On the contrary, this article gives plenty of historical context: its entire purpose is to place the entry test in the context, first, of the tests which preced

On the contrary, this article gives plenty of historical context: its entire purpose is to place the entry test in the context, first, of the tests which preceded it, and second, of the ideologies (eugenicist) which it reflected. If all reflection on how far society has come are mere "virtue signaling," how can you have historical discussions on moral issues at all? You'd have to start with the premise that moral progress is impossible. I'm not throwing around the word "nihilism," I'm using it because I think it's clear that the implication of your style of argument is the destruction of any kind of moral progress. Any society that is to progress morally must be able to define what it is progressing from.