To many, the question in the headline seems like a no-brainer. In the superficial and binary mode that characterises much of today’s public thinking, a negative answer could only mean that you think schools should be racist. This may be one reason why, as the new report by Don’t Divide Us – Who Are the Experts? An investigation into anti-racist third-party organisation in schools – shows, third-party anti-racist organisations are being invited into schools by heads, Senior Leaders and Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) working groups. The activist educators who work at these organisations, many of which are for-profit companies, are not shy of promoting the idea that merely to have no problem of racism in a school is insufficient; schools need to be actively anti-racist.
In practice, as our report illustrates, this means promoting three central beliefs that hitherto would have been regarded as outright political propaganda:
- Britain is a structurally racist country due to the lingering effects of its history – or a particular distorted and reductive version of it.
- Because of belief (1), Britain’s institutions must also be institutionally racist, and the white majority of citizens, irrespective of depredations due to class or economic status, have racial privilege.
- Because of beliefs (1) and (2), those from ethnic minority backgrounds must lack this privilege and therefore suffer from its lack; in other words, irrespective of class or economic status, they must be disadvantaged.
These beliefs form a tautological system of thought that insulates itself from criticism (they fit under a broad umbrella term of Critical Social Justice, or more specifically, Critical Race Theory). Such a belief system is incompatible with open-questioning or critique, and when it extends beyond the seminar room it becomes actively authoritarian. No dissent is brooked. That is why many of the organisations in our sample promote the erroneous belief that colour-blind approaches have failed, or are themselves oppressive. As one Early Years Advisor at Herts for Learning, a school-based company with a budget of £23 million plus, asserts, “Being colour-blind is not an option.” Not much viewpoint diversity there.
The ideologically authoritarian implications of these organisations are masked by the superficial gloss of ‘anti-racism’. In Culture and Society, Raymond Williams wrote about how new ideologies rarely announce themselves; they piggy-back on belief systems that already exist and are already legitimised. Today’s EDI industry is an apt example of this process. When most people hear the phrase ‘anti-racism’ they think of attempts to overcome obstacles preventing ethnic minorities from participating in the political and civic life alongside their fellow majority citizens as equals. In fact, it’s the polar opposite. Critical Race Theory uses the imputed experiences of minorities (or those who share their worldview) to stigmatise the values, beliefs and practical norms of the majority.
Aided by the Equality Act 2010, some schools exploit the carve out for ‘positive action’ to normalise the idea of racialised identities that require separate curricula and pedagogic practices. The EDI agenda amounts to a radical overturning of important legal and ethical precepts that have shaped Britain’s education system since 1944. The most important of which is that of impartial teaching, as stipulated in the Education Act 1996, Sections 406 and 407. Indeed, a representative of BAMEed, an organisation in receipt of a government grant, is on record as warning teachers of the “impartiality police” who “will come after them” as they seek to ensure “the long tentacles of anti-racism” reach every aspect of school life.
We might all experience school life in individualised ways that make it hard to see underlying patterns. But the third-party organisations in our report are unashamed about their desire to “change the culture” or “change society”. There’s nothing wrong with political interests per se – and teachers expressing their own beliefs at age appropriate levels, and in relevant teaching contexts, are perfectly acceptable. But using schools and the curriculum, as these new third-party organisations do, to try to influence what political choices children make as adults, amounts to indoctrination; it is also deeply anti-democratic.
Our answer to the question in the title is: no. If schools are educating properly, and with confidence in what they are doing intellectually and ethically, they will be contributing to forming future citizens who will not fear independent thought, which is the perfect, democratic antidote to bigotry and racism. As citizens who value education and democracy, we have launched a petition – Education not Indoctrination – that we aim to present to the Government in the autumn. You can find the petition (signed by Lord Sumption, Lionel Shriver, Matt Goodwin, Inaya Folarin Iman and others) here.
Alka Sehgal Cuthbert is the Director of Don’t Divide Us.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The word racism means very little to me. When people use it, I know people are talking about race, but that’s about it. It means different things to different people. You really need to define what you mean by it before using it.
“When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less” Humpty Dumpty
“Herts for Learning” have a Budget of £23 million !!.. Where from ???
Us probably via some grant or other from a Govt department ..Enjoy!!!!
Obviously, there’s not a lot of money in simply advising children to speak as they find.
We got this at the college I work at. As pointed out above, it seems the way to be ‘anti-racist’ is to lump people together by skin colour and treat them differently accordingly. Interestingly, in a whole day of training, East Asian people weren’t mentioned once.
Drawing attention to successful non-whites whether it is an individual or an ethnic group doesn’t help promote division by colour.
How can it not?
The claim is white privilege creating a disadvantage for other ethnicities and setting up whites as the problem. It’s more difficult to claim a disadvantage by highlighting numerous successful non-whites.
My wording wasn’t specific enough. Yes, any disparities between ethnicities could be used to stoke division.
Sorry I am probably being dense here. Talking about ethnicity at all is going to create problems, surely? Unless everyone gets really thick-skinned, and that’s not going to happen. It’s not just “disparities”. As soon as you start specifically making reference to people’s race, you are putting them in a random bucket.
I agree. If the intention is to create division then once the race talk starts, something needs to be used for leverage which is where e.g. differences in achievement will be used.
However, if a discussion of race did discuss successful individuals across the board, the question might stop being about race.
Well, that’s not going to happen.
There are four scenarios
1) We stop talking about race and treat people as individuals, as you find them – that’s not going to happen
2) We learn to talk about race honestly without people getting angry, passing laws to stop you saying certain things etc.
3) We conclude that certain race coexisting just doesn’t work and abandon the experiment
4) One side or the other wins the war and subjugates the other side
Scenario 4 is the only realistic outcome.
By sides in a war I take it you mean the miniscule percentage of humanity that manufactures these divisive campaigns vs. everyone else regardless of colour?
My preferences would be that (1) we stop talking about race and (2) we stop importing millions of foreigners into our countries. Neither of those things is going to happen, despite my best efforts. I try to treat people as I find them, but I am not permitted to do that. However they’ve done it, this “miniscule percentage of humanity” has control of the levers of power across the rich “liberal democracy” world. I do not want to fight a war but my enemies seem to. We are being pushed into a corner – deliberately.
P.S. In Scenario 4, there is only going to be one winner. European civilisation is being destroyed.
Well, Scenario No. 1 served me well for 50 years in employment and my everyday interactions with humanity.
(I did experience “racial prejudice” while working in North Wales – no joking! But eventually I was accepted.)
It’s being made impossible to hold that line. Silence is compliance.
The very mention of the prevention of something can empower its existence. The promotion of ‘anti-racism’ strengthens the view that racism is a problem. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. But promoting its opposite distorts perceptions anyway.
This is but one example. The implementation of anti-covid measures reinforces the view that there is a problem called covid.
If you see a switch in a room labelled ‘no zebra’ you instinctively assume that there is a zebra. (I recall this from a comedy sketch many years ago)
It’s the perfect formula for a permanent war. It’s impossible to prove a negative,
So, you can’t prove you’re not racist, or sexist, or bigoted. Few people understand this.
If I can get you to thunk you have to prove to me you aren’t racist, I thereafter control you. All I need to do is express a bit of doubt or suspicion and you’re off again dancing to my tune, bending over backwards to demonstrate non-rscist credentials (how exactly, no one really knows, how exactly do you prove you’re not racist?)
The only appropriate response to the accusation of racism is outrage and the demand of proof.
Before a school embarks on any anti-racist programme they should demand to see the evidence of racism. The most they will be shown are very isolated, anecdotal, petty instances and at any rate nothing that demands a systematics overarching programe.
The evidence will be that not all races achieve equally.
There’s evidence that members of all races are equally incapable of understanding mathematical averages and their practical applications, ie, what they can and cannot be used for. It’s perfectly possible to calculate the average number of tons of steel produced per sexual intercourse. But this doesn’t mean the result makes any sense in the real world.
I think some are all too capable of knowingly abusing averages for dishonest purposes.
Yeah, the equality of outcomes that the left are trying to force down our throats.
It’s fiendish.
The left: Outcomes are unequal by race!
Us: So what?
The left: It’s racism!
Us: No it’s not!
The left: Well explain why outcomes are unequal then – are you some kind of racist?
The right approach as RW points out is to ridicule the notion that measuring average outcome by race has any meaning. But that argument seems to be too subtle for most bien-pensant #bekind people who seem to feel guilty.
There are better arguments against that, although they’re more complicated. This whole proof that society is racist is based on circular reasoning. In full, this runs as follows:
1) It’s assumed that society must be racist and thus, that race is an important factor to detemine outcomes (instead of, say, sex, height or hair colour).
2) Based on this assumption, a (usually very small) sample of people is inspected who are subdivided into groups based on race.
3) Outcomes differ between groups, hence, society must be racist.
Society must be racist is both a premise and a conclusion here. Grouping people by hair colour would also result in different outcomes for different groups and hence, the society assumed as being hairist would turn out to be hairist.
Racism is certainly often assumed, or people pretend to assume it.
But try this:
Premise 1 – all races are equally able to be successful at life by whatever measure we choose (power, money). If you disagree, you’re a racist.
Observation – outcomes are unequal.
Conclusion – it’s racism!
I think dissuading people of the madness of all this is a lost cause.
That’s exactly the same circular reasoning. These people are looking for differences by race because they’ve a priori assumed that race must be the determining factor because of the racist society. To use a contrived example to illustrate this (hopefully) somewhat better. Standing at a street junction, it’s assumed that all white cars will arrive from the left. In order to prove that, the colour of all cars arriving from the left is recorded. And the outcome is: All recorded white cars arrived from the left. Nobody knows which cars arrived from the right because nobody was looking.
I think it’s more like this:
Genocide and enslavement based on race happen from time to time, and they are bad. Anything that might lead to those things is bad, including thinking that not all races are “equal”. Therefore you must accept that all races are “equal” otherwise you will end up killing people or enslaving them based on race. Therefore if there are different outcomes by race, it’s because of racism and not because arbitrarily grouping people by race and looking at outcomes is silly.
I think it’s an emotional rather than a logical position. Harder to shift.
That’s the final attempt I’m going to make this time[*]: These people are assuming that race must cause differences. Hence, they’re looking at outcomes by race. And find differences. And then claim race must have caused them. This is circular.
[*] How can something that simple be so extremely difficult??
Ask a #bekind metropolitan middle class “educated” bien-pensant liberal if all races are “equal”. See what they say. They will say “of course they are, what are you, some kind of racist?”. This what we’re up against.
Actually they might say that all races are not equal – blacks run faster, Chinese work harder etc etc. But what they won’t say is that some races are better behaved or more intelligent than others.
Enter the deranged normality of everyday life in liberated Germany: The only socially legal public activity is everyone constantly paying lip services to antifascism. Anything else is just an appendix to that and whoever doesn’t has proven himself to be a wrong ‘un. Not having a political opinion or not talking about one’s political opinions won’t be tolerated. This worked nicely for subjugating Germans. It’s about time to try to recipe on other groups who could also do with some subjugation.
Schools should carry on exactly as they are. Through their stupidity and overzealousness they are breeding a generation of kids with a keen eye for insane propaganda.
A gullible few will buy all the crap, but not many.
Please carry on.
Teachers presenting their own political beliefs?
One of the most powerful school lectures I had as a teenager was from a Northern Irish teacher in 1980 talking about Northern Ireland politics.
Afterwards,in his English class he asked us for our response and what we thought his personal view was.
We mostly answered that he leaned to the Nationalist side.
‘No, I am a Unionist,but I am glad that was how you saw it. Now, back to class and I won’t answer any more questions on the subject.’
Are schools even racist to start with? I very much doubt it. Again, this is the cultural Marxists at work probing into all areas of society, looking for weak points (young kids) and beginning a process of slow indoctrination. If not checked, white kids will be feeling awkward and ashamed about their so called ‘white privilege’. What would be of especial interest, in my view, is a deep look into teacher’s training. Somewhere in there, you’ll probably find teachers being trained in this garbage – with our tax money (again)!
As I posted earlier, you need to define terms for your question to have meaning. If your meaning is “do schools treat blacks unequally just because they are black, and deliberately hamper their educational opportunities” I would say no they are not. If you mean “do blacks have less good outcomes ON AVERAGE than for example people of Chinese origin” then yes, they are “racist” and this fact alone for the race hustling industry is proof that they are “racist” in the first sense. Prove they are racist. Prove they are not. Either way, we either stop talking about race or it’s going to end in violence.
I guess Chairman Mao would have been very proud of this attempt to bring about a British cultural revolution using our own version of the Young Pioneers to pave the way!