Not so long ago I rewatched the original Jurassic Park and was struck by Ian Malcolm’s monologue in which he says to John Hammond, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” It struck me that this unintentionally captured the essence of a growing problem in today’s education system: EDI. School managers and teachers are so eager to rush into whatever is trending in EDI. So convinced are they, without any evidence, of EDI’s supposed moral, ethical, educational and societal benefits that they neglect to consider whether they should be promoting it.
The virtues of EDI are extolled throughout the education system and my own school is no different. Schools openly bow down to EDI and an entire industry has developed to ensure EDI is embedded across the education system, despite evidence that it has had detrimental effects in the workplace. It is commonplace now to see schools advertising themselves as “inclusive” and numerous websites have popped up to promote EDI, such as the Inclusive Schools Network. The EDI approach has ostensibly been embraced because Britain is now a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society and it’s supposedly essential to help tackle discrimination, break down stereotypes, facilitate better communication and foster social cohesion. However, I think the push for “inclusivity” distorts education, disempowers the individual and poses a threat to a free society.
One assertion that’s frequently made these days is that “inclusive language” should be used in lessons. But what, exactly, is it? Who defines it? And how can such a thing exist in any case? The economist Ludwig von Mises observed in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis how Marxism thrived on “dialectic artificialities” and a “word-fetishism” which made it “possible to unite incompatible ideas and demands” (e.g. Queers for Palestine). This linguistic sleight of hand can be used to brainwash the broader population, and this is exactly what “inclusive language” does. Those who advocate “inclusive language” claim it’s a tool for promoting open conversations. But for “inclusive language” to exist and function, it must by its very nature be at odds with intellectual diversity, free speech and democratic values. It requires a central authority to dictate what is or is not inclusive, thereby strengthening that authority’s power, while discriminating against those who are deemed to have said something offensive.
The drive to use “inclusive language” and to be “inclusive” is in reality exclusionary and intolerant. A cursory glance through some typical ‘guidance’, such as that produced by the University of Leeds, reveals that it usually focuses on what not to say rather than on what to say. The implications of this are worrying as it’s a method of importing identity politics and ideological authoritarianism into schools. As John Stuart Mill noted in On Liberty, “all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility”. By pursuing “inclusive language”, school managers are going along with this linguistic totalitarianism and, in my experience, are never open to any discussion about whether they are embarking on the best approach for pupils and staff.
On one level, the emphasis on “inclusive language” encourages others to find offence where none is intended and in doing so undermines resilience. It feeds a culture of victimhood and is hardly beneficial to learning, where failure is often a necessary precursor to success. On another level, it establishes a right not to be offended. This type of approach is fundamentally unworkable, as we have seen through inane legislation like Scotland’s Hate Crime Act. By seeking to protect certain identity groups from being offended, it introduces a form of bullying into a school since it provides bad actors, both pupils and staff, with the perfect cudgel to attack their opponents.
Offence is, after all, in the eye of the beholder. It requires no evidence other than someone’s claim they were emotionally harmed by something that was supposedly said, regardless of the speaker’s intention. It is extremely easy to make an unfounded allegation because it’s so difficult to challenge without seeming to disbelieve a ‘victim’ about how upset he or she really is, and, therefore, extremely hard to defend against. Besides teaching children to simply accuse, rather than debate, an obvious consequence of this is the sewing of suspicion and distrust. According to the Mental Health Foundation, 20% of adolescents currently suffer from some form of mental illness. Mental Health UK notes that 92% of teachers distrust their line manager and 88% of teachers say there is a negative ‘team culture’, with 86% saying they don’t feel supported at school. One cannot help but wonder whether EDI initiatives, which promote linguistic totalitarianism and thereby create an environment in which one must constantly tread on eggshells, are contributing to this state of affairs.
Besides being contradictory in a theoretical and philosophical sense, the censoring of language is extended into censoring or distorting curriculum content. This is why we see misguided initiatives, embraced by the Historical Association, among others, to ‘decolonise’ the curriculum, as well as a growing tendency to exaggerate the negative aspects of British and Western history and culture. Thus, as many readers will no doubt already be familiar, pupils are spoon fed narratives in which Britain is cast as an evil slave trading nation with few redeeming qualities, if any. Little mention is made of all the other countries that trafficked in slaves, or of Britain’s key role in suppressing the transatlantic slave trade.
This highly selective approach is fundamentally driven by ideological activism and some schools encourage this by engaging in their own types of cancel culture, such as changing the names used within their own house systems for fear that the original names might cause offence. As Doug Stokes points out in Against Decolonisation, this constant denigration of Britain’s history and culture may even have serious implications for national security by virtue of the fact they instil no love and respect for, or understanding of, our country.
The drive towards ‘inclusivity’ and all the associated EDI dogma contributes nothing to education and everything towards indoctrination and the destruction of critical thinking. In my ‘lived experience’, an ‘inclusive’ curriculum often means talking more about LGBTQ+ or BAME people, although the ‘climate curriculum’ is not far behind. Charities with specific ideological or political agendas, such as Stonewall or Schools of Sanctuary, are consulted and sometimes paid to help make lesson content more ‘inclusive’ without any regard to the provisions about not indoctrinating children in the Education Act 1996. This extends into the creation of bizarre extra-curricular activities, such as LGBTQ+ lunchtime and after-school clubs. Schools also embrace various forms of positive discrimination in order to tackle imaginary biases and prejudices, such as girls-only IT competitions. It’s not clear how this sits with the emphasis on ‘inclusion’, given its prohibition on boys’ participation and the lack of provision for a boys-only competition. This is hardly a strategy for improving the performance of the demographic group most overlooked: white working-class boys. But ‘inclusion’ is nearly always about extending perks to officially recognised victim groups and rarely about helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
Furthermore, as each subject on the curriculum is forced to genuflect to the latest ideological fad, less intellectual diversity is tolerated and more groupthink emerges. The push for promoting minority narratives and victimology across every subject means the school curriculum ceases to be about academic exploration and more about ensuring a single message or narrative is instilled in pupils’ minds. Friedrich Hayek observed in The Road to Serfdom that it was “not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought”. Through the policing of language and narrowing of curriculum content, inclusion agendas are facilitating the destruction of individual autonomy by limiting the opportunities for pupils to critically evaluate prepackaged narratives. While this is what we might expect in a Chinese-style re-education camp, it should not be the model adopted by British schools.
A generous observer might conclude that those who signal their virtue on inclusivity simply haven’t thought this through – they mean well, even if their initiatives have terrible unintended consequences. A more critical observer might conclude that those who push EDI initiatives do so with an ulterior motive. I’m in the latter camp, and as I’ve said previously this leads to a perpetual cycle in which victory can never be secured until complete equality of outcome between different identity groups has been achieved. It’s also fuelled by self-interest. Those who work in the multi-billion-pound EDI sector need to keep finding new dragons to slay to justify their funding, often as the expense of the taxpayer. Besides, the very essence of EDI-based initiatives, such as anti-racism and unconscious bias training, is to teach individuals to take offence and actively seek out things to be offended by. This is why we see schools embarking on crusades to eliminate the use of “Sir” and “Miss”. By planting the seed that one may be committing a microaggression and establishing a culture in which speech and expression are policed, the logical response of some may be to avoid interaction altogether. Why take the risk of inadvertently treading on a landmine? Or giving a bully an excuse to persecute you? This type of backlash within the workplace has already been documented by the Government.
Why, then, are schools endorsing EDI? If we were to explore the legal roots of this phenomenon, we might look to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice in 2001 and the Framework for the Inspection of Schools in 2003. By the late 1990s, a perception had emerged that the colour-blind approach in education had failed. Among numerous other points, the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, published in 1999, recommended that schools develop strategies to prevent racism and for the National Curriculum to be revised so it extolled the virtues of multi-culturalism. But academies and free schools, which as of January 2024 account for nearly 82% of all secondary schools and nearly 43% of primary schools, don’t have to follow the National Curriculum. Independent schools, which constitute nearly 10% of schools, don’t either. Thus, it is the Equality Act 2010 and schools guidance from 2014 which form much of the bedrock of current practice. The relevant parts of this legislation basically set out a duty of care and make it illegal for schools to discriminate against pupils based on their protected characteristics, such as race, religion, sexual orientation or gender.
Where there is a possible misstep legally speaking is in schools’ conflation of, and confusion between, content and delivery. Section 2.8 of the 2014 guidance, which advises schools what they need to do to comply with the Equality Act, says curriculum content is excluded from discrimination law but the manner in which it’s delivered is included. According to section 2.9, schools are “free to include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their syllabus, and to expose pupils to thoughts and ideas of all kinds, however challenging or controversial”. This is important because the advocates of EDI in schools typically appeal to the Equality Act, claiming they’re obliged to roll out these initiatives to comply with that Act, when, in fact, that’s just an excuse for pushing their ideological agenda.
There is, in other words, no legal obligation or reason why a school should indulge in changing (or removing) curriculum to comply with the Equality Act. Schools may of course do this for a variety of reasons, such as capitalising on teachers’ specific knowledge or appealing to pupils’ interests to promote more engagement. But we ought to be mindful of the predilection many teachers have for engaging in social justice activism. It is in fact something which is implicitly encouraged by those who’ve written the material that finds its way onto teacher training courses. For example, Robert Jeffcoat, who describes himself “with pleasure a radical Marxist” due to his “particular view” on injustice, is cited approvingly in a PGCE textbook that’s still in use today.
However, by pitting of one social group against another, as required by various fashionable teaching resources, and teaching children about concepts like white privilege, some schools may in fact be in breach of the Equality Act, which requires publicly-funded bodies to promote good relations between groups with different protected characteristics, which includes white boys. And by developing a curriculum centred on EDI, schools could well be limiting pupils’ academic opportunities and, as such, failing to provide the broad and balanced curriculum that they’re supposed to, as set out in Section 78 of the Education Act 2002.
At a fundamental level, the whole EDI agenda within schools overlooks one simple, crucial and fundamental issue: the provision of education, not indoctrination, will do far more to help disadvantaged children make socio-economic progress in the long term. A report commissioned by Pro Bono Economics, The National Literacy Trust and KPMG earlier this year found that 30% of five-year-olds were behind their expected reading levels. The National Literacy Trust also found in 2023 that only 43.4% of children aged from 8 to 18 enjoyed reading. Obviously, multiple factors contribute to these findings but one cannot help wondering whether one solution might be for teachers to spend less time promoting ideological fads and more time focusing on actually educating children. And perhaps literature promoting woke narratives just isn’t that inspiring. Why should children enjoy reading books that are constantly scolding them for not being ‘better allies’? Those schools which have embraced woke identitarian dogma are abusing their duties and responsibilities, and failing pupils and society in the process.
The reality is that schools cannot truly be ‘inclusive’ precisely because it is a contradictory, unworkable and illogical idea; exclusionary practices and outcomes are an inherent and inevitable part of education and life in general. Not every pupil will achieve an A* at A-level or a 9 at GCSE. Not everyone who applies to work at a school will be accepted and not everyone within a school will be friends with everyone else, despite the claims made on schools’ marketing materials. And, due to practical considerations, not every school will have the capacity to accept every child. An inclusive curriculum is also itself a unicorn precisely because it must, by definition, exclude certain content that is arbitrarily deemed to be discriminatory or insensitive.
The claim that adopting an ‘inclusive’ approach will prepare pupils for life, as my school and many others do, is a fallacy. Such an approach is based on flawed assumptions, fosters unrealistic expectations and leads to troubling outcomes. It fails to instil resilience, encourages children to abdicate personal responsibility and attacks the individual’s ability to think critically. The only people who gain from such an approach are those looking to carve out easy and lucrative careers for themselves. All EDI does is provide a platform for narcissistic managers to crush dissent and signal their virtue so they can gain the requisite peer approval for career progression. The people who lose are pupils, parents and those teachers who have maintained their integrity.
Teachers can bring EDI to the classroom, but they need to start reflecting on whether they should.
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.
Very extensive report on this troubling development. By implying diversity is a “good thing” this automatically implies lack of diversity is a “bad thing”. But “diversity” only ever works in one direction, which is less white people. So a group of 10 white people is a “bad thing”
We now have this clamouring for “diversity” everywhere we look. Switch on your TV and you will see this “diversity” being put in place in all the programs, and all the adverts. Ask yourself when you last saw 5 white people in a TV advert. I tried a little experiment one day to see if I could find one and had to give up. Yet in a country where 85% of the population is white it must be statistically impossible if things were being done randomly to not have lots of TV ads with all white people in them. Which ofcourse means that the ads are manipulated because having them with only white people in them is deemed a “bad thing”.
Near where I live there is a very large farm. The owners have a lovely farm shop and restaurant. Nearly all of the customers are white reasonably well-off people. But behind the hundreds of Poly Tunnels full of fruit and veg is a large area of caravans for all the mainly Eastern European (Romanians mostly) people to live as they spend their summers picking all the fruit for the mainly white customers. The owners of this farm are happy to sell their product to the UK citizens but not so keen to employ those citizens on their farm. They prefer the cheap labour from abroad and as a result their business is very profitable. Should it not be the case that business people like this be forced to employ on decent wages rather than slave wages people resident in the UK? The feeble excuse for not doing so is that UK citizens do not want this work. I suggest they do not want it for the wages being paid to Romanians. But that they would want it if the wage was competitive. Then there is this idea that if we object to this influx of people to benefit wealthy business owners we are all “racists” which is quite absurd.
I suspect that “diversity” is a top down bit of politics and a pincer movement of government and business. Government get their open border inline with UN goals and business get all the cheap labour they need. What better place to indoctrinate into this way of thinking than in schools and that is what EDI is doing.
Ah yes, diversity. A loaded term if ever there was one. This about sums it up for me and sounds like the kind of contradictory, nonsensical claptrap Khant and his ilk keep banging on about;
https://x.com/AMDWaters/status/1807745545999429982
Ann Marie Waters summing up beautifully.
Have you read her book “Beyond Terror” ?
Been to Asia, India, Africa, or the Middle East lately? their ads are not at all diverse, perhaps PWC, and Blackrock’s Larry Fink need to get on a few planes and go tell the various leaders including China how to behave, perhaps they can also take Greta and her crew with them to demand they stop using fossil fuels. That way they can make sure that the fall of civilisation as being undertaken in the west, can be fully inclusive to the rest of the world/
“perhaps they can also take Greta and her crew with them”
..and leave them there!
See how they get on glueing themselves to a road in Shanghai.
Yep —-I know.
And maybe visit Japan too. Fair play to the Japanese for standing firm against third world invasions.
Hear, hear.
Adverts are, of course, a form of brainwashing. If you are buying a product you have never bought before you look for one that you recognise. “I saw it on the TV”. They stick in your head.
Something I have noticed is that every black person, in a couple, on an advert is male and he is always married to a white blonde. He is always competent and assured.
When a white male is on an advert he is always a bit of a dick and hopeless. Has no idea what he is doing and invariably his wife sorts it out.
This is not accidental and nor is the fact that male football is infested with blonde women at the same time their rights as women are being removed in a parody of Islam. Overall, it says “Powerful women are fake blonde married to virile black males and know more about football than any whitey male”.
I watched a black American comedian a few months back and he mentioned this to his almost entirely black audience. He said that the adverts portray every black guy being married to a blonde. The audience roared with laughter when he pointed out that no black mother was going to let her son marry a white girl!
Yes, the late great Ethnic African Cassius Clay hammered Michael Parkinson on this subject:
Muhammad Ali – Racial Integration – YouTube
Comments from the public:
“Muhammad Ali was definitely one of the most outspoken and entertaining sports figures of all time.”
“Imagine the freedom in saying exactly what’s on your mind.”
“They would put Muhammad Ali in jail for saying this now.”
“”I wanna be with my own. I love my people. I don’t hate nobody.”
I knew he was smart but I never knew what an intelligent, independent deep thinker he was. One of the most eloquent anti-multicultural arguments I’ve ever heard. He doesn’t hate others. He just loves his culture and wants to preserve it and recognizes and accepts as natural that others would feel the same about their own cultures. ”
“This guy is just an absolute genius.. a proud black man, loves his culture, loves his people.. and understands the world.. God bless you RIP..”
““God didn’t make a mistake when he made us all like we were.” TRUTH!”
One of my all time favourite humans !
Kind of agree, but converting to Islam??
Yes every other medium is used to brainwash people. News, Drama, Film, Documentary etc so why not adverts? As you say they are there to influence people. But that used to be about influencing them to buy a product. Today it is still about getting them to buy the product, but also making sure that the product will reduce their carbon footprint, with lots of Social Justice, race, gender, equality and diversity chucked in there as well, because no company wants to be called racists for not having their quota of black people in their ads and fall foul of ESG requirements, so they all err hugely on the side of caution.
Spot on ! Been going on for years ! In deepest Cornwall approx 15 yrs back all the small Adventure / Activity type places were staffed by young Europeans, probably even more diverse now !!
The minimum wage in the UK for a forty hour week is £25,000. The reason native Brits don’t want fruit picking jobs is that the accumulated benefits package,★ PAYE equivalent very quickly exceeds £20 k pa so the option is to go to work for 40 hours per week for a grand sum of £5 k.
★ cash benefits, free rent, free council tax, free prescriptions, free dental, free or subsidised gym access. And others depending on status married / single / children.
Seriously though, how did any of us navigate our education systems, growing up in the 60s/70s/80s, and generally get through life safely and psychologically unscathed into adulthood, embark on careers and achieve professional and personal success without any ‘help’ from this EDI nonsense? Well I don’t know about you but I feel short-changed and wonder how much better my life could have been had ‘woke’ been a part of my childhood development growing up. Who knows where I’d be now if I’d only been exposed to such an obviously beneficial and benign ideology at such a young and impressionable age. Thank fluff I’m not a schoolkid now, that’s all I’ll say. Strewth!
This toxic garbage isn’t going anywhere is it? All we can do is detox our kids and instill realism and common sense into them to counter the effects of said poison on their malleable, sponge-like little minds;
”For The Woke Left, Typically From Middle-Class Backgrounds Influenced By 70s Cultural Movements, Wealth Is Not The Primary Issue Because It Focuses On Addressing Social And Identity-Based Injustices Rather Than Economic Inequalities.
Woke Theory (Also Called Wokeism) Can Be Compared To A Friend Who Always Thinks They Know What’s Best For Everyone. This Theory Suggests That Society Is Inherently Oppressive, And The Only Solution Is To Constantly Remind People About Their Supposed “Privilege” And “Oppression.”
Imagine You’re At A Party, And Someone Starts Lecturing You About How You’re A Terrible Person Because Of Your Race, Gender, Or Other Characteristics. You’d Probably Want To Leave.
That’s What Woke Theory Does To The Majority. It Makes Them Feel Like They’re Always On The Defensive, Being Attacked For Things Beyond Their Control. It’s Like Trying To Converse With A Brick Wall That Keeps Criticizing You For Being A Brick.
The Result? People Start Tuning Out. They Stop Listening. They See Woke Theory As Irrelevant To Them And Move On With Their Lives.
In Short, Woke Theory Undermines The Majority By Alienating Them And Making Them Feel Like They’re The Problem. And Let’s Be Honest, Nobody Likes Feeling Like They’re The Problem.”
https://wokeaware.org/woke/
But you are talking about back in the day when we were taught “how to think”. But since the Progressives hijacked the education system as they did will all other institutions our kids get taught “what to think”.
Also we were taught to fight our own battles. It was character-building. Running to teacher like a crybaby snitch because someone stuck their tongue out at you, kicked you or called you a “pig” just wasn’t the done thing in 1980s, working class Newcastle. Snowflakes wouldn’t have made it out the other end of school alive back then and even teachers didn’t take kindly to being pestered by such trivial little “tell-tale tits”, as we called them.
“Treat people how you want to be treat” and “Give as good as you get” were instilled in us and I’ve always lived by those standards. Be kind but don’t be a mug, basically.
That was my school experience too Mogs.
I am Oldham born and bred but went to school in Manchester. I have a strong Oldham accent which is markedly different from anything Manchester side. The usual slur of choice from colleagues when things got lively was to refer to me as a ‘sheep sh#g#er. Did it bother me? Nope, I thought it was funny. Still do.
Yes my dad would beat the living daylights out of me, bury me 6 feet under and jump up and down on my grave. —Just kidding, that was me stealing a bit of Monty Python. —-But what was true was that I got 6 of the belt for not putting brown paper on my Maths Text Book. Now I am not advocating belting kids , but the belt has not been replaced with anything and infact teachers are not even allowed to tell kids to “shut up” anymore. ——–But after I got that 6 of the belt I can assure you that there was always brown paper on every text book.
“Nobody Likes Feeling Like They’re The Problem.”
Oh, I don’t know. As many people who know me will confirm I have a tendency to be the problem. Always have.
There is a very real evil at work here.
Couldn’t find an Eddie. This’ll have to do
P.S And women, obv. Would hate to gain a reputation as a “misandrist” now.
inclusivity ensures that everyone is stupid, ignorant,incurious and bovine,as not everyone can be good at Maths, English, science, sports etc but everyone can be useless and pathetic at them, this way no one person can be described as not being “included”.
The Mao’ist and Pol Pot ideologues, for this is what is at the fundamental heart of EDI, need this as only with a nation of mostly Epsilons can ultimate power be achieved.
When that song was written, it was about rebellious kids not liking having to go to school, now, education is about indoctrination! Gives the song a whole new meaning
Kids should be taught ‘how’ to think, not what to think!
I like that track – it amuses me to hear the choir of children struggling to roughen their pronunciation.
With every ‘d’ and ‘t’ enunciated terribly clearly donchano.
The track was always about indoctrination and an enforced view of the world. “Conform or be beaten”. “Rebel behind the bike shed and be beaten”, “Eat what swill you are given or be beaten”.
“Eat what swill you are given or be beaten”.
I always enjoyed school dinners.
This is hardly news though is it.
The only thing we ever needed in this country is recognising that I am not better than anyone else, nobody else is better, or different to me. Simple and we have done a pretty decent job of it.
Back when I was a kid I was in the school rugby team, there were whites, blacks, West Indians and an Italian. We were told in the news we hated each other but on a Saturday we fought for each other. Nobody had to tell us how, nobody told us what to say or think.
I wouldn’t get on well in a school today because I will not stand for being told what I can and cannot say. I never have and I never will. The reason our society has always worked is because we have freedom of speech which is limited only by common decency. Socialists always wish to control people, a Nanny State gone insane. This brought the downfall of the Conservative party in 5 short years and it will destroy the Labour party even faster.
“...it will destroy the Labour party even faster.”
Something to look forward to then.
All happening under a Tory Government- another reason why the Conservatives have to be annihilated at this election, whatever the consequences. Hopefully Reform get enough seats to be the official opposition, however even a worse case Labour and LibDem double act is better than to keep flip flopping between the two current branches of the uniparty
I was at boarding school and Mrs & Sir were the norm. I wonder are Highschool kids taught about the Stasi and what life was like before the Wall came down, and how people were always escaping to the West, not the East. Some on here don’t like Tate but talking about stoicism is refreshing and a counter to this Globalist/Marxist crap. Before I didn’t give a toss about Gay marriage, now I see it for what it is and it should be reversed and that Globalist Satanist parasite Justin Welby thrown out of the Church. I’m not religious but grew up in Vicarage and have fond memories of Christmas.
Yes, the Soviet bloc was, until 1989, a useful living warning to stop the simple-minded voting for too much socialism. Since the wall came down, we have been sliding into the abyss. China, Venezuela etc are too far away to impact the minds of UK voters.
Good article by the teacher summarising the situation. Only one tiny English quibble:
“the sewing of suspicion and distrust” should be “sowing”, as in sowing seeds.
But we are being “Stitched up”
True!
Yes!
“the emphasis on “inclusive language” encourages others to find offence where none is intended and in doing so undermines resilience“
Sadly, I fear at this point the author has got confused and has adopted the wokey definition of ‘resilience’
“Resilience is the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal demands.”
And the real, dictionary definition…
‘the capacity to withstand or to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness.’
“the remarkable resilience of so many institutions”
Since I’ve been ill, the 17 year old son of a neighbor is cutting my lawn for me. he is in college doing a course in engineering. i asked him what has he been taught at school about climate change, to my surprise he said nothing, the subject not mentioned. Like many of his generation, he gets his news on social media. He told me that in the last few weeks Nigel Farage has been all over it and is very popular, so there is still some hope left with the next generation
The whole concept is fake and wastes time and effort, not least when people have to spend weeks defending claims of discrimination. Tribalism will always be with us, whether religious, ethnic, national or football. Sometimes it’s not very nice, but when it’s born of ignorance one can learn to laugh at it (personal experience of having a foreign father). However it is not new, just worse. I recall some 30 years ago being involved with a semi-academic appointment where one unappointed candidate raised Cain claiming racial discrimination. Fact was he was completely useless but there have been numerous instances of people being given posts thanks to profiling over applicants who were better qualified. This leads us down into mediocrity, which is where we seen inexorably headed. Fight on!
During my time at university, many years ago. the guy who was the leader of the Conservative Association stood up in front of the student union general meeting and instead of engaging with whatever nutty left wing debate they were having at the time, simply said, “There is no point debating you. You’re just a bunch of sh1ts that need to be fought at every turn.”
I have come to the conclusion over the years that he was right. You cannot convince Marxists with sensible reasoning, as in this article. They just need to be defunded, removed from office and treated like the lunatics they are.
I suspect that most of the teachers who go along with this nonsense know very well that it is nonsense, and go along with it purely to protect themselves. They need a government that will protect them by removing the Marxist nutcases who drive this stuff.
And that is where the outgoing Conservative government went so wrong. It fundamentally believed that its enemies were basically decent human beings. It tried to engage them in debate and convince them to do the right things. It even tried to take a “moderate” position between its enemies and normal people.
Its enemies aren’t basically decent human beings. They are a bunch of sh1ts who need to be fought at every turn.
Apologies for being thick here but isn’t this all part of “the long slow march through the institutions” or whatever it’s called? In other words the Marxists are getting exactly what they want confusion and control. My old man who was a Schoolmaster predicted this years ago he retired in 1979 and died in 2003. Sadly missed and a very wise man.
One of the saddest things about this excellent article is that the writer feels the need to remain anonymous. Intolerance rules disguised as kindness.