A Vain and Dangerous Attempt to Mould a "Loyal" Generation

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Bill Rammell's speech at South Bank University:
A Vain and Dangerous Attempt to Mould a "Loyal" Generation

In a significant speech at South Bank University on May 15, Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell outlined plans for new classes in "British values".

The speech represented a serious statement of intent to further attack the right to conscience and to outlaw any values unless they abide by the norm of British chauvinism. It was particularly directed against Islam in the name of opposing extremism and terror.

Bill Rammell began by attempting to reignite hysteria around the July 7 bombings. He said, "Now what happened in London last July was in every sense fundamentally shocking. ... This was home-grown terrorism. So we needed urgently to understand what had happened. What were the forces that had influenced these four young men? What could Government do to guard against other British citizens going down this road?"

It has to be understood that nothing has ever been proved that these young men went down the road Bill Rammell asserts. Furthermore, the minister betrays his chauvinism in his shock at the "home-grown" aspect of his subject matter. He is not so much concerned to condemn terrorism as to ensure that the core of British "civilised" values is inculcated in the young. What has to be further understood here is that the government is arguing in the tradition of the British colonialist for whom other cultures than his own are backward and to be tolerated so long as they do not affirm their own identities and threaten the "superior" culture. This is the nature of Bill Rammell’s attempts to "understand" what happened. It is not to root out injustice and allow the different cultures in Britain to flourish without fear and in conditions of equality. The minister, to this end, very quickly presses into service the old Cold War argument about "extremism" in present-day guise.

Bill Rammell asserted, "Universities and colleges have always been places where young people are exposed to new influences; sometimes to ideas that they find culturally challenging. ... We know that young people of all faiths and indeed of none are more prone to become radicalised than other groups in society. This is true in terms of extreme Left and extreme Right politics, as well as extremist religious views."

This was an important part of the speech. Taking up Tony Blair’s argument of August last year in which the Prime Minister not only articulated the view that "the rules of the game are changing" but sketched an identity between Islamic fundamentalism and revolutionary communism in their attraction to the youth, Bill Rammell now brings "extremist religious views" into the equation. Views, extremist or otherwise, are not the issue. The minister deliberately mixes up the equal right of all to participate fully in the polity with assimilation of cultures, values and ideologies into prevailing culture which serves the status quo. This is the point of singling out the Muslim population as a target for "integration into the mainstream of contemporary British society".

For Mr Rammell, the issue is "loyalty". It is the loyalty of the slave to his master, of the subject to the monarch, not fidelity to a just cause or to principle or to working for social well-being: "A recent opinion poll showed the vast majority [of Muslims] do feel loyal to this country." According to the argument, "really this is a question about how modern society should cope with extremism in all its forms". In other words, this is medievalism in content, while declaring it to be about "modern society" combating the forms of extremism.

And so the speech developed its theme of making Britain more united around an official set of "values", and the role of education in this. Most suspiciously, any opposition, as well as being labelled "extreme" is considered disloyal or un-British, carrying connotations of treason. This is the declaration that there must be an official ideology, not to uphold the national interest but to emphasise the loyalty to all the attributes of what is most backward about Britain, but which is supposed to be mainstream – for example, parliamentary democracy which involves the Prime Minister invoking divine authority to govern against the public will, and so on.

In this vein, "there is the continuing need ... for educational institutions to play their part in tackling the threat of terror."

The minister was "therefore pleased to announce a review, led by Keith Ajegbo, of how the National Curriculum is covering diversity issues to meet the needs of all pupils. It will also look at how we can incorporate modern British cultural and social history into the citizenship curriculum within our secondary schools."

The content of courses at all levels is to be reviewed in this context. "We all surely want to see religiously-oriented courses that are not restricted to narrow interpretations of belief that fuel extremism. We need to look at the content of other courses in the arts and humanities. We need to look at the nature of the spiritual advice that young students have access too, and how this can be improved."

The government would like to develop a sense of "national unity" to try and halt all who are seeking alternatives, around an official set of values marked by anti-communism and racism in "British" colours. Its plan for the youth is use the education system to indoctrinate them into these values.

As far as lessons in "British values" are concerned, the determining factor is young people themselves, who will undoubtedly turn the whole programme around into its opposite, as they are already doing with citizenship lessons, questioning the nature of these official notions and creating spaces to discuss the alternative.