At a time when most of the news coming out of academia is depressing
or worse, we were heartened to learn that the City University of New
York has won a small victory in its efforts to restore standards at
its community colleges. At issue is whether the university has the
right to withhold diplomas from bilingual students who do not pass an
examination demonstrating rudimentary proficiency in writing
English. The controversy came to a head in May 1997 when the
university denied diplomas to some five-hundred students at five
community colleges within the CUNY system because they had failed
to pass the examination. One-hundred students at Hostos, a small
community college in the South Bronx, sued the university. Judge
Kenneth J. Thompson, Jr., of the State Supreme Court upheld their
suit, ruling that requiring students to pass the examination shortly
before graduation was “arbitrary,” “capricious,” and “unfair.”

Of course, that is exactly the sort of ruling—which appeals to
“equality” and “democracy” when the issue is simple competence—that
has done so much to destroy the quality of American education.
Fortunately, the trustees of CUNY, led by Herman Badillo,
vice-chairman of the board, appealed the ruling. On December 8, 1998, a
four-judge appellate-divison panel overturned Thompson’s ruling and
upheld the university’s right to withhold diplomas from
“bilingual” students who actually turn out to be monolingual (or at
least monoliterate) at best. Anne A. Paolucci, chairman of the
CUNY trustees, summed it up well when she observed that “the true
beneficiaries of the decision are the students of Hostos, who must
be assured that the completion of their academic requirements will
have credibility in the workplace and at other institutions of
higher education.” This decision in favor of upholding standards is
only a small step, to be sure, but for once it is a step in the
right direction.

Nothing is simple in academia these days, however. As The New York
Post reported, no sooner had the appellate court done the right
thing by the students of CUNY than a coalition of “civil
liberties” groups went to court to block the university’s efforts to
raise admissions standards. If you believe that a concern with
“civil liberties” has nothing at all to do with seeking to raise
admissions standards in an institution supposedly devoted to higher
education, you are right. But it has a lot to do with egalitarian
ideological warfare. This new suit seeks to invest final authority
over CUNY’s admissions standards with the state Board of
Regents—a panel, in the Post’s apt characterization, “in total
thrall to the same gang of unionists, racialist zealots, ivory-tower
academics, and hack Democratic politicians that brought the
once-world-class university to its present low state.” Whether this
preposterous suit will succeed remains to be seen. If it does, the
primary writing examinations CUNY requires will be in the
department of epitaphs.