Most active commenters
  • alexey-salmin(5)

←back to thread

A near impossible literacy test Louisiana used to suppress the black vote

(www.openculture.com)
319 points rcarmo | 17 comments | 21 Oct 24 21:29 UTC | HN request time: 1.595s | source | bottom
Show context
akira2501 ◴[21 Oct 24 23:33 UTC] No.41909656[source]▶
It's possible. It was designed to be. It was used because southern Blacks actually did have a lower literacy rate than Whites at the time and this was seen as the most expedient "filter" they could create.

The real racism was in all the ways to bypass the test. Grandfather clauses, land ownership clauses, "demonstrated understanding" options. Most White people challenged by the test wouldn't ever need to actually confront it.

These weren't the only requirements either. You had to be of "good character" and "understand the duties and obligations of citizenship under a republican form of government" and to be able to "read _and_ write."

Finally even if you were Black and managed all of this it wasn't at all a guarantee that your registration or vote would be accepted. Sometimes this understanding would be communicated in an act of violence.

The test is a tiny archival curiosity created by a much more overt system.

replies(5): >>41909659 #>>41909698 #>>41911770 #>>41913806 #>>41914892 #
tptacek ◴[21 Oct 24 23:34 UTC] No.41909659[source]▶
It's not possible. Several of the questions have multiple valid answers. It's pretty obvious what the scheme is.
replies(4): >>41909721 #>>41909745 #>>41909754 #>>41913350 #
roenxi ◴[21 Oct 24 23:48 UTC] No.41909745[source]▶
Which question(s)? They all seem to have single answers to me.

That being said, I would expect to fail this test.

replies(4): >>41910218 #>>41911164 #>>41911195 #>>41913423 #
1. hn_throwaway_99 ◴[22 Oct 24 04:27 UTC] No.41911195[source]▶
The first question I see is:

1. Draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence.

I have no idea what "the number of this sentence" or "the letter of this sentence" even means.

replies(5): >>41911284 #>>41911728 #>>41912031 #>>41912267 #>>41922205 #
2. alexey-salmin ◴[22 Oct 24 04:47 UTC] No.41911284[source]▶
You need to draw a line around the "1." part
replies(3): >>41911366 #>>41911467 #>>41911860 #
3. x86_64Ubuntu ◴[22 Oct 24 05:10 UTC] No.41911366[source]▶
Number OR Letter, and it never specifies which one. It doesn't say first or last, or anything.
replies(1): >>41911714 #
4. KingMob ◴[22 Oct 24 05:31 UTC] No.41911467[source]▶
It's debatable whether "1." is part of the sentence (and thus should be left alone). We wouldn't consider a non-alphanumeric bullet point to be part of a sentence.

Regardless of which you chose, if the examiner wished to disqualify you, they could simply say it's the opposite.

replies(1): >>41911679 #
5. alexey-salmin ◴[22 Oct 24 06:17 UTC] No.41911679{3}[source]▶
No one says it's a part of the sentence. It's a number of the sentence, as in "this is the sentence number one".
replies(1): >>41922762 #
6. alexey-salmin ◴[22 Oct 24 06:24 UTC] No.41911714{3}[source]▶
"1" is the number of the sentence, not a number in the sentence. As in "this is the sentence number one".

I don't claim this test is useful, but as a matter of fact the first question is not hard.

7. Phlebsy ◴[22 Oct 24 06:27 UTC] No.41911728[source]▶
Meanwhile I'm wondering what 'draw a line around' something means, when they use circle in other parts. If they meant circle, they'd have said circle, no?
8. cryptoz ◴[22 Oct 24 06:55 UTC] No.41911860[source]▶
That is wrong and you have failed the test. If you include the . you have clearly misunderstood the question. It did not indicate to draw a line around the number or letter and dot. Since you included the dot we will fail you. We are aware the question did not indicate the dot or not and it doesn’t matter. You failed, bye!
replies(1): >>41912026 #
9. alexey-salmin ◴[22 Oct 24 07:30 UTC] No.41912026{3}[source]▶
I don't argue that it's impossible for the examiner to screw you on the commas — that's always a possibility with an open-ended question. And yet this doesn't make all open-ended questions bad, it just makes then inappropriate for a situation with an adversarial interviewer (which I do agree include the voting process).

However I argue that the question by itself is fine: it is well defined and has only one reasonable answer. No one presented any other sensible answer so far.

replies(1): >>41913496 #
10. computerfriend ◴[22 Oct 24 07:30 UTC] No.41912031[source]▶
Good luck drawing a line around anything except a point at infinity.
replies(1): >>41913331 #
11. ggambetta ◴[22 Oct 24 08:17 UTC] No.41912267[source]▶
I thought the "number or letter" in that sentence is the "a" in "Draw a line".
12. didgeoridoo ◴[22 Oct 24 11:46 UTC] No.41913331[source]▶
It isn’t a literacy test, it’s a non-Euclidean geometry test!
13. mannykannot ◴[22 Oct 24 12:15 UTC] No.41913496{4}[source]▶
Here we have a subjective determination of objectivity.
replies(1): >>41916751 #
14. alexey-salmin ◴[22 Oct 24 17:45 UTC] No.41916751{5}[source]▶
Correct. This is how tests work most of the time in real life (open-ended, subjective) and attempts to fully remove ambiguity are often harmful.

My problem with the whole discussion here is that I actually fail to come up with an ambiguous answer to this question that I subjectively find reasonable. Can you positivity contribute by providing an alternative interpretation that you personally would find more plausible? Otherwise complains about subjectively are hollow. Everything is subjective but it only matters in cases people actually disagree.

replies(1): >>41924481 #
15. roenxi ◴[23 Oct 24 05:53 UTC] No.41922205[source]▶
> I have no idea what "the number of this sentence" or "the letter of this sentence" even means.

But then you can't believe it has two answers. If you don't understand the question you can't make any claims about it except maybe that you believe it is incoherent. As alexey-salmin says, the only reasonable interpretation is to circle the 1. to left of the question.

To claim that has 2 answers is similar to claiming a "Find x" style question has two answers (solving an equation vs. circling x). No, the question only has one reasonable interpretation. If the examiner is being unreasonable it is not a problem with the question and not something that can be deduced by examining the question.

16. KingMob ◴[23 Oct 24 07:43 UTC] No.41922762{4}[source]▶
I get you, but to my ears, the phrasing itself implies it's part of the sentence (unless the common phrasing was different back then).

Most people would say "The number _preceding_ this sentence". "of this" sounds like it's part of the sentence.

17. mannykannot ◴[23 Oct 24 12:42 UTC] No.41924481{6}[source]▶
As the first sentence of your reply to me effectively acknowledges that this thread has not objectively identified a unique correct answer, what I (or you) personally find plausible is beside the point. That being said, in the very post you are replying to, cryptoz has already implied an alternative that is no more subjective than yours, and which is also highly appropriate, given the covert purpose of questions such as these.

> ...attempts to fully remove ambiguity are often harmful.

Really? I'd like to see some real-life examples that are not just further examples of bad question-writing. Regardless, this is beside the point here, where there is a seemingly insurmountably high bar for making the case that removing ambiguity would make the situation worse (to be clear, the problem with tests like this is not just that an examiner might screw you, but that they are intended to be used that way.)