There is no criminal justice if society fails to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent, between vicious crimes and petty offences, or between remorseless perpetrators and those who deeply repent their transgressions. To deploy force and punishment indiscriminately would not strengthen public safety. Ultimately, citizens need protection not just from those who seek to break the law, but also from those who act in the name of enforcing the law.
Unfortunately, with sensationalist crime reporting and politicians’ obsession with appearing to be ‘tough on crime’, misguided emotions all too often trump reliable analysis when criminal policies are argued over. The anguish of every high profile victim of crime is swiftly turned into another launch pad for a ‘robust’ response irrespective of the likely impact of the hastily formulated proposals.
Against this backdrop, a much needed antidote has arrived in the form of Where Next for Criminal Justice?, a new book by David Faulkner and Ros Burnett, (Bristol, Polity Press: 2012. http://www.policypress.co.uk/display.asp?ISB=9781847428912). If anyone wants to have any serious credibility in putting forward solutions to criminal justice problems, a firm grasp of the facts and ideas set out in this book would be indispensable.
Faulkner and Burnett have drawn on substantial practical experience and academic research to produce a clear and cogent reminder of what the real issues are. They do not dispute that some can whip up public anxiety, not to mention outrage, to back all kinds of intervention. All they ask is for those who claim to want to cut crime to engage with the facts. For example, evidence tell us that changes to sentencing policy actually have a very limited impact on reducing crime; an increase of 15% in prison population might at best reduce crime by 1%; a 10% increase in number of police officers might reduce crime by 3%; and restorative approaches are not only generally welcome by victims, but have been found to reduce re-offending by nearly 14%. Furthermore, studies have confirmed that re-offending rates for those engaged in rehabilitative treatment compare favourably against corresponding measures for control groups.
When the government is daily insisting public expenditure must be more drastically cut, it is imperative that policy makers weigh intervention options in terms of their real impact and cost effectiveness. Prevention through education and social support so that people are not left to the margins of society with little self-esteem or too much pent-up anger is far more efficient than piling far more resources on crime fighting down the road.
At the same time, criminals who slip through current preventative measures need to be dealt with. Apart from the incorrigible minority who would not desist from causing harm to others – and who must therefore be detained for as long as necessary to protect others – the majority of offenders are likely to respond most to having someone who believes in their capacity for improvement and who acts accordingly to help them acquire better self-control and develop their life skills. Whether in prison or in the community, rehabilitative work should be guided by what evidence has uncovered as efficacious.
Reading this book, I was struck by the fact that since the resurgence of widening inequalities in the UK from the 1980s on, “new criminal offences have been created at the astonishing rate of about 150 a year for almost 20 years.” In these decades, the UK overtook Turkey in putting a higher percentage of its population in prison. Growing socio-economic disparity in our country has bred distrust and tension. The hysterical response of criminalising more activities, spreading the net of suspicion, disparaging rehabilitation, and accelerating the rate of incarceration, has only left many people still fretful of living in unsafe communities.
It is time for politicians, policy commentators, and criminal justice agents, to take a serious look at what the evidence tells us, and rethink what should really be done.
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Sunday, 1 April 2012
The Free Speech Conundrum
Is there an absolute freedom to say whatever one wishes to say? And can it never be curtailed except when it is exercised to interrupt someone else who is already speaking? If so, it would follow that whoever manages to open his mouth first would be able to carry on speaking, with the knowledge that anyone interrupting him would be judged to be in the wrong and subject to punishment.
That would appear to be the rationale when a most venerated university in the UK informed a research student that he would be suspended for over two years for reading out a poem when a politician was speaking. But surely no one can expect to say whatever they want, for however long they want, regardless of what they are actually saying.
Of course the great John Locke declared that “the business of laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the commonwealth, and of every particular man’s goods and person.” He illustrated his case by pointing out that while he would disagree with a Roman Catholic who claimed that a piece of bread was the body of Christ, he would be against any attempt to forbid him preaching or professing his belief, because it “does no injury thereby to his neighbour”.
Unfortunately, Locke’s distinction gets into difficulties when what is professed and preached contradicts what others may consider harmful. What if someone wants to tell his gullible congregation to embrace as holy water what we understand to be concentrated sulphuric acid? Or a person tells his young children that jumping off a tall building will guarantee their passage to heaven and eternal happiness? An orator who informs his listeners that anyone who fails to obstruct mix-race or same-sex relationships in their neighbourhood would burn in hell for allowing sins to spread?
Should all such people be allowed to speak without interruption? What if they manage to convince their listeners to act on the harmful falsehoods they propagate? Ultimately we cannot get away from the burden of verity. We have a responsibility to differentiate truth claims along a spectrum of justifiable beliefs – from those which unless strong contrary evidence can be clearly and consistently adduced have to be accepted as indisputable, through claims which on balance should be granted on current evidence, claims which are understandably contested without any clear-cut conclusion, to those which no one in a reasonable state of mind can be expected to embrace.
If we refuse to recognise that the legitimacy of speech has to be linked to an objective assessment of the truth of its contents, especially relating to what might protect or injure others, then tragically anything goes. Indeed it is this refusal that has led to public policies which enable parents with dubious views to bring their children up to harbour vicious hatred of other races, to consider the murder of one’s religious enemies as a passport to heaven, or to reject life-saving blood transfusion on the grounds that it is against the will of God.
A similar tendency in politics has paved the way for deception and distortion to spread in the name of the freedom of speech: denial of historical records of grotesque treatment of ethnic minorities, rejection of scientific proof of climate change being accelerated by human activities, pretence that the continued redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich is not harming the poor, or insistence that the prospect of unprecedented debt would not make many young people without rich parents think twice before pursuing higher education.
Peddlers of harmful lies, whether dressed up as religiously sincere or politically committed, should be rigorously opposed. Don’t let them hide behind the sanctity of ‘free speech’. Who are we to judge? As a society we are called upon to judge all the time – what is harmful, what is not? We may judge wrongly at times, but when we do, we know we can rely on others to challenge us. We then have to respond by examining the reasonableness of their case. What is patently unreasonable is to declare that any attempt to obstruct someone speaking in any forum must be wrong and severely punished. Sometimes an act of defiance deserves praise.
That would appear to be the rationale when a most venerated university in the UK informed a research student that he would be suspended for over two years for reading out a poem when a politician was speaking. But surely no one can expect to say whatever they want, for however long they want, regardless of what they are actually saying.
Of course the great John Locke declared that “the business of laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the commonwealth, and of every particular man’s goods and person.” He illustrated his case by pointing out that while he would disagree with a Roman Catholic who claimed that a piece of bread was the body of Christ, he would be against any attempt to forbid him preaching or professing his belief, because it “does no injury thereby to his neighbour”.
Unfortunately, Locke’s distinction gets into difficulties when what is professed and preached contradicts what others may consider harmful. What if someone wants to tell his gullible congregation to embrace as holy water what we understand to be concentrated sulphuric acid? Or a person tells his young children that jumping off a tall building will guarantee their passage to heaven and eternal happiness? An orator who informs his listeners that anyone who fails to obstruct mix-race or same-sex relationships in their neighbourhood would burn in hell for allowing sins to spread?
Should all such people be allowed to speak without interruption? What if they manage to convince their listeners to act on the harmful falsehoods they propagate? Ultimately we cannot get away from the burden of verity. We have a responsibility to differentiate truth claims along a spectrum of justifiable beliefs – from those which unless strong contrary evidence can be clearly and consistently adduced have to be accepted as indisputable, through claims which on balance should be granted on current evidence, claims which are understandably contested without any clear-cut conclusion, to those which no one in a reasonable state of mind can be expected to embrace.
If we refuse to recognise that the legitimacy of speech has to be linked to an objective assessment of the truth of its contents, especially relating to what might protect or injure others, then tragically anything goes. Indeed it is this refusal that has led to public policies which enable parents with dubious views to bring their children up to harbour vicious hatred of other races, to consider the murder of one’s religious enemies as a passport to heaven, or to reject life-saving blood transfusion on the grounds that it is against the will of God.
A similar tendency in politics has paved the way for deception and distortion to spread in the name of the freedom of speech: denial of historical records of grotesque treatment of ethnic minorities, rejection of scientific proof of climate change being accelerated by human activities, pretence that the continued redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich is not harming the poor, or insistence that the prospect of unprecedented debt would not make many young people without rich parents think twice before pursuing higher education.
Peddlers of harmful lies, whether dressed up as religiously sincere or politically committed, should be rigorously opposed. Don’t let them hide behind the sanctity of ‘free speech’. Who are we to judge? As a society we are called upon to judge all the time – what is harmful, what is not? We may judge wrongly at times, but when we do, we know we can rely on others to challenge us. We then have to respond by examining the reasonableness of their case. What is patently unreasonable is to declare that any attempt to obstruct someone speaking in any forum must be wrong and severely punished. Sometimes an act of defiance deserves praise.
Thursday, 15 March 2012
I’m Super-Rich, Get Me into the White House
The super-rich, deeply anxious that another term for Obama might hinder their exploitation of the other 99%, are determined to win back control of the White House. We have obtained a copy of their five-point guide for all Republican candidates to follow in the race for the Presidency:
No.1: Let the Rich Pay Less – Make the Rest Pay More
Promise you will cut taxes on capital gains and corporate income, and insist this will lift the burden on everyone when in fact it would only benefit the wealthy. Deny such tax cuts would make the public budget deficit even worse, because you will more than compensate for the loss of revenue by slashing welfare support by billions of dollars. Remember to look sincerely into the camera when you say that it’s best for the poor to learn to take care of themselves.
No.2: Free Movement for the Rich – Tight Controls for the Rest
While the rich and their money must continue to go wherever they want, loudly proclaim that poor people will not be allowed to sneak into our country. Remind everyone that it’s not the American Way to let people from abroad build a new home here. Serving illegal immigrants up as scapegoats is the one promise you will make to our indigenous poor. Come up with whatever device you wish (electrified fence, drone planes, genetically modified dogs) to keep (poor) foreigners out.
No.3: Keep the Rich Healthy – Forget about the Rest
Dismantle Obama’s reforms, as they might broaden access to quality healthcare for people who are far from rich. Tell the voters that unlike socialist Europe, it is not the business of the American government to be concerned with whether poor and sick people live or die. If they haven’t got a job that gets them health insurance, they have only themselves to blame.
No.4: Preach a Pro-Mammon but Anti-Gay Gospel
Ignore what Jesus said about how unlikely the rich would enter the kingdom of heaven, do nothing about the irresponsible predilections of deregulated banks, but focus on the spiritual importance of opposing gay marriage and banning abortion. Drape yourself with an American flag at all times lest you sound too much like an Islamic fundamentalist (see No.5 below).
No.5: Play the Middle East Card
As the Bin Laden card has been neutralised by Obama, pick another Middle Eastern villain. Syria is killing its own citizens, so don’t make that your priority. Go for Iran, because it is utterly unacceptable for any country to have nuclear weapons in the Middle East (except for Israel). Scaring people about the Middle East deflects attention from how we treat the poor at home, and helps our rich friends in the arms industry sell billions more dollars worth of deadly weapons over there.
[Note: All the Republican candidates have closely followed this five-point guide, with the exception of Ron Paul who doesn’t buy the anti-Iran stance of No.5, and of the remaining four candidates still in the race, he’s the only one who hasn’t won a single state in the Republican contest so far.]
No.1: Let the Rich Pay Less – Make the Rest Pay More
Promise you will cut taxes on capital gains and corporate income, and insist this will lift the burden on everyone when in fact it would only benefit the wealthy. Deny such tax cuts would make the public budget deficit even worse, because you will more than compensate for the loss of revenue by slashing welfare support by billions of dollars. Remember to look sincerely into the camera when you say that it’s best for the poor to learn to take care of themselves.
No.2: Free Movement for the Rich – Tight Controls for the Rest
While the rich and their money must continue to go wherever they want, loudly proclaim that poor people will not be allowed to sneak into our country. Remind everyone that it’s not the American Way to let people from abroad build a new home here. Serving illegal immigrants up as scapegoats is the one promise you will make to our indigenous poor. Come up with whatever device you wish (electrified fence, drone planes, genetically modified dogs) to keep (poor) foreigners out.
No.3: Keep the Rich Healthy – Forget about the Rest
Dismantle Obama’s reforms, as they might broaden access to quality healthcare for people who are far from rich. Tell the voters that unlike socialist Europe, it is not the business of the American government to be concerned with whether poor and sick people live or die. If they haven’t got a job that gets them health insurance, they have only themselves to blame.
No.4: Preach a Pro-Mammon but Anti-Gay Gospel
Ignore what Jesus said about how unlikely the rich would enter the kingdom of heaven, do nothing about the irresponsible predilections of deregulated banks, but focus on the spiritual importance of opposing gay marriage and banning abortion. Drape yourself with an American flag at all times lest you sound too much like an Islamic fundamentalist (see No.5 below).
No.5: Play the Middle East Card
As the Bin Laden card has been neutralised by Obama, pick another Middle Eastern villain. Syria is killing its own citizens, so don’t make that your priority. Go for Iran, because it is utterly unacceptable for any country to have nuclear weapons in the Middle East (except for Israel). Scaring people about the Middle East deflects attention from how we treat the poor at home, and helps our rich friends in the arms industry sell billions more dollars worth of deadly weapons over there.
[Note: All the Republican candidates have closely followed this five-point guide, with the exception of Ron Paul who doesn’t buy the anti-Iran stance of No.5, and of the remaining four candidates still in the race, he’s the only one who hasn’t won a single state in the Republican contest so far.]
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Much Ado About Cooperating
Amidst the angst and lament about social fragmentation, it is curious that the most tried and tested path of democratic cooperation should so often be overlooked for bringing people together to cultivate and pursue common goals.
Instead we get siren calls to submit to some arbitrary authority so as to end clashes and divisions. We’re told that all would be well if only people were made to abide by the exclusive demands of one privileged religion, comply with the views of some self-righteous moral minority, or accept the agenda set by the dominant economic elite.
If such prescriptions are destined to ferment resentment and stir up even greater resistance, the alternative favoured by seasoned relativists, claiming the differences that divide us are inherently irreconcilable, is no help either. For them, since there is no ‘universal truth’ to bridge the gap between opposing sides, we’ll just have to, so to speak, let fighting dogs vie.
But there is no need to accept imposed conformity or anarchic disintegration, provided we learn how to make room for democratic cooperation. By all historical and experimental accounts, cooperative working based on equal respect and shared deliberation has been highly effective in, not only enhancing the wellbeing of those who are willing to join forces, but resolving disagreement between those have not hitherto seen eye to eye.
The real reason why the cooperative ethos is held back from being more widely adopted is because too many people are unaware of its efficacy. This is compounded by prejudices, misinformation generated by those who seek to divide and exploit, and insufficient knowledge of how to engender productive cooperation.
To overcome such obstacles, we need a three-prong response. First, there must be a sustained and comprehensive rebuttal of the claim that we are all irrevocably divided by fundamental faiths and beliefs. The truth is that apart from a very few who have extreme psychopathic tendencies to totally disregard the needs of others, we share a common adherence to the golden rule of reciprocity, which runs through all historical religions and moral traditions. Cooperative mediation, grounded on the recognition that we ought to treat others as we wish others treat us, has helped people with contrasting backgrounds resolve their conflicts and work together.
Secondly, knowledge of the techniques and benefits of cooperative working should be disseminated much more than they are at present. In business management, conflict resolution, community-led regeneration, citizen-centred public policy development, case examples and practical guidance should be actively promoted so there is greater appreciation of why and how democratic cooperation should be adopted.
Thirdly, the damages inflicted by power inequalities, preventing cooperation on reciprocal terms, must be exposed and halted. The dangers of allowing some to amass much greater power in terms of wealth, status, or authority, over others should be systematically publicised to aid their removal. This applies to government institutions, and even more so to transnational corporate bodies that can coerce workers, suppliers, and timid politicians to go along with exploitative arrangements, which would never be tolerated if everyone affected has an equal say about them.
A campaign to clear away the obstacles to democratic cooperation should pave the way for further work to extend the cooperative mode of association to all spheres of life: to schools, community groups, public services, businesses and international relations. If we want to minimise destructive antagonism and build a sustainable solidarity, we need to ensure pupils and teachers, residents and activists, citizens and their representatives, workers and business leaders, nations and global organisations, learn to relate to each other under more equitable distribution of power and embrace democratic decision-making for their common good.
This is a demanding task. But there is no other alternative to being endlessly besieged by polarising demands and bitter confrontations, locally, nationally or worldwide. Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch. The WEA, the cooperative movement, the trade unions, mediation and reconciliation advocates, champions of citizen action such as the Community Development Foundation, Take Part and Involve, have all been advancing the case for greater cooperative working. With their support, there is the real prospect that one day democratic cooperation will become the norm everywhere.
Instead we get siren calls to submit to some arbitrary authority so as to end clashes and divisions. We’re told that all would be well if only people were made to abide by the exclusive demands of one privileged religion, comply with the views of some self-righteous moral minority, or accept the agenda set by the dominant economic elite.
If such prescriptions are destined to ferment resentment and stir up even greater resistance, the alternative favoured by seasoned relativists, claiming the differences that divide us are inherently irreconcilable, is no help either. For them, since there is no ‘universal truth’ to bridge the gap between opposing sides, we’ll just have to, so to speak, let fighting dogs vie.
But there is no need to accept imposed conformity or anarchic disintegration, provided we learn how to make room for democratic cooperation. By all historical and experimental accounts, cooperative working based on equal respect and shared deliberation has been highly effective in, not only enhancing the wellbeing of those who are willing to join forces, but resolving disagreement between those have not hitherto seen eye to eye.
The real reason why the cooperative ethos is held back from being more widely adopted is because too many people are unaware of its efficacy. This is compounded by prejudices, misinformation generated by those who seek to divide and exploit, and insufficient knowledge of how to engender productive cooperation.
To overcome such obstacles, we need a three-prong response. First, there must be a sustained and comprehensive rebuttal of the claim that we are all irrevocably divided by fundamental faiths and beliefs. The truth is that apart from a very few who have extreme psychopathic tendencies to totally disregard the needs of others, we share a common adherence to the golden rule of reciprocity, which runs through all historical religions and moral traditions. Cooperative mediation, grounded on the recognition that we ought to treat others as we wish others treat us, has helped people with contrasting backgrounds resolve their conflicts and work together.
Secondly, knowledge of the techniques and benefits of cooperative working should be disseminated much more than they are at present. In business management, conflict resolution, community-led regeneration, citizen-centred public policy development, case examples and practical guidance should be actively promoted so there is greater appreciation of why and how democratic cooperation should be adopted.
Thirdly, the damages inflicted by power inequalities, preventing cooperation on reciprocal terms, must be exposed and halted. The dangers of allowing some to amass much greater power in terms of wealth, status, or authority, over others should be systematically publicised to aid their removal. This applies to government institutions, and even more so to transnational corporate bodies that can coerce workers, suppliers, and timid politicians to go along with exploitative arrangements, which would never be tolerated if everyone affected has an equal say about them.
A campaign to clear away the obstacles to democratic cooperation should pave the way for further work to extend the cooperative mode of association to all spheres of life: to schools, community groups, public services, businesses and international relations. If we want to minimise destructive antagonism and build a sustainable solidarity, we need to ensure pupils and teachers, residents and activists, citizens and their representatives, workers and business leaders, nations and global organisations, learn to relate to each other under more equitable distribution of power and embrace democratic decision-making for their common good.
This is a demanding task. But there is no other alternative to being endlessly besieged by polarising demands and bitter confrontations, locally, nationally or worldwide. Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch. The WEA, the cooperative movement, the trade unions, mediation and reconciliation advocates, champions of citizen action such as the Community Development Foundation, Take Part and Involve, have all been advancing the case for greater cooperative working. With their support, there is the real prospect that one day democratic cooperation will become the norm everywhere.
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
The Department for Wealth
It has been announced that a single Department for Wealth will be set up to replace both the Department for Work and Pensions (which has increasingly shrunk what it is supposed to promote) and the Department of Health (which will soon be privatised and run by a conglomerate of tobacco, alcohol and fatty food businesses).
At a press conference today, a Government spokesperson explained that the new department would provide a much needed focus on helping real wealth creators to make a profit out of any situation. For example, businessmen who run casinos, sell sugary snacks as well as slimming diets, or charge more with the help of confusing tariffs, will be praised and given incentives to generate even more wealth. But people who are paid for their hard work by the state are to be dismissed as a drain on the national resource. So nurses who save lives, teachers who raise aspiration, social workers who protect the vulnerable, so long as their work fails to make a profit out of those in need and is financed by the public budget, will all be classified as ‘unaffordable’.
When asked if payment from the state would automatically rule one out as a ‘wealth creator’, it was pointed out that the Government would draw a sharp distinction between those who merely earn a publicly financed wage (firefighters, care givers, benefit administrators, ambulance drivers, etc) and are thus NOT wealth creators, and those who concoct a massive profit out of state funded contracts (makers of land mines and missiles, expensive pharmaceutical drugs, or suppliers of overcharged IT services to public bodies), who would be celebrated (and most probably knighted) as wealth creators.
The Government wanted to stress that although historically many wealth creation activities have been hampered by unhelpful regulation, especially in those cases where they were branded illegal, the new Department for Wealth would be dedicated to sweeping away both social prejudices and statutory red tape.
Its first task would be to remove all hindrance to currently legal wealth creating activities by inviting true wealth creators to name any tax, inspection or regulatory intrusion that they would want to see removed. Removal would then swiftly follow unless anyone objecting could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alternative would lead to harm substantially greater in monetary terms than the potentially higher profit to be made.
Secondly, it would review the many wealth creation activities that are at the moment stigmatized by the label of criminality. The dealing in narcotic drugs, the trafficking of weapons and people, the extortion of money from intimidation, etc all generate considerable wealth for their perpetrators and their employees. The Department for Wealth would take a fresh look at their role in a wealth-focused plan for national renewal, and ensure they are all presumed innocent unless evidence can be amassed to establish they should not be given the sacred economic freedom to pursue greater profit.
Republican strategists in America are apparently taking a keen interest in this development in the UK as some of them are considering putting forward, in the next Presidential elections, a proposal to replace the entire Federal Government by a single State Department for Wealth. It will underpin their campaign slogan: “We help those who help themselves … to other people’s money.”
At a press conference today, a Government spokesperson explained that the new department would provide a much needed focus on helping real wealth creators to make a profit out of any situation. For example, businessmen who run casinos, sell sugary snacks as well as slimming diets, or charge more with the help of confusing tariffs, will be praised and given incentives to generate even more wealth. But people who are paid for their hard work by the state are to be dismissed as a drain on the national resource. So nurses who save lives, teachers who raise aspiration, social workers who protect the vulnerable, so long as their work fails to make a profit out of those in need and is financed by the public budget, will all be classified as ‘unaffordable’.
When asked if payment from the state would automatically rule one out as a ‘wealth creator’, it was pointed out that the Government would draw a sharp distinction between those who merely earn a publicly financed wage (firefighters, care givers, benefit administrators, ambulance drivers, etc) and are thus NOT wealth creators, and those who concoct a massive profit out of state funded contracts (makers of land mines and missiles, expensive pharmaceutical drugs, or suppliers of overcharged IT services to public bodies), who would be celebrated (and most probably knighted) as wealth creators.
The Government wanted to stress that although historically many wealth creation activities have been hampered by unhelpful regulation, especially in those cases where they were branded illegal, the new Department for Wealth would be dedicated to sweeping away both social prejudices and statutory red tape.
Its first task would be to remove all hindrance to currently legal wealth creating activities by inviting true wealth creators to name any tax, inspection or regulatory intrusion that they would want to see removed. Removal would then swiftly follow unless anyone objecting could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alternative would lead to harm substantially greater in monetary terms than the potentially higher profit to be made.
Secondly, it would review the many wealth creation activities that are at the moment stigmatized by the label of criminality. The dealing in narcotic drugs, the trafficking of weapons and people, the extortion of money from intimidation, etc all generate considerable wealth for their perpetrators and their employees. The Department for Wealth would take a fresh look at their role in a wealth-focused plan for national renewal, and ensure they are all presumed innocent unless evidence can be amassed to establish they should not be given the sacred economic freedom to pursue greater profit.
Republican strategists in America are apparently taking a keen interest in this development in the UK as some of them are considering putting forward, in the next Presidential elections, a proposal to replace the entire Federal Government by a single State Department for Wealth. It will underpin their campaign slogan: “We help those who help themselves … to other people’s money.”
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Welcome to the Premier League of Education
Having heard the latest league table results on schools’ ‘performance’, one leading pundit (known to some as the ‘Schools Minister’ in the game) said the results revealed a “shocking waste of talent”. He was flabbergasted that so many disadvantaged children, in care or on free school meals, were failing to get good passes compared with the better-off kids. He thundered that mediocre schools must not be allowed to “coast”.
But what are the heads of schools at the lower end of the league supposed to do to turn things around? According to one report, ‘How to succeed in the Premier League of Education’, recommended by many seasoned right wingers, there are three options to break clear of the relegation zone and start rising to the top.
First, the most effective way of cutting out failures is, apparently, cut out the failures by not admitting them to your school in the first place. By hook or by crook, get some form of selection in, and keep children mired in debilitating socio-economic conditions out at all costs.
Secondly, in some areas, even a crypto-selection process might not get you very far, because the quality of life is just too depressing all round. It’s a fact that schools which can count on a ready supply of well-off mums and dads win more A* trophies than their competitors. Heads must therefore learn to take all the blame themselves if they don’t move away from areas where the children come from poor families; where many of their parents have lost their jobs as a result of stringent cuts made by the government; and where their home life is further wrecked by rapidly diminishing welfare support.
Thirdly, since ultimately the Premier League is all about the wealthy winning (would City – in Manchester or London – win anything without having managed to grab a larger share of money than anyone else?), for those schools which are stuck in deprived areas, give them a chance of enjoying an injection of concentrated wealth. For the lucky few who are able to attract private money (from a kindly philanthropist, a born again creationist, a Russian oligarch, or an Arab sheik), they can rebrand and rebuild themselves, while others would lose more public funding – thus giving the minority even more of an advantage in beating the rest.
In the unforgiving Premier League of Education, the few who know how to get their hands on other people’s money will flourish, while the rest will struggle to keep afloat, with the constant threat of being relegated to the bottom of the heap and stigmitised as failures. That is no more than a reflection of the plutocratic society promoted by this Government of Millionaires, for Millionaires, by Millionaires (23 out of the 29 Cabinet members are millionaires).
At the end of the day, it’s not even a game of two halves, but a game of a tiny elite kicking the living daylight out of everyone else. Despite the huge disadvantages they are lumbered with, and all the problems exacerbated by government cuts, countless Heads, teachers, pupils and parents give their best in securing real improvements beyond the comprehension of ignorant pundits. Of course they cannot by themselves overturn the social and economic injustice foisted on their communities, but for what they have managed to achieve against all odds, they deserve our praise and admiration.
But what are the heads of schools at the lower end of the league supposed to do to turn things around? According to one report, ‘How to succeed in the Premier League of Education’, recommended by many seasoned right wingers, there are three options to break clear of the relegation zone and start rising to the top.
First, the most effective way of cutting out failures is, apparently, cut out the failures by not admitting them to your school in the first place. By hook or by crook, get some form of selection in, and keep children mired in debilitating socio-economic conditions out at all costs.
Secondly, in some areas, even a crypto-selection process might not get you very far, because the quality of life is just too depressing all round. It’s a fact that schools which can count on a ready supply of well-off mums and dads win more A* trophies than their competitors. Heads must therefore learn to take all the blame themselves if they don’t move away from areas where the children come from poor families; where many of their parents have lost their jobs as a result of stringent cuts made by the government; and where their home life is further wrecked by rapidly diminishing welfare support.
Thirdly, since ultimately the Premier League is all about the wealthy winning (would City – in Manchester or London – win anything without having managed to grab a larger share of money than anyone else?), for those schools which are stuck in deprived areas, give them a chance of enjoying an injection of concentrated wealth. For the lucky few who are able to attract private money (from a kindly philanthropist, a born again creationist, a Russian oligarch, or an Arab sheik), they can rebrand and rebuild themselves, while others would lose more public funding – thus giving the minority even more of an advantage in beating the rest.
In the unforgiving Premier League of Education, the few who know how to get their hands on other people’s money will flourish, while the rest will struggle to keep afloat, with the constant threat of being relegated to the bottom of the heap and stigmitised as failures. That is no more than a reflection of the plutocratic society promoted by this Government of Millionaires, for Millionaires, by Millionaires (23 out of the 29 Cabinet members are millionaires).
At the end of the day, it’s not even a game of two halves, but a game of a tiny elite kicking the living daylight out of everyone else. Despite the huge disadvantages they are lumbered with, and all the problems exacerbated by government cuts, countless Heads, teachers, pupils and parents give their best in securing real improvements beyond the comprehension of ignorant pundits. Of course they cannot by themselves overturn the social and economic injustice foisted on their communities, but for what they have managed to achieve against all odds, they deserve our praise and admiration.
Saturday, 14 January 2012
Re-enter the Dragon
In the global age it’s not sufficient to learn just the history of one’s nation. We must deepen our knowledge of other countries, especially those with a major role to play on the world stage. So how well is China understood today?
China has an exceptionally long historical identity, and any snapshot analysis which takes in only the last 20 years, or even the last 200 years, could give rise to serious misunderstanding. This is a particular problem with those commentators who talk blithely about the ‘clash of civilizations’ and pit China against the West as an inherent antagonist.
From around 200 BC on when the Han Dynasty was established, China became one of the most prosperous and powerful countries in the world and remained so for the next two thousand years. Observers from across Europe, the Middle East, India and the rest of Asia marveled at its resilience, resourcefulness and longevity. Right down to the 18th century it was often cited as a model civilization: deeply moral without religious factionalism, culturally rich as well economically vibrant, and governed with a civil service to which the military was subordinate.
Yet the 19th century witnessed China’s eclipse as it came to be cowed by the guns and troops from Europe and Japan. Britain, embarking on one of the most extraordinary export drives, launched a war to secure the sale of narcotic drugs to a country which had sought to eradicate the spread of addictive opium. After losing the Opium Wars in the 1840s and 1850s, China’s decline was further exacerbated by protracted civil wars, heavy losses in the two World Wars, not to mention the disastrous social and economic experiments in the 1960s.
But the growing embrace of modernization and equality had by the 1980s shown signs that women as well as men could have new opportunities to attain a better quality of life. The rejuvenation of China at the beginning of the 21st century has brought two questions to the fore. First, should China’s economic power in relation to its trading partners be more directly constrained? Secondly, should China’s use of its political power within its own jurisdiction against those who dissent from the ruling regime be more openly challenged?
These questions can only be answered properly if one has thought through what kind of country China is and therefore what would be an optimum relationship to cultivate with such a global partner. China’s psyche is fixed on two perennial points: aspiration to peaceful prosperity, and aversion to violent divisions. It will pursue policies in support of worldwide economic stability, not because these are demanded by Western governments which have switched between free trade and protectionism as it suited them, but from its being treated as a key partner in securing a stable world order which is indispensable to China’s own peaceful prosperity.
It will accommodate dissent, not by being criticised by Western regimes which have to varying degrees supported regimes with atrocious human rights records all over the world for their own geo-political advantage, but from the constructive sharing of ideas between countries on how a diversity of views can, far from fueling violent divisions, strengthen civic solidarity.
It is not through the clash of civilizations but the cultivation of mutual understanding that our global future should be shaped.
[Note: Year of the Dragon begins on 23 Jan 2012]
China has an exceptionally long historical identity, and any snapshot analysis which takes in only the last 20 years, or even the last 200 years, could give rise to serious misunderstanding. This is a particular problem with those commentators who talk blithely about the ‘clash of civilizations’ and pit China against the West as an inherent antagonist.
From around 200 BC on when the Han Dynasty was established, China became one of the most prosperous and powerful countries in the world and remained so for the next two thousand years. Observers from across Europe, the Middle East, India and the rest of Asia marveled at its resilience, resourcefulness and longevity. Right down to the 18th century it was often cited as a model civilization: deeply moral without religious factionalism, culturally rich as well economically vibrant, and governed with a civil service to which the military was subordinate.
Yet the 19th century witnessed China’s eclipse as it came to be cowed by the guns and troops from Europe and Japan. Britain, embarking on one of the most extraordinary export drives, launched a war to secure the sale of narcotic drugs to a country which had sought to eradicate the spread of addictive opium. After losing the Opium Wars in the 1840s and 1850s, China’s decline was further exacerbated by protracted civil wars, heavy losses in the two World Wars, not to mention the disastrous social and economic experiments in the 1960s.
But the growing embrace of modernization and equality had by the 1980s shown signs that women as well as men could have new opportunities to attain a better quality of life. The rejuvenation of China at the beginning of the 21st century has brought two questions to the fore. First, should China’s economic power in relation to its trading partners be more directly constrained? Secondly, should China’s use of its political power within its own jurisdiction against those who dissent from the ruling regime be more openly challenged?
These questions can only be answered properly if one has thought through what kind of country China is and therefore what would be an optimum relationship to cultivate with such a global partner. China’s psyche is fixed on two perennial points: aspiration to peaceful prosperity, and aversion to violent divisions. It will pursue policies in support of worldwide economic stability, not because these are demanded by Western governments which have switched between free trade and protectionism as it suited them, but from its being treated as a key partner in securing a stable world order which is indispensable to China’s own peaceful prosperity.
It will accommodate dissent, not by being criticised by Western regimes which have to varying degrees supported regimes with atrocious human rights records all over the world for their own geo-political advantage, but from the constructive sharing of ideas between countries on how a diversity of views can, far from fueling violent divisions, strengthen civic solidarity.
It is not through the clash of civilizations but the cultivation of mutual understanding that our global future should be shaped.
[Note: Year of the Dragon begins on 23 Jan 2012]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)