Posts Tagged ‘Dulwich College’

Private Schools Turn Down Bursaries for White Working Class Boys

January 7, 2020

This is a very interesting story from last weekend’s I. A retired Maths professor, Sir Bryan Thwaites, offered two private schools bursaries for White working class boys. They both turned it down. Their refusal, and the fact that these bursaries are needed, says much about class and race in the early 21st century. The report contained the observation that ‘inverted snobbery and liberal guilt neglect the white poor’. Which is true, but it’s also true that such bursaries wouldn’t quite be so necessary if it weren’t for Thatcherism. Thatcher promised that her reforms would turn Britain into a meritocracy, where everyone could succeed, regardless of class background, provided they had the talent. This has spectacularly not happened. Class mobility was at a standstill during Blair’s administration. Now it seems to have gone into reverse. And at the bottom are the working class that Thatcher and the Tories despise, and Blair neglected.

Thwaites was a working class lad, who had gone to Dulwich and Winchester Colleges on scholarships. He therefore wanted to award them bursaries amounting to £1.2m to set up scholarships for lads from his background. He said he wanted to address the ‘severe national problem of the underperforming white cohort in schools’. The donations amounted to £400,000 for Dulwich and £800,000 for Winchester. They turned them down because they were afraid that the donations broke equality rules. Winchester said that they ‘did not see how discrimination on the grounds of a boy’s colour could ever be compatible with its values’. Dulwich simply said bursaries were available to everyone who passed their entrance exam, ‘regardless of their background.’

Thwaites, who is himself a former college head, told the Times, ‘If [the colleges] were to say ‘We are helping these deprived cohorts of children,’ that would do a hell of a lot for their reputation and show that the independent sector is taking some notice of what’s going on in the world at large. The implication of their refusal… is that they couldn’t give a damn.’

Poor White Educational Underperformance

The newspaper then printed some stats to show why Thwaites believed such bursaries were necessary. Only 15 per cent of White boys receiving free school meals achieve a grade 5 or higher in English and Maths at GCSE in 2018 compared with 33.6 per cent of Asian boys and 23.4 per cent of Black boys.

It also noted that four years ago universities were told to recruit more working class students – particularly boys – after statistics showed that just 10 per cent of young men from the poorest areas went into higher education.

Thwaites therefore said he was turning his attention to state schools and academies would be only too glad to accept his money. Referring to Stormzy’s decision to set up two scholarships for Black undergrads at Cambridge, he asked ‘If Cambridge University can accept a much larger donation in support of Black students, why cannot I do the same for under-privileged White British?’

Trevor Phillips Attacks ‘Inverted Snobbery’ over White Children

The I commented that ‘it is these barriers – of structural inequality and the intersection of race and class – that society tends to tiptoe around in order to avoid honey-yet-difficult conversations.

However, in last month’s Standpoint, Trevor Phillips, the broadcaster and former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, attacked the ‘inverted snobbery’ which held by poor White boys. He claimed that modern society had made institutions ridiculously squeamish about accepting that their treatment of Whites as a ‘non-race’ was itself racist, and added ‘They have become so confused in these ‘woke’ times that a lethal cocktail of inverted snobbery, racial victimhood, and liberal guilt ends up rewarding schools for favouring the Black and Brown rich while neglecting the White poor.”

Comments from Other Academics

The report then said that campaigners have long tried to level the playing field so that every child, regardless of its race, gender or background, was given the best possible start in life. They then quoted Dr Lee Elliot Major, the professor of social mobility at Exeter Uni. He said

Philanthropists want to help people similar to them and, of course, that is their prerogative,. But often the bigger issue is help people who are not like them.

Success comes in many forms. Social mobility is not just about getting those magical tickets to the top schools, because that’s not for everyone. State schools cater to all sorts of potential – some students will be high-flyers, so will need support in applying for prestigious universities. Others will seek out an apprenticeship or attend a local college.

I think it’s great that [Sir Bryan’s donations} could be used to support many pupils going through different routes – not just academic study.

However, Major also pointed out the differences between Stormzy’s and Thwaites’ donations. Major said that he had many conversations with Black undergraduates at Cambridge, who were the first in their families to go to university, and who felt isolated there. He remarked

There are very specific issues around highly selective, very academic universities, because they are quintessentially middle-class and very White and I think [Stormzy’s scholarship] was a legitimate move to address this.

He said that there were discussions leading universities could have to make their campuses more inclusive, continuing

If you’re looking at achievement in schools, I would argue taht this comes down to culture in the home, to class and [household] income.

It’s often the case that White working-class boys are [products of] those backgrounds-but equally there are children from all sorts of backgrounds who live in poverty and aren’t getting as much support as they deserve. And the reason I’m anxious about it is that social mobility is an issue that should bring us together.

Of course there are lots of white working-class boys living in areas of deprivation – but the very fact they’re deprived is glossed over. We’re wasting talent in this country – talent from all backgrounds. (pp. 33-4).

Finally, there was a report in one of the papers that the donation had been accepted by a charity run by a Black man, which had been successful in combating low educational achievement amongst Black lads. He was looking forward to turning around the lives of White boys as he had done with Black.

Looking through the newspaper reports, it’s clear that some people are very uncomfortable with a grant being set up for poor White boys. It’s understandable. British politics and society is dominated by White men, and so a bursary aimed at raising the achievements of White boys seems reactionary, an attack on the feminist and anti-racism campaigns.

Which is why it needed the support of Trevor Phillips and a Black educationalist. 

Winchester College’s excuse for turning down the bursary because it was ‘incompatible with their values’ seems very fake to me, however. A friend of mine was privately educated. He once told me that these schools don’t exist to teach children so much as to give them the network of personal contacts to open careers and other opportunities. They exist to preserve middle and upper class privilege. Rich Blacks and Asians are welcome, but not the poor generally, although they may well accept working class BAME pupils as a gesture towards meritocracy.

Lee Elliot Major’s comment about Black students finding themselves very isolated at Cambridge university is true, but I also know White academics from a working/ lower-middle class background, who intensely resented what they felt was the entitled, patronising attitude of wealthier students from the Oxbridge set. He is right about funding being made available for academic and training paths that are more suitable to students’ aptitudes. There was also a recent report in the I about the massive drop out rate at university. Some of this is no doubt due to the real financial struggles some students face now that tuition fees have been introduced and raised, and they are expected to become massively indebted to fund their education. But some of it is also due to university education now being promoted as the only academic route. A friend of mine, who worked in university administration told me that this wasn’t working and was leading to people dropping out over ten years or more ago.

And I completely accept his observation about the role class, income and background play in academic aspiration. In my experience, this also naturally includes those from Black and Asian backgrounds.

But Blacks, Asians and girls have had much attention focused on improving their academic performance and improving their opportunities, that have not been directed towards White boys from poor backgrounds. And this needs to be addressed.

Doing so does not undermine, or shouldn’t, the efforts to improve performance and opportunities for women and minorities, however.

But if we are serious about improving poor and working class academic performance, whether White, Black or Asian, it will mean rejecting Blairism and its rejection of the working class in order to concentrate on copying the Tories.

Scriptonite: Farage Is A Millionaire Banker

May 14, 2014

NigelFarage

Scriptonite has also joined the fray over UKIP’s attempt to censor the image used to show just how oppressive and exploitative their domestic policies are. Their article ‘UKIP Brings in Police and Lawyers to Censor Bloggers – It’s on Farage, It’s on’ discusses the way they sent two policemen to harass the Green party activist, Michael Abberton, and then similar attempts to intimidate the Angry Yorkshireman over at Another Angry Voice. He pulled the image, and thousands of conversations relating to it on Facebook, after receiving legalistic threats from a UKIP candidate. Mike has already blogged on the article, with a link to it, which I’ve reblogged. Scriptonite goes further and shows how this is part of a wider pattern of political policing following Tory legislation that has gradually eroded our constitutional freedoms. We have lost our rights as free citizens, and almost nobody noticed.

She also presents Farage’s background as an extremely wealthy financier. She writes

The party leader Farage is a millionaire banker, from millionaire banking lineage – his father Guy Oscar Justus Farage was a stockbroker.

Farage didn’t work his way up from the bottom. He was educated at £10,000 a term private school Dulwich College. On leaving college he used daddy’s contacts to become a commodities trader in the City. He is one of those suited, champagne quaffing, morally bankrupt traders that helped bring our economy to its knees. A vote for UKIP, is a vote to install another wealthy heir into Number 10.

This is important. The party poses as an outsider, challenging the established political parties of Labour, Lib Dems and Tories. They claim they are the only real alternative. In fact, Farage is exactly like Cameron, Osborne and the rest of the millionaires making up Cameron and Clegg’s cabinet. And the ideology UKIP espouses, is the same Neoliberalism now infecting the Tories and Lib Dems. There’s precious little difference between them. As Max Headroom used to say, ‘And now … more of the same’.

And in many ways, Farage’s connections to other rich financiers is an extremely grim joke. Tom Pride sometime last year posted up a photo showing Farage hobnobbing with Ron Paul, the godfather of the Tea Party, and one of George Soros’ banking partner. Soros and this particular bloke in 1992 bet against the pound in order to cause a run on it. The resulting crash was called ‘Black Wednesday’, and just about bankrupted this country. There were jokes about yuppies committing suicide – the opening cartoon titles for Have I Got News For You showed a City executive jumping out of the window and falling to his death. And some people took it extremely seriously. I can remember a friend telling me at the time that we shouldn’t worry, as there was still food in the stores for the next fortnight, so we had at least that long before the starvation and rioting started. As Tom Pride said, Farage’s connection to these people is a strange attitude for someone who claims to want to keep the pound.

One of Farage’s policies to is have the City completely deregulated. He claims the banking crisis has been caused by Labour’s regulation of the City. This is a lie. Under Blair and Brown, Labour retreated from regulating the City and financial sector, claiming that things would be better if it policed itself. This it spectacularly failed to do, with the result that the poor have been paying for the bankers’ excesses ever since.

If UKIP got in, they would privatise the NHS, the schools and remove workers’ right to maternity pay, paid annual leave, and set termination dates for dismissal. They are another party of the extremely rich exploiting the working class and working class. The cover of Ford and Goodwin’s book on UKIP, Revolt on the Right, shows him with a pint and a cigarette in his hand, laughing and smiling. Make no mistake: he’s laughing at us.

UKIP Book pic
UKIP is a party of and for the rich sneering at the poor. No wonder Farage is laughing.

The Scriptonite article is at http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/05/13/ukip-brings-in-police-and-lawyers-to-censor-bloggers-its-on-farage-its-on/. Go and read it.