Post 7 Sponsors of Literacy

Brandt's idea that sponsors always have something to gain from teaching literacy is an interesting and new way to look at how and why we became literate. I believe her claim that the sponsors always have something to benefit has a lot of logical points that one may not always consider. Her point that a nation can benefit from its citizens being literate would prove that the "sponsors" of literacy would want to have as many literate citizens as possible, but this is not the case in all situations. Sponsors can control the lexicons of information available to the masses and inherently control public knowledge and influence public involvement. The point she mentions on how the professional world now requires new forms of literacy also backs this idea that sponsors have a lot to benefit from teaching literacy. It is now possible for employers to hire and choose applicants solely based on written resumes and cover letters that rely heavily on literacy. Employers can benefit and hire more literate people by using a selection process that measures one's level of literacy. She uses the case of Lowery to show how Unions (the sponsors of literacy at hand) could use funded programs that taught literacy in that field to shape union driven policies of that time and force popular opinion toward anti-communist ideals.