Persuading Al Capone

Whenever someone suggests introducing legal restrictions on a particular type of behaviour, even where it is generally agreed that the behaviour is dangerous and harmful, it may be questioned if we should rely on persuasion rather than regulation to contain it.

We can all accept that if persuasion can by itself stop the undesirable behaviour in question, then it would be preferable not only because it is a less costly option, but also because it is a better moral outcome if people choose to do the right thing in accordance with what they accept as correct, and not just out of fear of punishment for breaking a rule.

However, there is clearly a limit to persuasion. The problem with the mantra of placing total reliance on persuasive approaches alone is that it ignores the consequences of those approaches falling short – taking too long, not reaching enough people, or simply not halting the harmful behaviour.

Some people just would not listen to arguments. Imagine in the name of ‘freedom’, there is no legal rule governing driving.  Anyone can drive if they want, though they are told that it would be safer for everyone if they would pass a driving test first.  Inevitably, there will be those who drive without having taken any lesson, speed along narrow roads, get drunk before their journey, or take dangerous risks as they head towards a zebra crossing.  

From organised crime to callous individual acts of spreading dangerous diseases to vulnerable people, there are countless cases of people engaging in harmful activities even when there are legal restrictions against them.  Only a fantasist could suppose that in the absence of all regulations, such people would suddenly acquire a sense of responsibility, and stop putting their own greed and impulse above the wellbeing of others.

One may wonder why some politicians still insist that persuasion is the limit of what we should do to curtail harmful behaviour. Do they know some secret persuasive technique they have yet to share with the rest of us?  Are they in possession of a style of communication that can change the most self-centred or thoughtless individuals into socially minded citizens?

In truth, there are two reasons why these politicians champion persuasion as the only acceptable policy tool – in very specific cases.  One reason is that they do not actually in the cases in question want the harmful behaviour to stop.  Be it climate change, pollution, threats to health and safety, job insecurity, etc., they directly or indirectly (through links to donors and potential benefactors) have an interest in ensuring there is no legal impediment to corporations maximising their financial gains at the expense of other people.  In short, they want to stick with persuasion when anything with legal force would curtail the activities in question and hence impinge on their own pecuniary interests.

The other reason is that with harmful behaviour such as racist, sexist, bigoted, intimidatory acts, these politicians calculate that siding with the perpetrators of these acts by keeping legal intervention at bay, would help them gain electoral support.  By constantly speaking out against the ‘threat to freedom’ of any legal restriction against these types of harmful behaviour, they present themselves as defenders of the ‘right’ to spew hatred and prejudice.

There is little point in trying to convince these politicians that persuasion may not always be enough.  In those cases where they insist on persuasion as the limit to what any government should do, the task for society is to expose their self-serving interests as the indefensible basis of their position.

Political Impartiality in Schools?

Schools are told they must be politically impartial in what they teach and discuss.  But what is political impartiality, and who decides?

In the US, an increasing number of Republican states have taken the approach of telling schools what they must not teach (usually anything connected with raising awareness of racism, sexual prejudice, and social injustice), and what they must not prevent from being discussed (any views which, in the name of ‘balance’ challenge concerns with racism, sexual prejudice, or social justice).

In England, the Conservative Government has issued guidance to schools in an attempt to push a similar agenda but to appear less overtly reactionary.  However, one has to wonder if its lack of clarity is deliberate in facilitating the advancement of reactionary ideas, albeit in an obfuscating manner.

For example, the guidance says that topics “which are particularly contentious and disputed” (such as historical events, especially when these relate to “empire and imperialism”) should be taught “in a balanced manner”.’  But what is ‘balanced’?  There are Conservatives who have been adamant that detractors of Britain’s past imperial triumphs should not be allowed to put forward their views in schools.  Should the guidance be interpreted as requiring any criticism of imperial oppression be ‘balanced’ by a glowing account of the glory of empire? Yet do the two sides always balance out?  We cannot assume that every contested issue can simply be resolved by the ‘balancing’ act of giving equal weight to both sides of the conflict.

The advice offered by the government guidance maintains that when it comes to “significant” political figures – “including those who have controversial and contested legacies” – teachers should “focus on teaching about what these figures are most renowned for and factual information about them if teachers think pupils may not be able to understand the contested nature of more complex analyses of their lives, beliefs and actions”.  Many Conservative politicians are unhappy with figures such as Churchill being criticised for any views or actions when he should just be idolised as a national hero.  But if ‘contested’ is taken to cover any view which is rejected by some politicians, then politicians can stop any idea from being taught or discussed just by contesting its validity.  More widely, none of us would learn much about our past if our knowledge is to be fossilised by what historical figures/events were once ‘most renowned for’, regardless of what new research might bring to light.  Should we, for example, look back on the Opium War as a shining example of British military prowess and commercial expansionism, or consider it a regrettable use of force to impose the sale of a harmful narcotic on a country that wanted to stamp it out?

The problematic invocation of ‘contested’ goes beyond history to contemporary affairs.  Schools are assured they can teach climate change, but “where teaching covers the potential solutions for tackling climate change, this may constitute a political issue”.  And the implication is that, since a political issue is by its nature a contested issue, no policy solution (for climate change or any other societal challenge, for that matter) should be explored with pupils unless there is no political argument about it at all.  

Ultimately, if any politician – who is misguided, poorly informed, prejudiced, or holding extremist views – can stop any topic from being considered in schools by contesting it, then nothing much that is sensible about politics and society can be taught.  

The Education Secretary (Nadhim Zahawi) may insist that “no subject is off-limits in the classroom”.  But in adding the critical proviso that it must be done “without promoting contested theories as fact”, he is allowing even facts to be taken off the table so long as someone is prepared to contest them.  Of course, one way to deal with this conundrum is to allow established scholars and recognised experts to differentiate credible claims, reasonable hypotheses, disputed assertions, and dubious statements. Their consensus will form the basis for determining what is reasonable to consider in schools.

By contrast, the views of partisan politicians would be the last thing we want in grounding political impartiality.

-

See ‘Guidance on political impartiality in English classrooms ‘confusing’ say teachers’ unions’

Richard Adams, Guardian, 17 February 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/feb/17/guidance-on-political-impartiality-in-english-classrooms-confusing-say-teachers-unions