Charles Clarke is [possibly] an ignorant moron?

[matgb]

Words fail me. Clarke dismisses medieval historians (Friday May 9, 2003):

Not long after expressing the view that he didn't think much of classics and regarded the idea of education for its own sake as "a bit dodgy", Mr Clarke, who read maths and economics at King's College, Cambridge, went one further.

"I don't mind there being some medievalists around for ornamental purposes, but there is no reason for the state to pay for them," he said on a visit to University College, Worcester. He only wanted the state to pay for subjects of "clear usefulness", according to today's Times Higher Educational Supplement.

Who the hell [was] he? you ask, and why should we care about his dismissive opinions when it comes to education policy? He [was]'s the Secretary of State for Education, the guy in charge of setting education policy. As my friend Alix puts it:

History is relative. No one period of history has innately more value than any other. Not a single person born during the twelfth century is any less complex, any less deserving of study and understanding than a person alive today. No common experience - be it in the form of a shared pop culture, the self-promotion of an expansionist nation state or the song of a victorious warrior band - is inherently superior to any other. You learn as much about human beings, law, society, constitutions, institutions and ideology from studying medieval history as any other sort. Any historical studies teach you to build your own skeletal way of understanding a society. After you’ve learnt to do that, you can flesh out the skeleton an infinite number of times in any way you wish.

Putting Ruth Kelly, an avowed extremist Catholic member of Opus Dei, in charge of equality was bad enough, but putting someone who doesn't believe in the value of education in charge of education? Words fail me.

I've just finished reading a book, a damn fine book. It was about the events of 1688 and surrounding years, the Glorious Revolution. It has inspired in me ideas for many posts, all of which would be relevent to today, the here and now. If there's any one period of history that I can say is 'mine' it's 17th century English constitutional history. I don't care much for the medieval period, it's not for me. But to dismiss it as irrelevent and not useful? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it has never been more true today. But then, we are talking about Charles Clarke here.

ETA: Um, yeah. Shows me for posting late at night and not checking the date or checking the Cabinet membership, my brain forgot he's not in the cabinet any more. Ah well. Still should never have been said.

ETA2: Clarke defends himself and denies making the statement. Thanks to bagrec in the comments.

Comments

[silentgreeneyes.livejournal.com]

that.. is.. just..
beyond words, really.

[matgb]

It, um, transpires the story is 4 years old. Still bloody awful, but not current. Ah well, should pay more attention.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

The article is dated Friday May 9, 2003.

Ed Balls is Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. Charles Clarke does not appear to be a cabinet minister.

That said, yes, boo hiss to the Clarke.

[srk1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was wondering if this was a piece from the matgb archives, or whether Clarke had made a comeback (on a Sunday evening).

One of the reasons I still hold out hope for Brown is that he doesn't seem to be quite so much an overt philistine as Blair and his court were.

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

or whether Clarke had made a comeback (on a Sunday evening).

Indeed - I also thought I'd woken up 4 years ago, for a minute. His comments are ridiculous, natch, but are they any worse than the views of secular hero Ben Goldacre, who also seems to hold humanities graduates in high contempt?

[matgb]

I know a bunch of scientists who are a bit dismissive of non-science disciplines, but Ben seems more dismissive of science-illiterate humanities grads rather than the disciplines themselves.

But then, Ben not ever put in charge of anything important. OTOH, at least my semi-drunk posts are interesting, even if a little dated. Right?

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

Ben's comments are generally aimed at science-illiterate humanities grads, who do science reporting and invariably get it horribly wrong.

Humanities grads who don't know much science aren't a problem until they start influencing people's science education.

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. First of all Goldacre doesn't seem to grasp the fact that science reporting is bad because of the way journalism itself works - reducing everything to black and white issues, encouraging fear, prioritising unsubstantiated rage over analysis etc. etc. - rather than because those doing it are humanities graduates.

Secondly, I've read plenty of comments from him on his page, and in arguments in comments threads on it, that show he take a pretty dim view of humanities graduates generally.

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

I haven't read many of the threads in depth recently so I could be wrong, but he certainly seems to grasp the fact that because of the way journalism works science reporting is poorly done. Its very visible in the MMR articles.

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

I haven't explained myself too clearly there. I know he understands that science is poorly covered because of the way journalism works - but the impression I get from him is that this is because it's full of humanities graduates. I think there's something rotten in the trade itself, which would be just as likely to corrupt a mathemetician, or indeed, the many older journalists who aren't graduates at all.

[matgb]

That I'll agree with—a huge chunk of journalists are so out of touch that they don't know what life's really like—especially true at the higher levels.

And ownership's an issue as well.

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

That's possible, but I can't help but feel that if a few more journalists understood how science works (even if they haven't actually done it at university) the reporting might be a little better. After all with MMR, fish oil "trials", and the inability of Metro writers to read press releases it can't get much worse can it?

[srk1.livejournal.com]

I'm unsure about Goldacre. Sometimes (as with the MMR stuff) I cheer him on, other times he seems to be promoting scientism, which I don't have much time for.

[matgb]

I blame too much ale.

[exmoor-cat.livejournal.com]

Unless you look at Brown's funding of the armed forces, which is a clear case of nihilistic wrecking.

Might be four years out of date vis CLarke, but that just makes him a vintage twat, who clearly failed to understand that economics is rooted in historical analysis.

[matgb]

Um, yeah. Should've checked that a bit better, must've been 3/4 asleep and a little more under the influence than I thought.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

It would have been more noticeable if it had been printed on 4½ year old paper, rather than freshly served up by the Guardian website. Maybe they should colour their archives differently according to age.

I wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t double-taked at Clarke being in the cabinet.

[yuxonomei.livejournal.com]

I remember my ex putting a pic of Clarke on the wall and throwing darts at it when this first came about.

Clarke, for all his qualifications, is an idiot. The Medieval period spans from say when the Romans left up until round about 1500 (I'm quickly generalising). In effect, he just wants the token mdievalist to pat on the head. I just cannot understand why he would want to essentially wipe out one thousand years of history like that. Because that is what he'd have been doing - no one to teach means no one is learning; no one is knowing. The study of the Medieval periods isn't just confined to the study of English history; it covers the known world. It's not all just about Bede, Beowulf and Chaucer.

Also, I find it amusing that he was taught at Oxford, a very fine establishment that was founded in the very era he wants us not to learn about any more.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Where Oxford = Cambridge?

[yuxonomei.livejournal.com]

Ouch, yes.

It was about 2am when I wrote that though.

[matgb]

Fortunately, he failed. But I, naturally, concur with the rest.

[tyrell.livejournal.com]

That seemed to be Blair's approach too, Mark Steel makes a fuss about it in some of his columns. "Education is only about getting a job". Yeah, let's see what sort of culture you end up with without any philosophers, historians or literature writers. Twat.

[matgb]

I do like Steel. Radical loon, but at least you know where he's comeing from. His book on the French Revolution was top as well.

[tyrell.livejournal.com]

Yes! Reasons to be Cheerful was comedy too, and the lectures. He’s crazy, but it’s of an amiable sort.

[bagrec.livejournal.com]

Is this some sort of timeslip?

It must be those shadowy people who've taken over Live Journal.

[matgb]

Yeah, um, see above. Ah well.

[innerbrat]

The cut-unfolder part of LJ-Addons (which I already couldn't live without) does some interesting things to your format there.

[matgb]

It's something I rarely use TBH, but yeah, multiple cuts in the same post do seem to confuse it a bit.

[innerbrat]

I was thinking more that it opens a new <blockquote>, and then you're a level out. Two cuts is fine, cause you just read the entire entry like any normal cut tag.

[matgb]

Hmm, yes, that is weird, can't see any reason for it to be happening either. Ah well.

[0ct0pus.livejournal.com]

Can I just say how much I am enjoying this "best of Matt" season...

[matgb]

Thank you. I'm here all week. And probably going to be consuming amounts of ale fairly regularly as well.

[blue-condition.livejournal.com]

The fact that Clarke is not in the cabinet does not change the fact that he is a pig-ignorant redneck piece of sh*t.

[bagrec.livejournal.com]

I'm in the unusual, indeed possibly unique position of rather liking Charles Clarke, I saw him speak when he was Home Secretary, and was impressed, and he was one of the few "out" atheists in the cabinet at the time.

So I feel I should provide a link to Clarke's own defence in the Guardian.

[matgb]

I think my visceral dislike is linked to him having been Home Secretary, and it'd have been pretty much impossible to have been one of Blair's Home Secs and not be hated by a large chunk of people.

But thanks for that, I've edited the post a little. The bit I didn't quote but nearly did from the original was this though:

A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills said: "The secretary of state was basically getting at the fact that universities exist to enable the British economy and society to deal with the challenges posed by the increasingly rapid process of global change."

So a spokesman defended his comment-albeit in a non-committal way, but regardless, universities don't 'exist' for that reason, that's just part of their role.

Ah well, given the date, spilt milk and all that.

[bagrec.livejournal.com]

Aye. Maybe can you can do a post about Margaret Thatcher next? Apparently she reckons there's no such thing as society.

;)

[matgb]

Actually, a post on Thatcher is on my list, it would be on a similar theme to this old usenet post of mine from 8 years ago and pointing out that she was always an electoral liability, but the Stupid Party never noticed or understood.

But it won't be next. I'm not even sure it'll be here. We'll see.

[srk1.livejournal.com]

I think that politically he is probably closer to my views than many cabinet and ex-cabinet Labour people. However, he was a fairly weak Home Secretary, far too dependent on Home Office orthodoxy, very bad at arguing for the policies he was introducing, and apparently quite rude and uncooperative with his staff. He also seems to have a number of odd personal vendettas, such as his hostility to Brown.

[fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

Take heart, your anger is not misspent! I mean, I'm still angry about it four years later (I don't forgive easy). I did read the apologies and backtracking at the time but was deeply unconvinced when setting them alongside his original words, which are not readily misinterpretable.

The trouble is that it rings all too true. Too many people think in this way about history. I even find the whole idea that we "should" learn about the Holocaust and the Nazis to the exclusion of all else faintly sinister. It smacks of using education for cultural conditioning (albeit in a pretty uncontroversial cause unless you are David Irving).

It's also a bit counter-productive. People are never going to develop the faculty of judging just how bad the holocaust was for themselves unless you present them with a wide field of knowledge and tell them to spot the difference. Hmph, clearly I need to post again.

[matgb]

Oh, I agree, completely—cf my initial desire when I went back to uni to be a history teacher: not going to happen now but still.