- 08 Apr 2021 22:09
#15165372
This is also the same Gavin Williamson who is threatening all British universities that unless they adopt the new "IHRA's antisemitism definition" they will face state sanctions.
The Guardian wrote:Gavin Williamson as spineless as Pinocchio, says teachers’ leader
Robin Bevan, of National Education Union, mocks education secretary at annual conference
The president of the UK’s biggest teaching union has compared the education secretary to Pinocchio, saying Gavin Williamson was “limp and spineless” as he attacked him for his actions during the pandemic.
Robin Bevan, the incoming president of the National Education Union and head teacher of Southend high school in Essex, said that, like the famous puppet, Williamson was also failing to tell the truth, particularly about the need for examinations.
Bevan, in a speech to the union’s virtual annual conference, claimed that many people thought Williamson most resembled Frank Spencer, the hapless figure played by Michael Crawford in the 1970s TV comedy series Some Mothers Do ‘Ave ‘Em.
“Personally, I think that’s a comparison that is unfair,” Bevan said. “Not on Gavin Williamson, it’s unfair on Michael Crawford.”
He said Pinocchio was a more accurate fictional comparison. “Throughout recent months we’ve seen that the secretary of state is indeed wooden-headed, is indeed a puppet, is limp and spineless,” Bevan said.
He poured scorn on Williamson’s record in office, telling delegates: “This is a man who issued high court injunctions in order to stop pupils from staying at home at a time when schools all across the country were being ravaged by Covid-19.
“This is a secretary of state who refused to publish the attendance figures of pupils in school that week, until many weeks after they would normally be due.
“And this is a man who, two days after … the prime minister had ruled that it was time for a national lockdown, stood up in the Houses of Parliament and said that if parents weren’t happy about the education being provided remotely – bear in mind, with only 48 hours’ notice – that they should report the school to Ofsted.”
When thousands of parents then told Ofsted how much they supported their local schools, Williamson “said nothing”, according to Bevan.
A spokesperson for the Department for Education said: “Throughout the pandemic, the education secretary has put the safety of staff and pupils at the core of all decision-making and has ensured schools and colleges have been fully open wherever possible, based on the best available scientific and medical advice.
“The course of the pandemic has led to swift decisions being taken to respond to changes in our understanding of the virus and action has had to be taken in the national interest. The full return of all pupils in March has been thanks to the hard work of staff and young people who have consistently followed the range of protective measures put in place to reduce the risk of transmission.”
The conference was later told that sexism “stalks the corridors and classrooms”, with Amy Kilpatrick, a teacher from Newcastle, telling delegates that a “toxic, laddish culture” was pervasive within the UK’s schools, during a debate on how to respond to the revelations of sexual abuse and harassment recently published on the Everyone’s Invited website.
The motion passed overwhelmingly by delegates called for schools to have “robust sexual harassment and abuse policies” for the safety of staff and students.
Kilpatrick backed a successful amendment urging male teachers and boys “to learn about sexism and its roots and develop understanding and methods to challenge their peers”, in order to support women and girls.
“In order to achieve the drastic changes we want to see, then we must educate our boys, our male teachers and support staff,” Kilpatrick said.
“We need to ensure that no boy growing up now can say ‘but it was just banter’ – and that starts with education and with having men as allies.”
Richard Rieser, who works in east London, called on men to “own up and take responsibility” for sexism. “We have to make sure that the response in our schools is not just the women and the girls. It has to be the men challenging sexism and standing shoulder to shoulder with our sisters,” he said.
Mary Bousted, the NEU’s joint general secretary, said: “We’ve got to find better ways to listen to girls voices and to talk actively in schools about sexism, because boys don’t ‘grow out’ of the sexist stereotypes pushed on to them.”
Delegates also supported a moratorium on exclusions in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, with speakers expressing concern over the disproportionate number of exclusions involving black children.
This is also the same Gavin Williamson who is threatening all British universities that unless they adopt the new "IHRA's antisemitism definition" they will face state sanctions.
The Guardian-Williamson wrong to force universities to abide by antisemitism definition, say lawyers wrote:
A group of eminent lawyers, including two former appeal court judges, has accused Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, of “improper interference” with universities’ autonomy and right to free expression.
They say that Williamson’s insistence that universities adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism or face sanctions is “legally and morally wrong”.
Their statement comes amid some academic resistance to Williamson’s letter to university vice-chancellors in October, in which he warned: “If I haven’t seen the overwhelming majority of institutions adopting the [IHRA] definition by Christmas, then I will act.”
Academics at University College London are due to vote this month on whether to call on the institution’s governing body to rescind its November 2019 adoption of the IHRA definition. Some are arguing it stifles free speech on Israel.
Oxford and Cambridge are among universities that have adopted the IHRA definition in recent weeks. The Department for Education said at least 27 institutions have adopted the definition since Williamson’s letter.
According to a tally by the Union of Jewish Students (UJS), a total of 48 out of 133 have now adopted the definition, including the vast majority of universities in the elite Russell Group. The UJC said those institutions reluctant to follow suit were showing “contempt … for their Jewish students.”
However, the lawyers’ letter, published by the Guardian, says: “The legally entrenched right to free expression is being undermined by the promotion of an internally incoherent ‘non-legally binding working definition’ of antisemitism. Its promotion by public bodies is leading to the curtailment of debate. Universities and others who reject the instruction … to adopt it should be supported in so doing.”
It cites the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression, which is embodied in UK law by the 1998 Human Rights Act.
Williamson was “legally and morally wrong in October to instruct English universities to adopt and implement” the IHRA definition of antisemitism. His threat of sanctions “would be an improper interference with their autonomy”.
The letter adds: “The impact on public discourse both inside and outside universities has already been significant.”
Among its eight signatories are Sir Anthony Hooper and Sir Stephen Sedley, both retired lord justices of appeal.
Academic opposition to wholesale adoption of the IHRA definition centres on freedom of expression and in particular whether criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people would be inhibited.
The IHRA definition is only 40 words long.
It says: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
But it is accompanied by 11 illustrative examples, of which seven relate to Israel.
According to the report of a working group set up by UCL’s academic board, the definition and examples “disproportionately draw debate over Israel and Palestine into conversations around antisemitism, potentially conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism … thereby … risking the suppression of legitimate speech and academic research.”
The report says the definition has no legal basis, and there is already a “large body of existing UK law and coherent UCL policies that instead should be used as the basis of any institutional mechanism to combat antisemitism”.
Universities have “an express statutory obligation to protect freedom of speech within the law”, the report says.
As an educative tool, the definition “may indeed have potential value, but that would have to be balanced against potentially deleterious effects on free speech, such as instigating a culture of fear or self-silencing on teaching or research or classroom discussion of contentious topics”.
The report says: “The ability to have uncomfortable conversations or feel challenged by clashing ideas lies at the heart of the mission of higher education. There are times when we need to clarify and illuminate these tensions, rather than rush to meet the demands of vocal critics who may misrepresent these instances as acts of discrimination, if we are to uphold the values of university life.”
While acknowledging “disturbing evidence that incidents of antisemitism have persisted in our university”, the report recommends UCL’s governing body retract its adoption of the IHRA definition and “consider more coherent alternatives”.
Academics at UCL were due to vote on the report’s recommendations before Christmas, but decided to extend debate into the new year because of the level of interest.
One critic of the report, Harry Goldstein, claimed its arguments give credence to “precisely the conspiracy theories that are central to classical antisemitism. It must all be a plot to silence criticism of Israel.”
In a blogpost, Goldstein – who describes himself as a liberal centre-left supporter of Israel – said the report blurred the distinction between criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism, used tendentious language, and failed to “understand the distinctive nature of antisemitism compared to other racisms”.
Dave Rich, the head of policy at the Community Security Trust (CST), which advises the UK Jewish community on security issues, said the academic argument over definitions of antisemitism “loses sight of what really matters: the welfare and safety of Jewish students at British universities”.
A CST report, Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2018-20, recorded a total of 123 antisemitic incidents involving students in 34 towns and cities over the two-year period.
“Far too many Jewish students do experience prejudice or bigotry, whether on campus, off campus and online. This included antisemitism from the far left, merging their hatred of Israel with suspicion of any Jews who disagree with them,” Rich wrote last month.
James Harris, the president of the UJS, said the continuing battle over the IHRA definition was “unacceptable”.
He added: “We have seen multiple examples of anti-Jewish racism being dismissed by universities who consistently refuse to adopt this definition. When the definition is not used, it gives the power to those investigating to arbitrarily determine what they believe constitutes antisemitism.
“The IHRA definition is a cornerstone in ensuring that antisemitism, when reported, is dealt with in a way which Jewish students can be confident in.”
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The government expects institutions to take a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism, with robust measures in place to address issues when they arise.”
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...
- By Godstud
- By starman2003
- By Verv
- By Rich