Academy of Ideas

#EducationForum: Teaching white privilege: making schools less racist or more divided?

Recording of the Academy of Ideas Education Forum discussion on Monday 29 November 2021.
INTRODUCTIONHow should we view the teaching of ‘white privilege’? Is it a helpful tool in combating racial inequality or a divisive idea that sows mistrust?
The concept originated in American academia in the 1980s, but entered British schools last year in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd.
White privilege asserts that white people are automatically advantaged by their skin colour, because they do not have to endure lives beset by racialised systemic discrimination. The fact that black people are more likely to be paid less, sectioned under mental-health rules, or stopped and searched by police is cited as evidence of white privilege at work by advocates of the theory.
Yet opponents of the concept say this reading of the data fans the flames of an unnecessary culture war. They counter-claim that those least likely to go to university, for example, are poor white teenagers in former industrial and coastal towns. White working-class children also trail their Indian, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Black African peers In GCSE attainment, they argue.
To what extent, then, does white privilege help or hinder us in understanding how pupils might make the best progress in education?
Teaching white privilege as an uncontested fact in schools is indoctrination and illegal under the 1996 Education Act, according to the women and equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch. Her pronouncement has prompted the Black Educators Alliance and the Coalition of Anti Racist Educators to accuse the government of censorship and chilling free speech in the classroom.
On the other side of the debate, the campaign group Don’t Divide Us claims it is inundated with concerns from teachers and parents. It says the former fear being publicly accused of racism if they speak out against teaching white privilege, while the latter describe having to list their privileges and unconscious bias in their children’s homework.
In the United States, opposition to the teaching of white privilege was seen as an important factor in Republican Glenn Youngkin taking the key governorship of Virginia from the Democrats recently. The result has been widely interpreted as a bellwether of wider public rejection of the kind of educational social-justice programme proposed by the Democrats, which favours schools adopting the principles of ‘critical race theory’, such as countering the effects of white privilege.
So how should we judge the focus on white privilege and unconscious racial bias in lessons, reading lists and school staff training? Will it make schools more anti-racist – or divided?
The Education Forum explores this important issue in a friendly, open and respectful panel discussion. Are the majority of parents and teachers unaware of the term ‘white privilege’ and not likely to give it a second thought? Or is white privilege in the curriculum about to become the next big issue in education?
SPEAKERSAlka Sehgal CuthbertEducation Forum member; co-ordinator, Don’t Divide Us (DDU); educational advisor and writer. Alka is critical of the term ‘white privilege’ and thinks it does more harm than good.
Andre Ediagbonya-DaviesAndre went to school in Tottenham and is a second-year historian at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He supports expanded discussion on race within education. He believes white privilege is a reality and talking about it is a useful way of helping combat racism.
Julie DupontJulie is a North London parent of three school-age children. She is a committed anti-racist, but is concerned at the way white privilege is communicated in some of her children’s lessons and homework, and in school communications to parents. She thinks it is divisive and does more harm than good.

#Arts&Society: Truth and politics in the theatre - in conversation with David Ireland

Playwright and actor David Ireland does not hold back from dealing with controversial and difficult topics. Born in Northern Ireland, his experiences of living in that troubled country inevitably informs his work. His plays create a stir, with no holds barred, often shockingly hilarious, dialogue. As black comedies they expose the raw nerves of identity politics, sexual and family relationships, and contemporary political tensions and polarisations which can drive people to violence and push them to do mad things.
Among his most recent work is the award-winning Cyprus Avenue, performed at the Royal Court in 2016, with Stephen Rea in the lead role, focused on a unionist convinced his new born grandchild is Gerry Adams and has to be killed. Ulster American, performed at the Edinburgh Festival in 2018, focuses on the challenges of writing a play about Irish identity and had audiences laughing in horror. Sadie, due to be premiered in Belfast in early 2020 but cancelled due to lockdown, was recently screened on BBC4, is a disturbing dissection of a middle-aged working-class woman’s frustration and anger.
In this special Arts&Society Forum for the Battle of Ideas festival, Wendy Earle talks to David Ireland about truth and politics in theatre, artistic survival in a climate of intolerance and cancel culture, and the comedic possibilities of not holding back – and how he gets away with it!
David Ireland is a Northern Irish-born playwright and actor most known for his award-winning plays Cyprus Avenue and Ulster American. He won the Stewart Parker Award and the Meyer-Whitworth Award in 2012 and was shortlisted for the Evening Standard Award for Most Promising Playwright 2016. More recently, Sadie was screened on BBC4 and his play YES SO I SAID YES is due to be performed at the Finborough Theatre, Earl’s Court from 23 November to 18 December.
Wendy Earle is the convenor of the Academy of Ideas Arts&Society Forum, and writes on culture and the arts.

#InternationalSalon: From Covid to climate change: challenging the culture of fear?

Recording of the Academy of Ideas International Salon panel discussion on 23 November 2021.
INTRODUCTIONFrom the pandemic to the environment, housing to food supply, politicians and experts often tell us that our choices are limited. When Covid-19 took the world by surprise, governments around the world understandably took a blinkered view – opting to shut down society for fear of the worst. But even before the chaos of the last 19 months, the discussion about how to deal with challenges both political and viral have taken on a fatalistic tone.
The slogan There Is No Alternative might have been coined by Margaret Thatcher to defend the market economy, but a broader reliance on the TINA outlook has come to inform many aspects of modern politics. Politicians and commentators applauded climate activist Greta Thunberg when she accused them of robbing children of their futures. According to climate activists Extinction Rebellion: ‘We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making.’ There are some climate activists who shun the idea of any progress at all – believing that it is too late to do anything to stop the damage humans have inflicted on the planet.
This defeatist feeling can be found elsewhere – the Brexit debate descended into banks, industries and politicians telling voters that a rejection of the EU would end in disaster (even world war). Campaigners for fighting racism or sexism argue that life for minorities has gotten worse, despite years of legal and social change. Cynicism among voting populations is common, with scepticism about how much governments do to change politics expressed at every election. Even debate about the end of the pandemic, and how to get back to normal life, has been routinely qualified with assertions that ‘normal’ can never really return. Some people express concerns about this but feel powerless to challenge it in what has become a fatalistic acceptance of the dominant narrative
But despite our penchant for doommongering, some point out that there is proof of what human beings can do when faced with adversity. While global temperatures are rising, this has occurred at a time of rising world population because people are living longer and incomes in most of the world are still expected to rise considerably in coming years. Some commentators point out that, far from a picture of gloom and despair, those of us alive today are the luckiest people in history when it comes to health, wealth, education, culture and more. The success of the vaccine rollout – or the ability for the government to get homeless people off the streets during the pandemic – shows that change can happen when a little bit of pressure is applied.
What happens to politics when we take a fatalistic outlook? Some argue that there is a difference between being doom-laden and telling it like it is – climate activists argue that those who won’t face how bad things have got are simply denying the problem. Where does agency fit into all of this – is action impossible with a modern TINA outlook? Is it right to believe that they are an existential threat to human beings or even life on Earth in general? If not, what explains the popularity of apocalyptic thinking today?
SPEAKERSJosie Appletondirector, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State; blogger, notesonfreedom.com
Alex Camerongraphic designer; design and cultural critic
Dr Roslyn Fullermanaging director, Solonian Democracy Institute; author, In Defence of Democracy
Matthew Krugeradvocate, Johannesburg Bar
CHAIRJacob Reynoldspartnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

#BattleFest2021: Is the NHS fit for purpose?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.
IS THE NHS FIT FOR PURPOSE?
A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:
https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/is-the-nhs-fit-for-purpose/
How can we solve the problems of the NHS? Is it simply a matter of providing extra resources, or is the way those resources are used a problem, too? Do we expect too much from the NHS? And with some observers likening the NHS to a national religion, are politicians brave enough to have a proper debate about reform?
Listen to Parth Patel, Professor Karol Sikora, Christopher Snowdon, Dolly Theis and Dave Clements discuss.
Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

#BattleFest2021: Disinformation and Conspiracy - Tackling the Crisis of Trust

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.
DISINFORMATION AND CONSPIRACY: TACKLING THE CRISIS OF TRUST
A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:
www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/disi…is-of-trust/
Why have disinformation and conspiracy theories become such mainstream preoccupations? What is a healthy distrust of officialdom, and when does it start to move away from reality? Have we become afraid of ourselves and our own ability to make judgements, and do we need a new series of official authorities to determine what’s real and what’s not? Or is the collapse in trust – and in each other – a matter for us all to take up?
Listen to Alastair Donald, Dr Sean Lang, Dr Tim Black, Konstantin Kisin and William Clouston discuss.
Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

#BattleFest2021: Going Green - Eco Dogma or Salvation?

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021.
GOING GREEN: ECO-DOGMA OR SALVATION?
A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021:www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/goin…r-salvation/
In partnership with the Freiblickinstitut.
How can we solve a problem like climate change? Should it be treated as an emergency that should subsume all other priorities? Do green policies even work or do they make matters worse? Is the problem that political and corporate rhetoric about taking action is just superficial ‘greenwash’, being seen to be green rather than making fundamental changes? Has the political consensus around climate change robbed voters of a chance to have our say?
Listen to Dr Shahrar Ali, Sabine Beppler-Spahl, Heydon Prowse, Austin Williams and Alastair Donald discuss.
Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review.

#BattleFest2021: Assisted Dying - Has its Time Come?

#SportscastOfIdeas: High jumps and low points - the Olympics returns at last

SPORTSCAST OF IDEAS: Geoff Kidder is joined by Academy of Ideas colleagues Alastair Donald and Rob Lyons with special guests David Bowden and Austin Williams to discuss everything happening in Tokyo.