overwhelmed, frustrated, and perhaps frightened of failing.
Developing the course content to student interests always helps, but with critical race theory at the fore, that meant colleges pushing for multicultural instruction even if instructors didn’t specialize in multiculturalism or believed that a more unifying Americanist approach was a better theme for an English course funded by US government money or if an instructor simply wanted to exercise academic freedom and do some completely different theme, like mental health, games, or vampires. Some professors did keep teaching what they specialized in or what they thought students would like, but whatever a professor selects for a class theme whether multiculturalism, pop culture, or Western culture, the theme would appeal to some students but not others. There is no one size fits all approach to interest after all. More importantly, even the world’s most interesting theme can’t make someone who needs a lot of help pass easily, nor does it necessarily mean high pass rates if the instructor maintains integrity in college level grading. That does not mean low pass rates either. It depends on each unique group of students and how much useful training and experience the instructor has as well as how much access to tutoring the students have, especially free tutoring provided by the college, because tutoring actually helps a lot. While 50/50 odds sound good compared to a traditional 30% pass rate, the equity based data that California talks about in terms of student success rates is dubious since lowering grading standards was so heavily pushed after equity measures were adopted statewide. This heavy handed shift places the reported success rates, the so highly touted data used to bludgeon equity measures into dominance, in question. The trustworthiness of these studies is questionable since lowering standards is such an important part of their pedagogy although this was minimized when it was first introduced to the college system via conferences, academic journals, and department meetings. Once it became status quo, the powers that be strongly advocated for lowering grading standards, especially since in California, funding is now based on the amount of students who pass a class rather than the amount of students who are enrolled. Therefore, from an administrative perspective, it is better for it to look like students are passing at high rates even if that means lowering grading standards because that means the colleges will get more funding.
The most common counter-argument to educators who do not favor equity is that it is not the job of educators to hold people back; instead; the instructor should open the way forward for students. To this sentiment, I can only agree to the extent that professors should do everything they can to help without compromising instruction; inflating pass rates in order to look good is exactly the problem. No one’s human dignity is being honored when instructors are afraid of issuing the authentic grades earned. Again, instructors being well trained, responsible, and fair is 100% essential, but beyond that, students who aren’t ready for the course in terms of time, education, sincerity, or maturity, who won’t give themselves enough time to learn, study, and do the work, deserve the grade they earn, even if it is a poor grade, regardless of any exterior factors, such as their skin tone or material poverty. This may sound harsh, but all humans face adversity even if it isn’t announced or obvious in some way or the object of every opinion piece in the 2021 news feed of your favorite social media app.
One reason these equity measures were adopted by the college system is because the statistics were showing lower pass rates among minorities; however, this move flies in the face of well-established research that shows success in English and school in general is intertwined with a family and community life that emphasizes literacy. Walter Ong is one highly respected researcher who took the time to study this phenomenon, and he found that regardless of skin tone, households and communities that spent more time reading and discussing reading performed better at school and in English than those that perhaps had only one or two books in the house and favored oral discourse and T.V. time. This unbiased and well-established fact demonstrates that lower pass rates in college English are tied to the family and social culture of the student, which must be worked on well before adulthood. That’s not to say people from oral discourse cultures or those who grew up in environments that did not value reading can’t succeed in college, but it is a factor well out of the hands of the college system and points to an early love of reading as one of the most important factors in student success.
Regardless of how much power a professor can possibly have over what kind of work a student does, I was one of the instructors who poured countless hours thinking of ways to improve coursework whether that meant formulating new assignments, finding unusual and engaging videos or texts, meeting for office hours beyond what was paid, or allowing people additional late work if ill within reason, but I would not compromise the grading as I knew that I had provided detailed verbal instruction, opportunities for feedback,clear guidelines on assignments, and timely responses to questions all appropriate to the college level as noted in our student learning objectives and course objectives as well as what I knew about college level standards from my years of experience working with college level students.
I bring this up because good teaching doesn’t require equity grading as it has troubling implications. I apprehend that students across the country may be passing despite not being at the college level. This can actually set them back later as they take more demanding coursework, enter professional life, and navigate adulthood in all the ways that are aided by being able to clearly communicate, responsibly use evidence, convincingly support points while staying on topic on to even following instructions and giving credit where it’s due.
Your run of the mill working class job may not need these things as far as you can foresee, but the day you misread or miswrite instructions and someone gets killed or you lose your company money you’ll realize how important gaining these skills really are. If you can’t use evidence convincingly and can’t provide enough logical explanation, you shut doors that otherwise could have opened for you. You may have some bosses who want only a nod in compliance, but with more advanced writing, reading, and reasoning skills you at least can try to not only work your way up but to change your life for the better in ways you haven’t even discovered yet. These skills transcend the workplace and can benefit you in all aspects of life if you genuinely learn them. These things aren’t obvious when you’re 18 or 19, and they can’t be controlled, but if you and your teachers take your education seriously and commit to uncompromised excellence or at least demonstrable competence, if the opportunity ever arises to use what you’ve learned, you will be prepared and not disappointed like a fool who is lied to by others.
Good things in life don’t happen because they must, because the world somehow owes us a debt; they happen by virtue of our knowledge and wisdom, which grow as we learn and pick ourselves up and try again even if we fail. Other elements contribute, such as our personalities, our motivation, and our resilience, but even the poorest, most abused human can work hard, learn, and find a way to create a better life. This isn’t a myth, some false promise; this is a fact, but that doesn’t mean the way is easy or comfortable or that you’ll be driving a nice car and wearing fashionable clothing in the meantime. At least colleges have traditionally offered as much assistance as they can. As long as this assistance is offered with integrity and in a balanced way, that’s appropriate.
We earn our success and if we don’t we may go through the motions, but one day the undeserved B could end up being the ember that burns it all down. That sounds scary, perhaps exaggeration, but companies have lost millions in courts over misplaced commas, and the person who was in charge of the commas that day, no doubt, ended up in a bad way.
Now, for the most important part, the esoteric part. You haven’t lived if you haven’t crossed the threshold, but if you aren’t adequately prepared to cross the threshold, in the end, some element could overpower you. In archetypal terms, when we consider the human journey, we take on the hero persona when we face our fears, discover our strengths, and learn how to overcome adversity. When we strive for a better future, we must stand strong and battle our lower impulses. In this way, we assume the stance of the charioteer in The Chariot card of the tarot. We face forward, strong and balanced between power and fear, the known and the unknown. In this way, we should drive forward beyond the gateway of our comforting starting place and venture toward the unknown difficulties lining the path to our triumph, however humble that triumph may be.
In life, the more we get up after being knocked down, the more we are willing to adapt and earn our way toward the gateway and beyond, and thus the road opens more easily. The Hebrew letter chet is the letter of the Chariot card, and it expresses the meaning of the gateway or doorway. According to Kabbalistic tradition, as gateways close, they also open. In Hebrew, the letter is associated with one’s ability to enter the temple on the left and one’s ability to exit the temple on the right. Entering and exiting take on a sacred dimension which helps us see entrances and exits, passing and not passing, from a more mindful place. Not passing isn’t failing; it means that more work must be done. These associations help us see gateways differently: Are we in the right place mentally to enter? Have we learned with sincerity? Are we exiting with integrity? Crossing the threshold requires inner preparedness so that within the bounds of matter, we may propel ourselves forward. Students who work their competence up despite obstacles, even in the face of potential failure, are not actually stuck or held back. Rather, they are taking the time and space to learn what they truly need to cross the threshold and journey forward. They are not victims but learners, not crossing with false confidence to be cut down later, but rather they ascend on the path as the natural consequence of their contained energy blooming forth in ripe fruition.
The irony is that some of the loudest voices for equity and the most adamant against gatekeeping are actually gatekeepers themselves. They make sure the gateway is closed for those who disagree with them. They do this in the name of compassion for students, but they are actually doing students a disservice. Opening a false gateway for someone who cannot adequately weather the storm beyond is putting that person in harm’s way as well as any institution which the false gatekeeper represents .
