Joe Bell

A June 27 story from the New York Times points a finger towards one of the many problems that contaminates the nation’s educational system – the belief that competition is an elitist, antiquated concept and those who try deserve accolades equal to those who achieve.

The article focused on the swelling number of valedictorians at the nation’s high schools. One school has seven valedictorians this year, another has 30 and Colorado’s St. Vrain Valley school district has 94.

A June 3 story from KFSN-TV, in Fresno, California, reported that Bullard High School will have 62 valedictorians this year.

How can so many students be ‘Number One’? The Times explained, “Principals say that recognizing multiple valedictorians reduces pressure and competition among students and it is a more equitable way to honor achievement, particularly when No. 1 and No. 5 may be separated by only the smallest fraction of a grade from sophomore science.”

One valedictorian, who is headed for Harvard University, said, “To be named valedictorian is an honor and a testament to how hard we’ve tried.”

People should try to do well. An individual shortchanges himself and others if he doesn’t try to do his best, whatever the task. However, there are times when trying one’s best doesn’t bring about success, even if the difference between winning and losing is “only the smallest fraction.” An Olympic swimmer who finishes 0.03 seconds behind the winner does not share the gold medal. Sometimes “the smallest fraction” is significant.

Naturally administrator concerns about “reducing pressure and competition among students” does not carry over into athletics as team trophies are proudly displayed in cases that line the halls. Say a high school state championship football game ends with a touchdown run on the last play. The other team led the entire game – until that final play. Why shouldn’t the two teams share the championship? After all, the so-called loser had outplayed its opponent the bulk of the game and, had the competition ended seconds earlier, would have won. Doesn’t that level of effort deserve some sort of consideration other than second place?

The fact is, there can be only one number one in anything. If 100 high school graduates, all with transcripts full of As and honors, apply for 95 positions in the same college, five of them will be denied entry. With only 95 spots available the admissions department will have to find some set of criteria to determine who gets in and who doesn’t. It’s called setting standards and, yes, the process is discriminatory and it requires individuals to do their best to make intelligent judgment calls.

It’s the same with seeking a job. Countless individuals may apply for one position in a company but only one is going to get the post. There will be a weeding out process and at its conclusion the company will hope it has been fair and judicious enough to select the best candidate.

It is the responsibility of educators to examine grades, classes taken and other pertinent data to decide who merits the title valedictorian. That’s the way valedictorians have traditionally been selected and, if the honor is to retain any relevance, the process should endure.

We should not be surprised by an educational system that frowns upon competition and making judgments or when students survey the landscape and learn that testimonials should be offered due to “how hard we tried.” This is the logical destination of a society that has embraced moral relativism and rejected concepts such as a respect for honest achievement, an appreciation of history, adherence to objective standards and the conviction that some ideas are superior to others.

This is the logical destination of a society that believes “freedom” means having the right to do anything you want anytime you want.

This is the logical destination of a society that has taken the legal concept that “all men are created equal” to a place where we demand more than justice before the bench – we demand equal outcomes in nearly every arena of human undertaking.

The rise in the number of valedictorians may be attributed to more than a desire on behalf of educators to lessen rivalry and reduce the number of students with bruised egos. Some suggest today’s schools offer a less rigorous academic curriculum than generations of previous students studied. That is not a recent concern. In his book, “In Defense of Elitism,” William A. Henry III referenced Donald Hayes, a retired Cornell University professor, who sampled 788 texts that were used between 1860 and 1992.

Using computer analysis, Hayes concluded, “Honors high school texts are no more difficult than an eighth grade reader was before World War II.”

It does not diminish anyone’s humanity to suggest that some people work harder than others or that some are smarter than others; that some seem to have a talent for literature while others excel at math. If we accept everyone is an individual and has various gifts and abilities – and labors to develop them at different paces and with different senses of urgency – it follows that all will reach different levels.

The valedictorian discussion is a small but important wrinkle in a society that has lost its way with respect to matters of achievement, failure, right and wrong and other ideas that were once well understood. Today they are often quite misunderstood and this has diminished us as a people. Such misunderstanding has caused America to doubt the legitimacy of its ideals and traditions and has produced skepticism regarding the merit of competition – except in sports. Americans still love their Super Bowl.

Great nations are not constructed, or maintained, on a foundation of doubt but on honest competition and a regard for excellence. We would do well to look to look to our competitors abroad, many of whom realize there can be only one number one.

70 Responses to “Valedictorian Controversy Asks: ‘How Many Can Be Number One?’”