I was reminded this week that there are certain words that tell us more about the speaker, than about the actual content of what is being said.
Stewart Dimmock, a school governor, truck driver, and father from Kent, is seeking a juidicial review of the UK government’s decision to send a copy of Al Gore’s documentary on the impact of climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, to secondary schools.
Mr Dimmock said: “I wish my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin, and Mr Gore’s film falls far short of the standard required. … Climate change is important, but it should be taught to children in a neutral and measured manner. Indoctrinating school children in this manner is unprecidented and unacceptable.”
I want to pick up on ‘indoctrinating’, but before I do, let me question a few of his other assumptions. Any secondary school teacher would be able to tell Mr Dimmock (I do hope he isn’t a governor of a secondary school, but suspect that he may well be) that teenagers are not empty vessels sitting passively waiting to be filled with whatever teachers happen to pour out. Some of the best teaching at this level arises from debate and controversy and from helping students to evaluate material in front of them. Even if the Gore film is misguided and extreme (not a position that I would personally take), it may be an excellent teaching resource to stimulate research and debate by the pupils.
And, of course, no teaching can ever be neutral. Any act of selection, whether it be of topic or teaching method inevitably leads to the exclusion of others and therefore to the introduction of bias.
However, my main point is linguistic rather than pedagogical. Certain words tell us more about the speaker, than about the actual content of what is being said. It is not possible, philosophically, to distinguish ‘indoctrination’ from ‘teaching’. So called ‘indoctinators’ and ‘teachers’ can often share the same teaching methods, the same curriculum content, and even have the same intentions. ‘Indoctrination’ does not refer to a clearly defined concept, but rather expresses disapproval on behalf of the speaker. In labelling the potential use of the government supported resource pack (which includes the Gore film) as ‘indoctrination’, all Mr Dimmock is saying is that he disapproves of this teaching.
A similar argument can be made for the word ‘cult’. It is impossible, philosophically, to distinguish a ‘cult’ from a ‘religion’. Both will involve beliefs and practices. If calling something a ‘cult’, all the speaker is saying is that she or he disapproves of this particular set of beliefs and practices.
Mr Dimmock is, of course, entitled to express his views. But please, let’s not be misled by meaningless loaded language. And I would prefer to trust the government educationalists who will have looked over this material with a fine tooth comb in order to avoid any political howlers, and to trust the professional judgements of teachers who know their own students.
I’ve found references to a Mr Stewart Dimmock NOT being elected to Dover town council twice in 2006, once he wasn’t elected when he stood as an independent, then he wasn’t elected when he stood for ‘The New Party’. A Mr Stewart Dimmock also signed the nomination papers for a Conservative candidate.
Everybody is charmingly coy about the school for which Mr Dimmock is a governor.
Anyone got any further information on this slightly elusive local councillor who can’t be found on any Kent councils, drives a lorry part time, and has a couple of hundred grand to take legal action against the Government.
It’s good to know that ‘he’s as concerned about the environment as the next man’, though unfortunately this could well be true.
People who are concerned about the environment are of course aware that the best way to take effective action is to sue the Government of the day for ‘indoctrination’.
Jim
Whether or not the complainant has a high or low public profile surely doesn’t deprive him of the right to resort to the courts if he thinks he has reason to do so. After all, had the film been promoting a creationist or intelligent design view of the world I am sure there would have been a positive rush to get it banned.
As I understand it, the judge has pointed out 9 scientific “errors” in the film. If the film were merely being shown on TV or in public cinemas around the country that is bad enough but if it is to be shown in schools as part of the science curriculum then this is surely a matter of concern. I saw the film on TV and was impressed by it. Children are far more likely to remember the claimed facts presented by the film than the discussion in class afterwards.
It seems to me that the film ought to be corrected before being sent around the schools.
It may be that the complainant had an ulterior motive in taking the case to court but as far as I can see no such ulterior motive has triumphed so what does it matter? If the film contains errors then it is a good thing that they be pointed out before the film is given uncritical acclaim in schools and this has been done. In that sense, the complainant has done us a favour.