Who gave councils permission to teach divisive critical race theory? | Express a comment | Comment

The report is accompanied by a YouGov poll on parents’ attitudes towards what is happening in schools under the guise of equality, diversity and inclusion (more commonly known as EDI for short) .

These terms are vague. Everyone agrees that these are admirable ideals. What remains up for debate, however, is what policies exactly local councils should adopt and who they should (often with public money) hire in their attempts to advance the noble agenda of equality, diversity and diversity. ‘inclusion.

The work of Don’t Divide Us focuses on issues related to race and integration, and it is in this space that terms such as “white privilege” and “unconscious bias” have found their way into EDI policies of UK councils and in UK schools. .

These are terms based on ideas from American colleges.

At best they are clumsy for the UK, at worst they risk undermining the colorblind approaches to race relations and integration that have made the UK a far better model of positive integration than not just the United States. States, but most other comparable Western European countries. nations too.

The Do Not Divide Us report is just the beginning. This raises very serious concerns about the exact definitions of words like ‘anti-racism’ and ‘diversity’ under which local councils operate. Are they the same as the definitions widely held by most Britons?

For the average man and woman at the local pub, being anti-racist means treating everyone the same, regardless of race. For the self-proclaimed modern high priests and priestesses of “anti-racism” who ruin our lives with their sermons and who now seem to make up the bulk of EDI professionals, being “anti-racist” doesn’t mean that at all.

For them, this amounts to “centering” the “lived experience” of “people of color”. It doesn’t treat skin color in any form as if it doesn’t matter at all.

It’s quite the opposite. So when exactly was the incorporation of these new definitions approved and by whom? Was the British public even consulted?

We also have the serious problem of the exclusion of parents from these discussions.

What happens when parents disagree with the approaches to complex problems or with the teachings of a new ideology to their children at school? According to the disciples of this new order, this is normal because the older generations are doomed to make mistakes and to resist.

In their view, it is the duty of duly motivated activist educators to manage and circumvent the objections and genuine concerns of disconnected parents who simply cannot or will not participate in this new, woefully woke program.

But doesn’t all this amount to a fundamental reconstruction of the role of the school vis-à-vis the children?

Although this is not always the case, there should be mutual respect between teachers and parents, and an unspoken agreement that parents are informed of what is passed on to their children, when educators stray from the way of the basic subjects.

The Do Not Divide Us report should, above all, start conversations about the way forward when it comes to the heated debates about racism and what we are doing about it.

What exactly are the shared universal principles related to the fight against racism and discrimination that unite us rather than divide us? What is and is not in a teacher’s job description?

What are the rights of parents?

Perhaps the most troubling issue in the report (which is also reflected in reports linked to comparable content both with respect to race, sex and gender), is that parents, campaign groups and, in some cases, even government departments, are sometimes even struggling to ensure full and transparent access to materials used in UK schools to educate UK children.

Whatever our opinion on any of these complexities, the principle that parents should never be denied access to materials used to educate THEIR children should be a common position that unites us all.

  • Christina Jordan is a former MEP and a former NHS nurse. She is associated with the campaign group Don’t Divide Us.

Sharon D. Cole