The Wake

It has been fifteen years since the United States’ government has seriously discussed illiteracy in America. President George W. Bush’s recent “No Child Left Behind” campaign hinted at the issue, but turned out to be merely a slogan to gain votes instead of a solution to help Americans. It was in fact during George H.W. Bush’s administration in the early 1990s that modern America was introduced to its startling illiteracy problem. In 1991, Congress passed the National Literacy Act to put an end to illiteracy in America. The bill states that “[in 1991] nearly 30,000,000 adults in the United States have serious problems with literacy.” Over ten years later in 2003, The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) did an extensive survey of American literacy rates. The findings, which were finally released in December of 2005, found little change between 1991 and 2003. On Dec. 15, 2005, Mark Schneider, the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, said in response to the 2003 literacy survey that roughly “30 million Americans cannot do much more than sign a form or search a simple document to find out what they are allowed to drink before a medical test.” In other words, the National Literacy Act of 1991 failed—nothing substantial changed in over ten years. Nothing changed because the institution of America needs illiterate people in order to exist. Though America calls itself a democracy, its capitalist ideologies create inequality in not only class, but in literacy as well. For that reason, literacy campaigns will never succeed in the United States if they are sponsored by the American government—look no further than the failure of the 1991 National Literacy Act for evidence. Moreover, the U.S. government—Republican and Democrat—does not want total literacy.

According to Paulo Freire’s article “The Adult Literacy Process as Cultural Action for Freedom and Education,” the flaw of institutionalized literacy campaigns in un-egalitarian societies or, in the case of the United States, government run literacy campaigns is that “[m]erely teaching men to read and write does not work miracles; if there are not enough jobs for men able to work, teaching more men to read and write will not create them.” If applied to the United States, Freire’s contention provides two reasons as to why the Literacy Act of 1991 failed and why future literacy acts will fail too.

Firstly, in terms of illiterates or poorly functioning literates improving their ability to read, write and comprehend, there is no incentive. In a capitalist society, if you are one of these below basic functioning literates or non-literates, then even if you do improve your literacy level it does not mean that your quality of life will improve (e.g. class status, job, etc.). In the same article, Freire gives an example of what a Latin American adult literacy primer would be like:

Peter did not know how to read. Peter was ashamed. One day, Peter went to school and registered for a night course. Peter’s teacher was very good. Peter knows how to read now. Look at Peter’s face. [These lessons are generally illustrated.] Peter is smiling. He is a happy man. He already has a good job. Everyone ought to follow his example.

This example is not that different from how an American adult literacy primer would look. However, the problem with this model is that it is idealistic and far from the truth. In reality, Peter may be able to read, but how will that translate into a job in capitalist America? Peter has no work experience other than being a low-level worker his entire life. He does not have references. He does not have a college degree. He may not even have a high school degree. With this in mind, how is Peter going to make the big bucks that his learning-to-read primer promised him? Peter cannot even take out a loan to start his own business because he does not have any credit history on the account that he just recently learned how to create a savings account and apply for a credit card. As a result, the now literate Peter is in the same place as he was when he was illiterate. Only now, Peter has the tools—reading, writing and comprehension—to realize the full extent of his situation.

Peter’s ability to identify his oppressor, though he probably had a good idea as to who he was before, has armed Peter. This is the second reason the Literacy Act of 1991 failed. As of 2003, according to the NAAL America has approximately eleven million adults that are illiterate in English, thirty million adults that are bellow basic prose literacy and sixty-three million adults that are at the basic literacy level (which, as defined by the NAAL, means “…they are able to perform simple literacy activities such as understanding information in a pamphlet for prospective jurors.”).

Now, imagine if the National Literacy Act of 1991 worked and these roughly 104 million low functioning literates could now perform at the same level as those with intermediate or proficient literacy skills in America (which, according to the NAAL, is roughly 123 million adults)—America would be in chaos. In the United States’ capitalist society, there would not be enough middle class or upper class space. Those who would end up in the lower class of the country would have the training, education, ability and, most importantly, the right to be in a higher class level according to the general American ideology of privilege—those who work hard and are deserving will live well. In an America where a literacy campaign is successful, this will not be the case. Instead, the lower class will justifiably claim their right to the American good life with their newly obtained education and act when the American government is unable to produce due to the constraints of capitalism. A successful literacy campaign in the United States would domino a social revolution—American capitalism would be attacked by the masses.

The institution of America—the white upper class and its government—must protect itself at all cost. Therefore, the National Literacy Act of 1991 was intended to fail from the beginning. If Cuba, an underdeveloped country, was able to eradicate illiteracy in one year in 1961, then why could the American government—the most powerful nation in world history—not end illiteracy in ten years? The answer: either America is inferior to Cuba or America is intentionally oppressing a considerable amount of its people in order to protect capitalism. What would the American government rather admit to? Unfortunately, the question will never be asked until the majority of 123 million highest functioning literates are willing to risk their class status.

Tom McNamara is a Voices staff writer and welcomes comments at .