Liberal Orthodoxy, English Literature and Michael Gove

To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men have been dropped by a GCSE exam board after education secretary Michael Gove called for more British works to be studied. He hasn’t banned them, but there’s been an almighty fuss.

I loved these stories when I read them, but I can see very good reasons for dropping them – not least because they are symptomatic of this country’s post-war cultural obsession with all things American and of an extraordinary lack of pride in Britain’s own literature.

They are also a symptom of what Gove rightly calls lack of “rigour” in teaching. They are popular with schools because they are short (one reason why they prefer to teach Jane Austen rather than Elizabeth Gaskell, Charles Dickens or George Elliot), a relatively easy read and raise political issues which teachers like to discuss. Narrowing the choice of texts must also greatly reduce teachers’ workload. For example, if 90% of children study Of Mice and Men at GCSE, class preparation must become very much easier – particularly given the widespread availability in book shops of ‘teaching notes’.

Those who defend these texts say they assist teachers to discuss issues such as bullying and racism. I wonder. Bullying is endemic in British schools and I doubt that teaching Of Mice and Men or, that other old favourite, The Lord of the Flies, has made much difference. The truth is that such issues need to be properly addressed elsewhere – such as in PHSE or civics classes – not just in English lessons.

They also suggest that these books can be taught in mixed ability classes. Again, I question this. These texts raise complex issues and, even with very able students, need to be very well taught.

To Kill a Mockingbird has no doubt had a positive influence on racism in British schools – but it’s an odd and dated text on which to base an equality strategy, not least because it’s deeply sexist and patronising. It deals in stereotypes, counterposing a heroic principled white male lawyer defending an honourable black man against a white woman who makes a false allegation of rape.

I’ve often wondered how much jury behaviour in rape trials is affected by the early message almost all our younger citizens have received in English lessons – that women lie about rape and assault and that intelligent heroic liberals would be wise to believe the accused. Its a theme that appears again and again in popular television crime drama – but I think was first widely popularised in To Kill a Mockingbird. It’s a myth that serves abusers well.

The book is a liberal fantasy, a piece of highly romanticised propaganda, brilliantly written and useful in the context of lynchings and the early civil rights movement, but dangerous to girls and young women – and small boys. It should not routinely be taught in schools, not least because there are far better texts about inequality, many of them written by black women.

The choice of texts for the English Literature syllabus, as with the History syllabus, reflects current social attitudes and political relationships. In the light of that it’s interesting to note that British schools not only choose to teach one book that involves a woman’s false allegation of rape, but also a second, Of Mice and Men, written from the perspective of two adult male friends, one of whom is escaping an unfounded allegation of rape and later kills a young woman who has first invited then resisted his attentions – a man whom the author says breaks her neck ‘by accident’ and with whom we are expected to sympathise.

When schools are not teaching Steinbeck’s well written, but bleak little text, they give children William Golding’s Lord of the Flies which describes the murder by school mates of a bullied overweight boy. Such texts may excite a certain type of teacher, but do little to inspire children.

My grandmother was a teacher. I looked at one of her school reports the other day, dated 1909. It commended her work and suggested some holiday reading – an adventure by Walter Scott.

I wish I’d been able to open one of my daughter’s reports in the nineties and noughties and see something similar.

I’m with Gove on this one. I think he’s on to something.

Mass Sexist Murder in Santa Barbara

 On 23rd May 2014 there was a premeditated mass shooting in Santa Barbara, California, in which two women and one man died and 13 others were injured, seven very seriously. Just prior to the shootings, the British-born murderer Elliot Rodger stabbed to death three men, two of whom were his flatmates.

The shootings weren’t random, but were targeted at women. In itself this is not unusual. College and school shootings in the US are almost always carried out by young men – and many target women or girls, though the media often mask this by referring to the dead as “victims”, “students” or “people”.

In this case, Rodger had produced a ‘manifesto’ in which he referred to women as “bitches” and said that destroying them would “purify” humanity. He fantasised about becoming a dictator who could starve women to death in concentration camps. He bought his first gun in 2012 writing “who’s the alpha male now, bitches?” He planned to kill his male housemates and use their flat as his “personal torture and killing chamber”.

Just hours before the shootings he posted a video online setting out plans to “punish” all women, stating “I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me. But I will punish you all for it.” He said “I’m going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoilt, stuck-up, blonde slut that I see inside there.” He added “I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one. The true alpha male. Yes… After I have annihilated every single girl in the sorority house I will take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there….”

Finally, Rodger acted upon his threats. He drove as he had planned to do, to the Alpha Phi sorority house, a women’s residence. He attempted to shoot one young woman in the face, but missed. He killed two women outside the residence then drove away. He began to spray the street with bullets, according to a witness appearing to target women. He killed a male shopper at a delicatessen. He accelerated away, hitting parked cars and pedestrians and shooting at bystanders. At one point he ran over a cyclist. Shot by police, he finally crashed and was found dead with a head wound.

Around the same time as the Santa Barbara killings, a gunman, apparently acting alone, shot and killed three people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, seriously injuring a fourth. Journalists immediately began to speculate that this might be an anti-semitic attack. In the early days of investigation there was no evidence to this effect, other than the choice of building, but they quite reasonably started with the assumption that the killer’s motivation might be racist.

This was in stark contrast to the way in which the Santa Barbara killings were handled. There the focus was not Rodger’s clearly articulated misogyny and sexism nor his sense of entitlement to sex with non-consenting women, but the fact that he was a “virgin” and disturbed. There was even a hint that girls who had rejected or not noticed him might in some sense be to blame. Journalists addressed the need for gun control and improved responses to mental illness. However, none seemed willing to put Rodger’s declared hatred of women – or indeed male violence – under the spotlight.

Some journalists went so far as to deny Rodgers had targeted women, pointing out that he also killed men.This is true, but that’s no reason to think his “Retribution”, as he called it, any less an act of sexist and misogynist terrorism. The gunman in Brussels shot and killed two Israeli tourists at the Jewish museum. However, should his other two victims turn out to be gentile rather than jewish, it certainly won’t stop journalists referring to this as an anti-semitic outrage. It would be absurd to do so – and dangerous.

Therefore it’s deeply worrying that similarly experienced journalists working for the same publications, who seem readily able to recognise possible anti-semitic violence, are apparently completely unable to identify or explore the lethal sexism of dangerous men like Elliot Rodgers.

Hating Michael Gove

Sarah Vine, a columnist for the Daily Mail, recently complained of hate mail received by her husband Michael Gove, commenting “There are a lot of people who really hate Michael, who send emails saying, ‘I hope you die’ ”. She added “I used to believe that socialists were nice but misguided. Now I know that they are not nice at all. They are very vicious and aggressive people who do horrible things.”

This was an extraordinary comment from a senior journalist married to a front bench politician. She must know that socialists, like Christians and others who profess a commitment to ethical standards, often fall short of them. This doesn’t mean that all will do so, nor that an entire group of people can be condemned. To assert this is as foolish as suggesting that all Daily Mail readers are racist fools, because some may be.

Our political class from left to right is tribal and bigoted in its response to people who disagree with them. Combine this with a contemporary culture of bullying – which no party seems prepared to challenge – and you have a dangerous mix. It’s hardly surprising that so many ordinary voters are repelled by mainstream politics.

We can all learn from each other. One of the obvious ways of doing so would be for targets of hate-speak and death threats from differing political traditions, to share their experiences and join forces against abuse.

A War on Women – Candlelight vigil for Abducted Nigerian girls

On 16th April, armed men from a Islamist group Boko Haram abducted almost 300 school girls from the north eastern Nigerian town of Chibok, disappearing into the dense forest bordering Cameroon. Boko Haram aims to create a sharia-compliant state in Nigeria and particularly opposes the education of girls, saying they should “marry” instead.

At first, to the outrage of women’s groups, this atrocity attracted little interest from political commentators or politicians. However, largely due to a growing campaign in social media – and the persistence of the girls’ families – who have protested and marched in the face of inaction by their own government – journalists and politicians have now begun to act.

Boko Haram’s leader, Abubakar Shekau, has accepted responsibility for the abduction and in a bizarre and chilling on-line video said he plans to kidnap more girls. Indeed, in the past couple of days, more girls, some as young as nine, have been abducted. Shekau has said he will sell girls this young into “marriage” and slavery. Shekau said: “They are slaves and I will sell them because I have the market to sell them.”…..”I will sell them in the market, by Allah.”

Shekau also said that believers must be separated from unbelievers and called on “brethren” to behead those who don’t believe. This suggest an even greater threat to the majority of the girls who are from a Christian background.

The agony of the families is unimaginable. Some of the girls are already said to have died from “snakebites”. Those who are killed will almost certainly have first been sexually assaulted. Those who are not killed will, as one international expert on slavery said grimly “be raped and worked to death”. The situation could not be more urgent, both for the abducted girls and hundreds of other schoolgirls who are at risk of kidnap and seem not to have the protection of their government.

The Foreign Secretary William Hague, who to his credit campaigns against rape in conflict, is reported to have offered help soon after the attack. He described Boko Haram as a “vile” organisation, commenting that “using girls as the spoils of war and the spoils of terrorism is disgusting and immoral”.

The USA has also now offered help, but the President of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan has seemed less than keen to take it – and entirely unwilling to stand up to Boko Haram. His apparent indifference to the plight of the girls reflects widespread tolerance in Nigeria of exploitation of and violence towards, women and girls. The remarkable thing about this attack is that it has sparked female-led mass protests involving women and men and, in an increasingly faith-divided country, solidarity across religions.

This week there will be vigils in cities and towns across the UK to draw attention to the missing girls.

The Brighton vigil will be from 7.30pm on Friday 9th May at the War Memorial, Old Steine, Brighton. The organisers have called on those who wish to participate to bring candles and tea lights in glass jars. The Twitter campaign uses the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls.

March for England 2014

March For England say they come to Brighton & Hove to celebrate St George’s Day, but of course they don’t. They come here to provoke and insult anti-fascists and fight with anarchists. And annoy the guardianistas and libertarians they think run the place.

I’ve been on the anti-fascist side every year for the last six and I’ve had enough. It was bad enough to spend four hours getting wet – and having a police horse ridden at me (again) – but it struck me clearly for the first time that we in this city are being taken for mugs by a bunch of testosterone-fueled outsiders – fascists, police, anarchists and probable agents provocateurs alike.

The vast majority of protesters opposing the march were local people who were peaceful, albeit noisy and often insulting. However, almost everyone arrested that day, whether a marcher or counter-marcher, was from outside of Brighton & Hove. In addition, Sussex Police were completely outnumbered by officers from out of area – some of whom were themselves provocative and aggressive, others of whom sat around in police vans reading The Sun.

As a tax payer I resent the fact that we will foot the bill for enlisting the ‘help’ of outside police forces to control the behaviour of opposing groups who don’t live here. As someone who is concerned about high levels of domestic and sexual violence in the city, it infuriates me that money can be found to police this nonsensical march, but not for things which would improve the safety of women and children at risk.

I note that a recent damning HM Inspector of Constabulary report stated that Sussex Police’s response to domestic violence needs “considerable improvement” and that its arrest rate lags behind those of most other forces. I also recall that just a couple of months ago I made a Freedom of Information request to Sussex Police in regard to investigation of female genital mutilation. The information was refused on the grounds that it would take 18 staff hours to collate. I find it extraordinary that we can meet the overtime costs of hundreds of officers to police a march, but can’t afford 18 hours of staff time to investigate why vulnerable children and adults haven’t been protected from torture and mutilation.

Some suggest a ban would infringe MFE’s right to free speech, but that isn’t so. They’re free as individuals to speak and write and even visit the place. However, to allow them to march and bring mayhem in their wake is to give them control of our streets and that’s just not acceptable.

So I call on councillors and police alike to cease libertarian procrastination, stop hiding behind spurious legal arguments, desist from wasting money on needless police overtime – and ban the march.