Addressing Education in 2021
By Kevin Mott
I want to consider the state of education in the UK in 2021. To point out that the education system is broken seems a little obvious, and whilst prominent Christian voices are highlighting single issues in the broader context of society, it often feels as if the attacks we encounter are somehow separate from one another. That, as Christians we stand against a dam of filth, plugging up holes where they occur, and celebrating the small victories when we are successful at stemming the flow. What I would like to demonstrate is that a great number of the issues that we currently experience in education, and beyond, are a result of a sustained attack on core Christian values that goes back many years. Although my general focus is on education, I think it would be helpful if at this point we tracked back historically, before landing in the here and now.
As “people of the Book,” we acknowledge that our enemy is not simply human but a spiritual one, and whilst we also recognise that it is God who is in ultimate control, the Bible tells us that we are sent to live “in the midst of wolves” and that we must be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16). There is, therefore, an expectation that with the help of the Holy Spirit we will also be a people of action who engage with culture, and that if we are to be successful in this endeavour must first understand where that culture is. God has put us all here to accomplish His purposes, so the fact that we find ourselves facing these challenges is by His design and no accident. I urge you all to be aware of these issues so that you can recognise them and push back, offering a gospel antidote to the poison that our children and grandchildren are exposed to in the classroom, and in the wider tapestry of society, each and every day.
I start then by saying that there has been a fundamental, revolutionary shift in Western thinking from a Judeo-Christian worldview perspective to one of Marxism1, where everything is viewed through a lens of conflict, with only victims and aggressors; the oppressed and the oppressor. This is now the dominant mindset in which many people, particularly younger people, see the world, with indoctrination beginning at a young age in the classroom. Whilst classical Marxism pitched workers against the capitalists in power, “Cultural Marxism” seeks to bring together marginalised, disenfranchised identity groups in a form of unofficial coalition. To perpetuate the idea that there is a supposed power struggle against a capitalist society; one based on Judeo-Christian ideals that is oppressive, racist, misogynistic and patriarchal. It is the narrative that many people, across a wide political and social spectrum, have now accepted and embraced.
How did we get here?
In 1956 Russia’s leader Nikita Khrushchev is reported to have said that Communism2 would “take America” and therefore the free world “without firing a shot,” and that they did not have to invade but rather destroy the US from within. It is claimed again that in 1959 Khrushchev said, “we can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until one day they will awaken to find they have communism.”
Now there is much debate as to whether or not Khrushchev made these remarks in the 1950s, but certainly, the core idea of a non-coercive takeover of Western culture is one that actually began many years earlier.
During a recent interview with The Christian Institute, Reverend Melvin Tinker explains that in 1921 Antonio Gramsci was responsible for founding the Communist Party of Italy following a split between the Italian Socialists, and sought about capturing the West. Although communism had taken root in Russia, attempts to sow the seeds of Marxism in the UK and other Western nations had been largely unsuccessful. Gramsci strategised that to become successful, two things must happen. These were:
1. The war of manoeuvre
2. The war of position
In the war of manoeuvre, the traditional understanding of revolution was accepted, whereby you attack and bring down your enemy (government or parliament) by coercive means. However, Gramsci surmised that before a coercive takeover could take place, the way had to be prepared through the ‘war of position – that a society could be captured through non-coercive means. Gramsci perpetuated the idea of “cultural hegemony,”3 explaining that society is dominated by elites and that these elites occupy cultural forming institutions, such as the courts, education, media, marketing and the church. Gramsci believed that by getting the right people into those positions of power, you could begin to gradually affect change from the inside; much like cooking a lobster, you start with low heat, not a boiling pan.
This non-coercion would be particularly effective at conditioning and preparing people to accept the next stage, that being the coercive strike – the manoeuvre. I believe that we have seen this play out over the last four years in the form of silencing, censoring or removing from the public sphere individuals who disagree with the status quo. Those who refuse to take the knee for BLM or dare to challenge the rampant LGBT curriculum that has appeared in our schools. As George Orwell once said, If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you are not allowed to criticise.” In this sense, government sets change in motion through policy, enforced by the courts, police, councils and other agencies. This is then promoted through education and defended by our mainstream media, big business and “big tech” via social media censorship and “fact-checking” online.
Words have meaning, and he who controls the meaning of words controls the debate. I recall growing up in the 1990s when society at large would scoff at the latest reports of “political correctness gone mad,” not realising that what we were seeing, in fact, was the birth of a new religion. A religion with a theology that mixes Christianity with political activism and redefines words to suit the aims of its adherents. Where gender no longer refers to biological sex, but rather interchangeable feelings of maleness and femaleness, and how you identify on any given day. Where homosexuality is no longer a sinful sexual practice but legitimate expression of love, and abortion no longer the murder that it is, but rather a progressive feminist right in the fight for fair healthcare against a patriarchal system that is dominated by old white men. “My body my choice,” not God’s body and His will be done. This new “Woke” religion utilises the neo-Marxist framework to conceptualise a person, group, or social problem as being affected by a number of discriminations and disadvantages. Again, feeding the idea of there only being the oppressed and the oppressor.4
Thinking IS critical
An obvious proponent of this way of thinking today “Critical Race Theory”5 (CRT), which is a sub-discipline of the broader “Critical Theory.” This social critique of society and culture relies upon Marxist ideas of power and was established by the German philosopher and sociologist, Max Horkheimer, and others at The Frankfurt School in the 1930s. Horkheimer described the theory as seeking to “liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them,” and CRT takes the view that the “law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour.” Effectively, viewing the world through a lens of “racialism,” and concluding that everything in it is in some way racist. Now whilst as Christians we would agree that racism is all forms is abhorrent and sinful, we would also recognise that in the eyes of God there are just two races on earth today; those that are in Adam and those in the Saviour Jesus Christ. Our identity is, therefore, to be in the one who saved us, dying on the cross so that we might be cleansed from our sins, not in our skin colour, sexuality or perceived privilege. We cannot serve two masters.
Several weeks ago I was at home with my teenage son, who has been studying in our kitchen during this latest round of government restrictions, following last year’s Covid outbreak. I was somewhat shocked to hear during the course of his English lesson, the teacher promote Critical Race Theory, at one point claiming that only brown people could dress as Muslims, whilst warning children against the dangers of “cultural appropriation.” The teacher then went on to read from the book “The Hate U Give,” which markets itself as being inspired by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. A movement whose chief aims are to dismantle capitalism, abolish prisons, defund the police, get rid of borders and boldly proclaim that “if change doesn’t happen we will burn down the system.” Patrisse Cullors, one of three women responsible for founding Black Lives Matter, described herself as a “trained Marxist” in 2015, whilst the UK’s BLM leader Sasha Johnson wrote that “the white man will not be our equal but our slave” on a recent social media post.
I wrote to my son’s headteacher and explained that “I have grown up in the shadows of Martin Luther King, who called for us to judge a person by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin,” before stating that BLM “is not a group whose ethos should be encouraged or promoted in any school without a sound understanding of the agenda being pushed by the group.” As expected, I received a curt response that did not address the substance of my initial email. But be under no illusion that this form of education is here to stay, and is now firmly rooted in UK schools up and down the country. We must also understand that when we talk about “anti-racism,” we are talking about the dismantling of our institutions and society as we know it. Ibram Kendi, a prominent spokesperson on this subject in the US, equates “anti-racism” as in effect being “anti-capitalism.” This mindset has nothing to do with actually standing against racism, but is more about reparations and redistribution of wealth.
In recognising this as a form of theft, we should view the ideology as being in violation of the 8th commandment, that “thou shall not steal,” and consider it empty philosophy and vain deceit not after Christ, that we as Christians are to war against.
The Department of Education states that schools must ensure that they comply with the relevant provisions of the Equality Act (2010) under which race, sexual orientation and gender reassignment are amongst the “protected characteristics.”6 These also include age, disability, civil partnership and religion or belief – again, viewing the world through that Marxist lens of society being nothing more than a collection of oppressed identity groups. By definition then, teacher training and school subjects are all framed in this way and have been for many years. This anti-Christian curriculum is now present throughout the education system, particularly in the Social Sciences, and affects children of all ages. For younger children currently in primary education, the UK government requires that teaching on sex should be accompanied by a “balanced presentation of opposing views.” However, books promoted in my own children’s Church of England primary school include:
Red – A book about a blue crayon mistakenly labelled as “red” suffers an identity crisis in this picture book. Funny, insightful and colourful, Red: A Crayon’s Story, is about being true to your inner self and following your own path despite obstacles that may come your way.
And Tango Makes Three – The heart-warming true story of two penguins who create a non-traditional family. At the penguin house at the Central Park Zoo, two penguins named Roy and Silo were a little bit different from the others. But their desire for a family was the same. With the help of a kindly zookeeper, Roy and Silo got the chance to welcome a baby penguin of their very own.
Stella Brings The Family – Stella’s class is having a Mother’s Day celebration, but what’s a girl with two daddies to do?
All of the books listed here are aimed at children from as young as three years of age. All of the books feature colourful illustrations, and all are Marxist in substance, where traditional Christian teaching is stripped away in favour of language centred around identity groups, challenging conformity and being different. There is no Christ-centred alternative that offers anything close to a balance of “opposing views” in state-run education at this point in time, and it is a situation that is only getting worse.
(To be concluded)
1 Marxism – a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx. It examines the effect of capitalism on labour, productivity and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favour of communism.
2 Communism – a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society, where private property is eliminated.
3 Cultural Hegemony – the domination of a cultural diverse society by the ruling class, which manipulates the culture of that society (beliefs, explanations, perceptions and values) so that the imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm
4 Woke – a term that originated in the US, referring to a perceived awareness of issues that concern social and racial justice.
5 Critical Race Theory – the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour.
6 Protected Characteristics – these are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation as defined by The Equality Act