Bartholomew's Notes

The Historical Association has just released a report, entitled T.E.A.C.H.: Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19, which discusses some of the problems faced by teachers and gives guidance on good practice. Page fifteen has a section that has now excited considerable press comment:

Teachers and schools avoid emotive and controversial history for a variety of reasons, some of which are well-intentioned. Some feel that certain issues are inappropriate for particular age groups or decide in advance that pupils lack the maturity to grasp them. Where teachers lack confidence in their subject knowledge or subject-specific pedagogy, this can also be a reason for avoiding certain content. Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship. Some teachers also feel that the issues are best avoided in history, believing them to be taught elsewhere in the curriculum such as in citizenship or religious education.

(A class of religious instruction is a legal requirement in British schools, although parents can choose to let their child opt out. In my day, the class for those pupils not studying towards a GCSE exam in the subject was used for general discussions of ethics or racism and such.)

For example, a history department in a northern city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework for fear of confronting anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils. In another department, teachers were strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination. In another history department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils, but the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 [11-14 years old] because their balanced treatment of the topic would have directly challenged what was taught in some local mosques.

The report goes on to cite academic educationist work that suggests that teachers can be categorised as “containers”, “avoiders” or “risk-takers”, and that the “risk-takers” are the most effective. The report also draws attention to a book, Issues in Holocaust Education, by Geoffrey Short and Carole Ann Reed.

The report also notes that many schools avoid teaching Islamic history, as it is seen as “too difficult, alien or complex to teach” (p. 17).

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Numerous websites have noted the new resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council, passed at the behest of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The International Herald Tribune has the details:

…The resolution, which was opposed by European and a number of other non-Muslim countries, “expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.”

It makes no mention of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries “to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence.”

Given the makeup of the UNHRC, sceptics have suggested that “incitement” is here meant to mean any mocking or criticism of Islam or Islamic governments. Actually, while this news has garnered a great deal of publicity, it pretty much repeats a similar resolution made by the old UN Commission on Human Rights two years ago, again at the behest of the OIC, which I blogged on then.

Meanwhile, the UNHRC has come under further scorn given that the only country it has managed to condemn so far has been Israel. This is, of course, a gift to pro-Israel groups, which consequently can dismiss any criticisms laid against the country as anti-Semitism and bias; Hillel Nauer of UN Watch managed an effective performance along these lines last week, further helped by a subsequent scolding from the council’s president, Luis Alfonso de Alba, who apparently objected to the most influential members of the UNHRC being referred to (correctly) as “dictators who…couldn’t care less about Palestinians, or about any human rights.”

De Alba’s speech on his appointment last summer can be seen here. It includes the following:

…From now on, human rights are not just going to be a priority in the work of the United Nations: they will also constitute one of its three fundamental pillars, as proposed by the Secretary-General last year.

…It is of great importance to agree on a balanced agenda that reflects our will to address all rights in all countries, to identify gaps and to avoid unnecessary duplications to strengthen the existing mechanisms. It is also necessary to improve coordination with bodies and agencies within and outside the United Nations System, and at the same time, to foster the incorporation of a human rights perspective in all their activities.

Let’s embark on the task of generating, in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation, a mechanism of universal and periodic evaluation to know the improvements and more pressing duties every State has in human rights issues. If we can achieve this, we will avoid the excessive politization [sic] and the use of double standards of which the former Commission was accused.

De Alba was also interviewed by Open Democracy, which noted that

The now defunct UN Human Rights Commission had few friends by the end. Its critics complained of an extreme politicisation that made it highly selective about the issues it addressed. To make things worse, it was easily paralysed if a minority chose to block discussion.

…The new Human Rights Council was created in its stead, with the hope that these problems would be resolved with a fresh start and a new structure.

But it seems that despite changing the word “Commission” to “Council”, and turning “UNCHR” into “UNHRC”, further efforts may be required…

(Hat tip: MediaWatchWatch)

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »