The BBC reports:
Teachers in England should not be banned from membership of the British National Party or any group which may promote racism, a review has concluded.
The government commissioned the report last September after a leaked list identified 15 BNP members as teachers.
Review author Maurice Smith added his recommendation should be reviewed every year, which ministers have accepted.
Mr Smith, a former chief inspector of schools, said a ban on BNP members in schools would be “taking a very large sledgehammer to crack a minuscule nut”.
“I do not believe that barring teachers or other members of the wider school workforce from membership of legitimate organisations which may promote racism is necessary at present,” he said.
I cannot disagree with that.
However, predictably enough the usual assortment of fashionable muddle-headed leftists and faux-liberals are up in arms about the decision. Such as Pickled Politics, Islamophobia Watch, and a collection of Trots, for example.
My own view is that a teacher’s personal politics should in no way be used to determine and evaluate their skills and professionalism, which are, first and foremost, to instil their pupils with a love of learning of their subject.
Perhaps those objecting to Maurice Smith’s decision would be OK with such legislative restrictions to apply to the far-right only, while attempting to exempt teachers belonging to the Hizb ut Tahrir or the IFE.
31 Comments
Well said. Just linked to this one.
No, I think I and many other teachers and education managers involved in such issues would be greatly pleased to see a ban on membership of all such anti-democratic and fascist organisations extended to all people working in education.
I do hope this is not going to be the excuse for a fashionably reactionary have-a-go at teachers thread.
I think there’s a difference between banning organisations and banning individuals who belong to these organisations as part of their personal political identity, from working in their professions. If you want to give the members of the BNP, Hizb etc complete confirmation of their already-held beliefs of marginalisation and 2nd-class citizenship, this would be an effective way of doing it
My principle concern is the proper education of children and young learners, not the confirmation or otherwise of already-held assumptions by vicious, reactionary political groups and their members.
If a shadow of a doubt exists that the allegiance of any member of staff is not finally to the task of enabling and empowering learners then I would be concerned about retention of such staff.
Repeatedly, members of such groups have shown themselves willing to sacrifice the education of those in their charge in favour of narrow political indoctrination.
Given the hostility of most of such organisations to the character and means of present education, it is suspicious that any of their members would wish to enter the teaching profession in the first place. It is entirely natural that many teachers should be suspicious of their motives and concerned about the presence of such people in positions of responsibility in our schools.
Membership of political organisations comes at a price. For most sane political organisations of the mainstream, this will be the time that political activity for the party, however desultory or menial, costs. For those who choose to be members of extremist, hate organisations such as BNP and HuT, I see no unreasonableness in demanding that part of the cost they bear be their disbarment from certain sensitive occupations.
I can find nothing especially disconcerting or faux-liberal in the PP article, to be honest.
I have not looked at the Islamophobia Watch report, as anything that has even passingly to do with Bob Pitt and his motley crew makes me want to vomit.
Incidentally, and OT, I received an uninvited iEngage email today calling on Muslims to organise as a bloc for the coming elections. Anyone else get the same?
Depends on whether your definition of “liberal” democracy and individual and civil rights encompasses banning members of organisation such as the BNP, Hizb, IFE etc and prohibiting their members from employment and other lawful pursuits, no matter how abhorrent their views might be. If it does, the PP article should resonate with you.
No, Faisal, my concern is limited to the teaching profession, as I thought I had made perfectly clear.
My agreement with the PP article included assent with the view that the argument presented by Smith’s report (that monitoring of political extremist conduct by teachers was adequately provisioned or covered by OFSTED inspection teams who visit most schools less than once every two to three years and the intervention of the GTCE) was to say the least risible.
In other words, my agreement was both non-partisan, unmotivated by point-scoring; and as I have been quite careful to flag, restricted to concerns surrounding the teaching profession and most importantly the education of young people. I hope this is clearer now.
Further, the teaching profession – as with a number of other employment opportunities in sensitive areas – must perforce have restrictions on the sorts of people it can and will employ. This is both sensible and necessary.
Such restrictions are not restrictions on civil liberties or liberal democracy. Quite self-evidently.
What are the chances that “earwicga” of PP extends the call for banning teachers from employment who belong to unsavoury far-right organisations only but is less enthusiastic when it comes to extending the ban to teachers who belong to unsavoury Islamist organisations too? Pretty high, I’ll bet. That inconvenient equivalence has been ignored by the PP blogger and I suspect it will stay that way.
That is, of course, why I suggested that at least some in the profession would welcome a banning of teachers from employment if they held membership in any fascist or clerical fascist organisation. Again, I thought I had made that clear enough.
I thought the issue was the agreement or non-agreement with the banning of teachers on the grounds of their deeply offensive political persuasion, not the use of the story to score points against another contributor on another website.
Clearly, I was mistaken.
You can call it point-scoring if you like, but the question whether the sentiments of those who object to the Maurice paper is consistent is a valid one, I think.
I would agree with that, Faisal.
However, unless you can show that the people who so object are inconsistent on the issue covered by the report, then it all rather looks like point-scoring.
The fact is this report covers the desirability of banning people who are members of the BNP from teaching. It does mention Islamist organisations. The story in PP covered the report. As far as I am aware it concentrated its criticisms on the same.
If you can show that the author of the article on PP has previously supported Islamist educators and their right to teach, then you might have some grounds for your position. If you cannot, it rather looks like you are creating for the sake of creating a conflict on the basis of speculation and – at best – views with which you disagree held by others about other issues.
My concern is standards in the education service and the good name of that service. I do not believe these are best served by employment of fascists (of whatever stripe); nor do I believe that the report’s recommendations concerning the monitoring of extremist political conduct in places of education on the part of staff are adequate or sensible.
Now the fact that these objections have also been raised by a blogger on Pickled Politics is of complete indifference to me. What is important, as far as I am concerned, is that I agree with these concerns, not their source in a site with which you clearly have, whether rightly or not, issues.
Abu Faris,
Faisal raises the same inconsistencies of motivation for protesting the banning of BNP teachers by Bob Pitt, some Trots and Pickled Politics. You admit there are inconsistencies in the first two which make you, in your words, “vomit” but discussing the third shows up Faisal’s “issues”?
WTF? To me, that’s just partisan, and shows that it’s you who has the issues.
No – with respect Dawood – I think you need to re-read my comments. Especially my very first.
My concerns are with the report, not with the reporters of the report (so to write) – and my concern with the report is that it is inadequate to the task of upholding the highest standards in the education service.
Bob Pitt’s inspired love for clerical fascism renders him an entirely unreliable witness. I did not mention anything about various Trots at all.
My point, latterly, is that you have to show such inconsistencies as you have indicated. As well as to point out that the report covers the BNP not Islamists. When HMG canvasses a report dealing with the latter, I shall certainly be watching for the reaction of these very sites.
In any case, I have reports of my own to write.
Just to note that I think Jai has it absolutely right, here:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7847#comment-195908
Bob Pitt’s inspired love for clerical fascism renders him an entirely unreliable witness.
You might have missed the fact that during the Gita Sahgal-Amnesty brouhaha, Sunny Hundal of Pickled Politics and earwicga of earwicga gave their unconditional backing to Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners. So much so, that Sunny has recruited earwicga with a blogging account on PP.
Now unless you live in a cave, you will know that Cageprisoners is a self-confessed and unapologetic champion of Abu Qatada, Abu Hamza and Anwar al-Awlaki who are…wait for it…clerical fascists.
Now you have to add PP and earwicga to the mix.
So I think Faisal is pointing at PP’s inconsistencies for the same reasons he is pointing to Bob Pitt. And he’s write to do this since they can both be regarded as “unreliable witnesses”.
I love you d-man.
But the main point is banning teachers who belong to the BNP, or any dodgy extremist group and no matter how awful their views and until the group in question has been officially proscribed, is unquestionably illiberal. And not all PP feels that way, as Rumbold and Jai informed us in another thread.
And I will point, Dawood, to the inconsistency in arguing from one issue to another. Can you show where anyone has argued that HuT members or other Islamists should NOT be banned?
The article on PP concerned the government’s reported position re BNP membership and teachers. My concerns and its concerns are about this. Nothing else.
No, I don’t live in a cave – rather a nice apartment with a near view of the Nile, actually. And oddly, living in Sudan, the iniquities of Islamism have not passed me by. Odd you think they should because I disagree with an increasingly clannish cohort on The Spittoon about this issue.
“And I will point, Dawood, to the inconsistency in arguing from one issue to another. Can you show where anyone has argued that HuT members or other Islamists should NOT be banned?”
I think you will find that that is exactly the point of the original post. That on examination the 3 blogs that Faisal links to, chances are that you will find that they will probably all argue that Hizbi teachers should NOT be banned while protesting loudly when BNP teachers are not.
And what’s with the “increasingly clannish” comment? What is the reason for your “increasingly clannish” for support earwigca’s and PP’s apologia of Cageprisoners?
Probably? Not certainly. Therein lies the rub.
That’s a smear. I support a position on the issue of a report on the compatability of membership of the BNP with being a teacher in England and Wales, that is all.
I support Cageprisoners? I do not. Show where this is the case.
I happen to agree with a number of people that the Smith report is mistaken in its conclusions.
How you move from that to support for Cageprisoners is mystifying.
That is exactly the inconsistency of (falsely) arguing from one issue to another I was alluding to, above.
You, in honesty believe that if I agree with someone about one item, I therefore automatically agree with that person about everything else as well?
I make my own mind up about things. I follow no pack, not PP’s, not even yours. Sorry.
Good for you.
Anyway, going back to the point, Faisal is right to point commentary to this from PP, IW and the trots blog, for the *inconsistency* that n0ne of them would object to Maurice Smith’s decision if this were an Islamist group rather than a far-right white supremacist group.
Given the hounding by Harrys Place and Spitoon of individuals BECAUSE of their political views, in many cases getting them sacked from their jobs this is jaw-droppingly hypocritical
“Gus O’Donnell, the head of the Civil Service and a prominent defender of Azad Ali, should immediately sack Azad Ali from his job at the Treasury and from his position as head of the Civil Service Islamic Society.”
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3621
Faisal
“But the main point is banning teachers who belong to the BNP, or any dodgy extremist group and no matter how awful their views and until the group in question has been officially proscribed, is unquestionably illiberal. ”
You have just called your own contributer Al-Qanaas Al-Masri who called for Azad Ali’s sacking “unquestionably illiberal ” Fair enough couldnt agree more given he/ she works for the extremist Spitoon.
mansur
If a civil servant working in HMG suggests jihad by legitimising the death of British troops, or is an Islamist radical who regards democracy as a means to an end (Khilafah), it is perfectly legitimate for writers on the Spittoon call for his sacking. By analogy, if there were a BNP civil servant calling for forced repatriation of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and African immigrants on some BNP blog, the same would apply. And we would certainly write about here on The Spittoon and no doubt you would agree with that.
This is not consistent with supporting state legislation which would prohibit people from entering the teaching position, or the police force or the civil service etc, because of their personal politics or alignment with non-proscribed groups.
So, yes al-Qanaas was right to call for the sacking of Azad Ali. But to call for Azad Ali to be prohibited from entry into the police or civil service because he belonged to the IFE or the Hizb or even the BNP, organisations whose activities are not (yet) prohibited and are legal, would be unquestionably illiberal.
Incidentally, top post from Jai:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7870
But none of them have made this point, Dawood!
In any case, this was not what I directly objected to!
Is there something you do not understand here?
None of them have and no one is suggesting they have, but given the positions they have held on Islamism previously, they are all very likely to. Good enough reason to point out the very high likelihood of inconsistency in their position, and that was Faisal’s reason for flagging the three up. And rightly so.
As you keep on saying, Dawood – consistently missing my point.
As a constructive alternative to Smith’s “opportunity missed” (NASUWT statement). Here is what the NASUWT, a major teachers’ union gave (in part) as their written submission to the Smith enquiry on this issue. Note the NASUWT supports a ban on BNP members being allowed to be employed as school teachers:
http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWTNews/Nationalnewsitems/EnglandNASUWTGivesEvidenceOnBarringRacistsFromTeaching/NASUWT_005853
My point, all along, Dawood (as you appear to have missed this) was my opposition to the Smith report on exactly these grounds. No other issue – least of all suppositions about the sympathies or other intentions of other people and groups who have similarly rejected the report’s findings – are here relevant.
I have highlighted the section most relevant.
“A fascist organisation”, in the NASUWT statement’s words, I would conclude should have within its scope membership of Islamist clerical fascist organisations, such as HuT.
Doesn’t this boil down to a duty, incumbent upon us all, to demand and ensure that a professional standard is required from all of our teachers?
A good teacher is someone whose party political affiliations, sexual orientation, are a complete mystery to the children in his or her care.
I am glad to see that at least this website is escaping the relentless attack strategy that is being unleashed on Harry’s Place.