[… Ray Honeyford] taught in a variety of inner-city schools before taking over at Drummond in 1981. Honeyford’s experience of running a largely Asian school gave him a special insight into the iniquities of multiculturalism, the official doctrine that had held sway in state education since the 1970s.
According to this policy, ethnic minority children were encouraged to cling on to their cultures, customs, even languages, while the concept of a shared British identity was treated with contempt. Honeyford thought this approach was deeply damaging.
He feared that it promoted division, hindered integration and undermined pupils’ opportunities to succeed in wider British society.
He voiced his concerns by writing an article in the obscure conservative political magazine The Salisbury Review, which was then edited by the distinguished philosopher Roger Scruton.
In it, Honeyford stated that white children constituted the ‘ethnic minority’ in many urban schools: ‘It is very difficult to write honestly and openly of my experiences and the reflections they evoke,’ he wrote, ‘since the race lobby is extremely powerful in the State education service.
‘The term racism functions not as a word with which to create insight, but as a slogan designed to suppress constructive thought.’
The race lobby had become so powerful, he added, that ‘decent people are not only afraid of voicing certain thoughts, they are even uncertain of their right to think those thoughts.
h/t EBD
The theme this dances about is that in reality The race lobby is a racial supremacist cartel….
God bless Ray Honeyford. May he rest in peace.
This man is a teacher after my own heart—and he was 100% correct. The best teachers I know—and that’s a lot—the teachers with high academic and behavioural standards for ALL their students, the ones who don’t let their kids off the hook because of their colour or religion, the ones who need to be subversive in order to teach their students what they need (how to BEHAVE, think, speak, read, write, solve problems . . .) and to navigate the multitude of politically correct shoals that infest the waters of public education: these teachers are nearly all gone. Does the system care? No way.
Teachers, like Honeyford, who know what they’re doing and are really committed to doing it, are a huge threat to the educational impostors and dangerous ninnies in the front offices. These people, most of whom haven’t spent more than five minutes alone with a class of disrespectful students in years, are the highly paid enablers of the idiots in our Ministry and Boards of Educations, who haven’t seen one PC idea they haven’t embraced—and tried to shove down the throats of the teachers—and the kids. Of course, the vast amount of time spent on promoting fashionable “social justice” and “equality” issues, makes actually covering the ridiculously crowded curriculum a virtual impossibility. As I said, experienced, dedicated teachers generally stick to themselves and to what the kids really need, while leaving out as much of the cr*p as they can, behind closed doors. The younger teachers have been brought up in the PC environment and so, many go along with it. However, as they struggle to maintain order in their classes full of entitled, out of control, undisciplined—and teachers aren’t allowed to discipline anymore!—brats, complete the mountains of required paperwork, deal with entitled, out of control, undisciplined parents and administrators—“adult toddlers”—they know something’s dreadfully wrong. The number of stressed out young teachers, who are taking “time out” years or are actually quitting, is epidemic. Teachers who can get all or some of their pension are also bailing out in large numbers.
Is this a hot topic of conversation in staffrooms or at staff meetings? Not on your life. Behind closed doors, teachers share the angst of working in a gulag—lots of punishments are available to those who don’t toe the PC party line—which, by the way, the unions have bought into hook, line, and sinker: most of the union minions are NDP. It’s like the hens being “protected” by the fox: it’s not going to happen.
“Social justice” and “equality” issues consume the air in our schools: Gaia worship, as in “AGW is horrible and we need to save the planet”; anti-bullying as a front for promotion—big time—of the gay agenda; “equality” used to exempt all kinds of visible minority, special needs students, and Muslims from even mandated expectations and disciplinary procedures: the bad to worst of these students get to do pretty much what they want, including harassing and bullying their teachers. So much time is given over and wasted by the schools trying to be the purveyors and arbiters of “social justice”, that neither justice—our British/Judeo-Christian, traditional behavioural/sexual norms have been tossed aside—nor rigorous academic standards are upheld. Just as Honeyford predicted, our PC-enforcing, educational systems are ghettoizing, protecting, and giving special privileges to certain groups, while bullying and marginalizing anyone who doesn’t fall in lock-step. WHAT a despicable coven of hypocrites!
That a fine teacher like Honeyford was harassed and shoved out tells the story. That’s quite easily—and often—the fate of any teacher who speaks out and takes a stand. I know multitudes of fine teachers who have been humiliated by the powers that be. It’s not easy to be unjustly punished. I sincerely hope that Honeyford was able to use his settlement to get some well deserved pleasure after he left the classroom. RIP, Ray!
geezus lookout, U are long winded
but an excellent post you made
when I delt with teachers, and principles, I found that threats of violence opened their ears, tho not their minds
T’is sad when inmates run the assylum
Interesting. A prime example of the nature of PC (AKA cultural despotism). The observations of this educator make it apparent that PC dogmas (like Multicult and identity group politics) have no room for reason, and thus no way for reform when found faulty. One is expected to accept PC dogma literally, without question and condemn any deviation from that dogma – as an ideology PC is quite monolithic and intolerant of change or reason.
When PC dogmas are objectively found to be fallible P reactionaries rush to A) deny B) condemn C) ruin the purveyor of such dissent.
PC is quite literally an inflexible sledge hammer of social control by a dogmatic elite (PC gatekeepers) – we see this in its many failings and in the PC reaction to those failings. This is why PC is among the world’s worst ideas and as such requires obtuse bureaucratic force to keep it in place.
They say hell is a place where no reason exists. In that respect, fallible PC dogmatism being blindly enforced is a glimpse of hell.
Hey, NME666, that’s just the TIP of the iceberg: if I had time, I could write a book! In fact, Melanie Phillips did write a fine book about the wreck of the British education system, called, “All Must Have Prizes” (all, that is, except the teachers).
“T’is sad when inmates run the asylum.” You said it!
Occam: “They say hell is a place where no reason exists.” That’s a fine description of our public education gulags. No reason, just indoctrination, even in most subject areas. What.a.mess!
Thanks for that post,”Lookout”. You may have noticed that the BCTF,one of the most militant teacher’s associations in the Country,is about to embark on negotiations for anew contract.
Their ads are hilarious,all about the “good of the children”,while they lobby for their own benefits.
Education is a serious business,and shouldn’t be turned into an exercise in PC propaganda as it is in most classrooms in B.C.
I can see the day when students above elementary level are instructed home via the internet. It’d save billions and cut the all-powerful teacher’s Unions off at the knees,as they deserve.
Did you also happen to notice a link in the article about how maths are considered too difficult for students and dons?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099022/Maths-hard-students-dons-Universities-drop-subject-science-courses.html
It became apparent to me and my colleagues long ago, that the politicians and activists who ran the educational system preferred that we lie to our students about their abilities and achievements just to make everyone look good. It was also our duty to impart the notion that everyone was noble and oppressed except for the white guy. Surprisingly, those who had a more even-handed approach included teachers of all cultural backgrounds. The trait that seemed common to those more rational types appeared to be intelligence.
“I don’t dislike you because you are black, I dislike you because you are an a–hole about being black” (insert other colours here).
Occam makes PC sound like religious fanaticism.
Theodore Dalrymple/Anthony Daniels 10 years ago writing about Honeyford.
THANKS, Black Mamba, for that City Journal article (Spring, 2002) by the wonderfully articulate and prescient Theodore Dalrymple! With apologies to NME666, a few excerpts that stood out:
“Honeyford’s fundamental ideas were as logical, sensible, and coherent as they were unfashionable.” (As rita points out, the line between the generally brain/ethics-dead bureaucrats, who run our educational systems, while becoming rich, and REAL educators is intelligence.)
More from Dalrymple: “In [Honeyford’s] article [that was used to bully and discredit him], [he] enumerated some of multiculturalism’s problems and contradictions. . . . By lumping together all ethnic minorities as ‘black’ in order to create a false dichotomy between white oppressors on the one hand and all minorities on the other, for example, these bureaucrats could obscure such complex and unpleasant realities as the continued hostility between Sikhs [and homosexuals and feminists] and Muslims, or the Muslim ill-treatment of women. Only by means of such deliberate blindness can the tenets of multiculturalism, feminism, and universal human rights be reconciled. Honeyford quoted Orwell to the effect that politicized language ‘is designed to make lies sound truthful’ and ‘to give an impression of solidity to pure wind.’
“He held up a very concrete example of how the multiculturalist mindset was damaging education. Immigrant parents, he observed, frequently sent their children back to Pakistan and Bangladesh for months or even years at a time, often precisely to keep them from acquiring any British cultural characteristics. Though this practice had obvious social and educational disadvantages for people destined to spend their adult lives in Britain—and though it was entirely illegal, as well—the authorities turned a blind eye to it. [What else—Muslim prayers during instruction time—is new?] . . .
“The campaign against Honeyford disregarded entirely the fact that no complaint had ever been received about his competence as a teacher, or the fact that there were always far more applications to his school (mainly by Muslim parents) than there were places. . . . [Like our Human Rights (sic) Commissions, truth is no defence.]
“He [Honeyford] thought that different opinions might be tolerated . . . and that the induction of immigrant children into British culture and traditions was necessary both for their own personal good and for the nation’s future social harmony. . . .
“Of course, the forces that deny a British education to the Muslims of Bradford have also denied it to the whites, who—on the grounds of the new need for a multiculturalist outlook—receive schooling that leaves them virtually as ignorant of British [Canadian] history and traditions as their Muslim counterparts, without giving them any useful knowledge of any other history or traditions. They are thus left to float free in the sea of popular culture, without cultural or moral bearings and prey to the inchoate but deep resentments that this popular culture so successfully inculcates. . . .
“The scene is set for a battle of competing resentments. [OWS, Muslim miltancy, anyone?] If we had only listened to Ray Honeyford, we should not have sown what we are now reaping and what we (and others) shall reap for many years to come. . . .”
Welcome to the dystopian world of public education—and a whole lot more besides.
One might wonder how such a colossal scam could be carried out all over what used to be the “enlightened [NOT]” Judeo-Christian West (whose elites have happily turned their backs on our religious/moral foundation. “Lobster, meet water on its way to boiling!”) If I may be so backwards as to quote from Scripture (Ephesians 6: 10-12):
“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might./ Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. /For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Yup, that’s what’s really happening. And, if we think that our puny, human wiles are a match for the Prince of Lies and his minions, we altogether deceive ourselves—which might explain why we’ve arrived at such a dangerous and sorry pass.
Kyrie eleison.
“Occam makes PC sound like religious fanaticism.
Posted by: johndoe124 at February 10, 2012 12:34 PM ”
Uh. In case you didn’t notice,it IS FANATICISM,no matter whether you call it religous,political(like Islam) or ecological(like the eco-cultists).
Brilliant article. Thanks Black Mamba (12:37 pm)
Now, now. It wasn’t just multiculturalism that fractured lines. The Brits simply didn’t want to integrate the ‘asians’.
What do I mean?
Open any British history book. Modern British identity is deeply linked to the Second World War. In particular, the Battle of Britain, but in general, the WWII.
You’ll notice, as I have, that the books focus primarily on the Western Front – almost completely on Europe. Not much is said about the campaigns in North Africa. Or Burma (and, generally, Asia).
Much of it focuses on the British US contribution, with some (but not significant) mention of the Canadian and Australian contribution.
And in the midst of that, it conveniently ignores the 2.5 million Indians who served with the Allies in the Middle East and Africa, Southeast Asia and Southern Europe.
HOw did the Indians fare? Not too badly, it turns out. Only around 30 Victoria crosses. For perspective, 16 Canadians were awarded this most distinguished of medals. And, of course, the infamous Gurkhas, who now serve in the British Army (as well as being a mainstay of the modern Indian army).
Make no mistake about it – Britain’s WWII history is projected as a white history. Is it any surprise their multiculturalism has failed? They never tried to integrate when they had the perfect story to tell – a story of a united front in the face of evil Germany. Instead, they’ve done their damndest to tell non-whites that they aren’t British. Indeed, they outright ignore the non-white contribution.
I don’t buy the notion that a person can’t be British simply by virtue of their skin color or ethnic origin. Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, undid that notion. He turned out to be more British than the British.
rodin writes, “I don’t buy the notion that a person can’t be British simply by virtue of their skin color or ethnic origin.” Neither do I: there are multitudes of loyal British subjects who are a different colour and ethnicity than the native Brits. But that’s not the point of this thread.
The point is that the deluded and doctrinaire public school systems are actually encouraging certain British citizens (and Canadian citizens and American citizens and . . .) to not honour the host culture and religion. In fact, both the host culture and religion are demonized in the public school systems, which are aiding and abetting those who would prefer NOT to be loyal British (or Canadian or American . . .) citizens.
Ray Honeyford had the audacity to tell the truth and say that the cultural imperialism of immigrants to the West—explicitly and subversively being taught to them in our overwhelmingly progressive schools—would not end well, for anyone. For his troubles, he was harassed, bullied, and driven out of the system.
rodin, Ray would altogether agree with you: “I don’t buy the notion that a person can’t be British simply by virtue of their skin color or ethnic origin.” He said it, he tried to practise it in the school where he was headmaster—and was kicked out. And he was 100% correct.
@rodin 6:37 pm
‘Make no mistake about it – Britain’s WWII history is projected as a white history. Is it any surprise their multiculturalism has failed? They never tried to integrate when they had the perfect story to tell – a story of a united front in the face of evil Germany. Instead, they’ve done their damndest to tell non-whites that they aren’t British. Indeed, they outright ignore the non-white contribution.’
The French aren’t different:
Paris liberation made ‘whites only’:
‘Papers unearthed by the BBC reveal that British and American commanders ensured that the liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944 was seen as a “whites only” victory.
‘Many who fought Nazi Germany during World War II did so to defeat the vicious racism that left millions of Jews dead.
‘Yet the BBC’s Document programme has seen evidence that black colonial soldiers – who made up around two-thirds of Free French forces – were deliberately removed from the unit that led the Allied advance into the French capital.’
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7984436.stm
Britain. Old Indian word for silly little country.
lookout and rita – thanks. Dalrymple is always worth the time. (City Journal’s compilation of his articles is not comprehensive, but it is very good and it’s completely free and accessible.)
Re-reading this piece, what struck me most was this bit: “That the article appeared in The Salisbury Review gave almost as much offense as its content: for in the new, officially diverse Britain, the Review’s brand of cultural conservatism is beyond the pale. The Review’s name hardly ever appears without the qualification that it is rabidly right-wing, thereby implying that no intellectual engagement with the ideas expressed in it is ever necessary—only the kind of opposition appropriate to dealing with brown- and blackshirts.”
(BTW, Dalrymple/Daniels seems to appeal to women more than men. Whenever I’ve linked to him in a comment I’ve always gotten a really enthusiastic reaction from the ladies – not only lookout and rita on this site, but also batb and ET – and never really much in particular from men. I have no idea why. If anything, I would have thought that his acidic, absurdist realism and black humour, along with his resigned and benevolent acceptance of real human weakness, would appeal more to men; but that doesn’t seem to be the case.)
Jamie, were you indoctrinated in our Britain/Christian-hating schools, by chance? The Charter and “equality” scam—we all know that group identity makes some more equal than others—was a smokescreen to attack our cultural/religious foundations: the architect here? That Marxist, Trudeau and his buddies.
Britain has had its problems, but it bequeathed to the world all kinds of riches: Magna Carta, the idea that the monarch is not above the law, is the basis for the rule of law, which Britain exported to all the English speaking democracies in the world. No small benefit that. (Might that be why those countries have received by far the most immigrants over the last few centuries?)
I would suggest that Britain turned into a “silly little country” (actually, it’s four countries!) when it decided—as we have in Canada—to turn our backs on our own culture. Suicide! Instead of expecting immigrants from very different cultures—look at the countries they come from to see if things work better there—to accommodate our values, we’ve stupidly turned into pretzels to accommodate their unusual and far from equitable practices. (If we find ourselves in their countries, do they accommodate us? NO.) Any push back and we, the accommodating hosts (and very generous ones at that) are called racists and bigots—and maybe hauled before a Human Rights (sic) Commission. (Are the real anti-equality and bullying racists and bigots in some of these communities ever taken to an HRC? Nope.)
Educators like Honeyford (and me) have tried to provide a true level playing field for our students from other cultures. I believe we’ve been the colour-blind, equality-seeking ones, not the phony, progressives, who tilt the field every which way. Our schools are now full of entitled—“I know MY rights”—students who know how to scam the system to get their own way. As a result, are our schools more successful at teaching academic skills and civilized behaviour? Not on your life. Let’s trash our own culture, while measuring the worth of all others and juggling the rules—on a sliding scale—to let students off the hook. This policy has been an absolute disaster. The students aren’t learning the skills they need to be successful in their own lives and responsible citizens. They’re actually learning how to jockey for position and bully anyone who doesn’t fall in lock step. Are students who are allowed to behave this way thankful for the benefits being generously provided to them and their families by hard-working Canadians/Brits? They are not. The needier they are, the more they think they deserve. And they altogether look down on a society that allows itself to be scammed. (On one hand, who can blame them?)
The “equality” Potemkin Villages that are our public school systems have failed everyone: the bigotry of low/inequitable expectations reigns and everyone is seriously compromised. The Ray Honeyfords in the system deserve to be lauded for their clear-sightedness. Instead, they’re given the Alinsky treatment. This isn’t leading to anywhere good.
Black Mamba, I LOVE Dalrymple! We have nearly all his books. I also like it that he’s an atheist who altogether appreciates much of the Judeo-Christian faith dispensation. (His mother was a Jew who escaped Nazi Germany.)
Dalrymple sees with his eyes wide open, he thinks clearly, and expresses his views straightforwardly–and with humour: a great guy!