What is the difference between euphemism and doublespeak? There is perhaps a fine line between the two, and the dividing line is purpose.
One uses euphemisms as a polite way of hinting at things that others might find unpleasant. We say that one is “under the weather” and not “sick,” but really we are all under, or at least surrounded by, the weather. When we say a student has passed, that’s a good thing, whereas when someone my age “passed,” it’s not as positive, akin to “swimming with the fishes.” And does anyone (besides coke addicts) actually “dust their noses” when they are excused for this purpose?
Doublespeak, in contrast, is language designed to deceive and is usually associated with government and corporate entities. In 2017 United Airlines forcibly removed a passenger from an overbooked flight. The only thing worse than the action itself was United’s description of the event as “re-accommodating” the passenger. That same year, senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway was the recipient of the Doublespeak Award presented by the National Council of Teachers of English for her reference to “alternative facts” to defend Donald Trump’s false claims about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. This claim, made on the first day of Trump’s presidency, proved to be prophetic about the Trumpian attitude to truth and facts both during and since his tenure in office.
Recently one Inside the High Ed the article pointed out that the College Board is no longer making public data about performance on Advanced Placement exams by different racial groups. The article quoted Jon Boeckenstedt, vice provost for enrollment management at Oregon State University, who tweeted that what the College Board is calling “effective reporting” is actually record keeping.
The College Board’s action raises several questions. Since we are referring to the College Board, let’s put the first question in a College Board friendly format.
In the above passage, the term “effective reporting” is:
- A. A euphemism
- B. Double speak
- C. Both of the above
- D. None of the above
Jon Boeckenstedt’s answer appears to be b), as his tweet described the College Board’s shift to “simple reporting” as “the most 1984 example of College Board-speak I’ve seen in a while.” If I had to answer this question on a standardized test, I would probably skip the question until I could answer a few additional questions. Given the College Board’s willingness and haste to respond to questions about “effective reporting,” I should probably qualify for unlimited overtime.
There are far more interesting and important questions than whether “fluent reporting” qualifies linguistically as euphemism or double entendre.
The first is why stop reporting data? What has changed that makes the data no longer relevant or available to the public? It’s true that the 2020 AP exams were a different instrument, only 45 minutes longer and taken online, and the general perception was that those scores were higher. It’s also the case that the College Board argued to students and colleges that scores for the 2020 tests were just as valid as the three-hour exams given in previous years.
I don’t blame the College Board for changing the format in the middle of the pandemic, but I do wonder about the claim that an exam that lasts only one quarter yields equally valid results. If so, why revert to the longer, more traditional format?
The conspiracy theorists among us will probably jump to the conclusion that the “rearranged reporting” is about hiding data related to race or ethnicity that the College Board finds embarrassing or that fears it might damage the model. his business, considering that he is more dependent on AP. program for revenue now that the test-optional move has reduced the revenue it receives from the SAT. But racial/ethnic outcome disparities are not a new phenomenon.
One of the challenges for the testing industry has always been the disparity in scores between different segments of the population. Critics of testing such as Ibram Kendi have argued that the disparity in scores between different racial and ethnic groups serves as evidence that the tests are biased. Others argue that the disparities simply reflect larger issues of inequality in our society and that differences in outcomes are more related to income than to race or ethnicity.
I sympathize with the College Board if it fears that releasing the data will embolden political forces seeking to turn back the clock on efforts to make America a multicultural society and increase opportunities for historically underrepresented populations. But as a college counselor, I’ve always believed in reality therapy—that students, parents, and counselors should make decisions based on good information, not hope. If standardized test scores are lower for some groups, then we better know what we’re dealing with. We need to understand what the inconsistencies in results mean instead of pretending they don’t exist. By removing the data, the College Board opens itself up to criticism that it is “smart” or “politically correct” (both terms I hate).
Perhaps there is a good reason for the decision, and I approached the College Board for an explanation. I received a response that the communications office would learn the answer and get back to me, but there has been no follow-up response. I’m glad I wasn’t holding my breath.
Even if there was a good reason not to report data for the past two years, why purge historical data from the website? This is more difficult to defend, since the data was public.
The ethical operative principle here is transparency. Those of us in the college admissions counseling profession (which includes the testing industry) need to be transparent about what we do and why we do it. Underlying this is respect for students, parents and the public to be able to handle the truth, while withholding information reflects either paternalism or arrogance. College Board President David Coleman was quoted as saying, “We prefer transparency.” Just not in this case, apparently.
The other question here is existential. Is the College Board a corporate entity or a membership organization? “Simplified reporting” suggests that the CB considers the data proprietary, which is a position that is corporate. The College Board is nominally a non-profit membership organization (albeit a very profitable one), but did it consult with members about this change?
“Simple reporting” feels like a euphemism for “executive privilege,” where the concern is not national security but rather embarrassment. Whatever the reasoning, it doesn’t pass the smell test. Please excuse me while I blow my nose.
