Their shock was the result of the common belief that literacy is exclusively the ability to read and write. According to the dominant culture, if a person cannot read or write at the expected level, they are considered illiterate and therefore must be brought up to speed with the rest of society. As a result, when most students failed the entrance test, they were considered illiterate and unable to communicate properly because they did not possess adequate language skills, as explained by the “skill discourse” (Barton 160). However, a more recent perspective on literacy is that it is not just based on the ability to read and write in the dominant language. Instead, it relies on people's ability to communicate in various ways; these multiple methods of communicating with the world further manifest and change as people experience more and change themselves. In the context of education and this new perspective on literacy, written works are not the only form of literacy in the classroom. Instead, teachers consider other forms of literacy that are familiar to students and use them to produce well-informed, self-sufficient students (Barton 206-208). Perhaps if Harvard hadn't labeled its future students as literate or illiterate based on writing and reading ability, the whole issue of abolition versus