CHIPS, scales and an equitable society

In a letter to MPs recently about the British values agenda, Nicky Morgan, Secretary of State for Education,  wrote that although the agenda itself was nothing new, the inclusion of the Equality Act 2010 marked ‘a dramatic change in education policy’. Without any effective consultation, there ensued the pursuit of what one MP has described as ‘a kind of state imposed orthodoxy on certain moral and religious questions’. The issue that Ofsted chose to pursue in its no notice inspections was that of homophobic, biphobic and transgender bullying.

The state imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, indeed. The vast majority of bullying in school has to do with appearance (clothes, weight, wearing glasses, having red hair), physical or academic ability, cyberbullying or disability. 82% of learning disabled children have experienced bullying and if you want to know how vile it can be, watch the story of Lizzie Velasquez. Yet only one of the Equality Act’s protected characteristics has been targeted. The CHIPS programme (which aims to be a homophobic bullying programme) is gaining traction in UK schools in spite of parental protest, yet there is no comparable programme to counter all other forms of bullying. Why not? About 1.5% of the adult population is LGBT but 16% is disabled, 59% is Christian and 8% adheres to a non-Christian faith.

In 1974, Dorothy Riddle, an American-Canadian psychologist, feminist and economic development specialist, devised the eight-level ‘Riddle Homophobia Scale’. It aims to ‘explicate the continuum of attitudes toward gays and lesbians and to assess the current and desired institutional culture of an organization or a work place’. This is the Riddle Scale:-

1. Repulsion: Homosexuality is seen as a crime against nature. Gays/lesbians are considered sick, crazy, immoral, sinful, wicked, etc. Anything is justified to change them: incarceration, hospitalization, behavior therapy, electroshock therapy, etc.

2. Pity: Represents heterosexual chauvinism. Heterosexuality is considered more mature and certainly to be preferred. It is believed that any possibility of becoming straight should be reinforced, and those who seem to be born that way should be pitied as less fortunate (“the poor dears”).

3. Tolerance: Homosexuality is viewed as a phase of adolescent development that many people go through and most people grow out of. Thus, lesbians/gays are less mature than straights and should be treated with the protectiveness and indulgence one uses with children who are still maturing. It is believed that lesbians/gays should not be given positions of authority because they are still working through their adolescent behavior.

4. Acceptance: Still implies that there is something to accept; the existing climate of discrimination is ignored. Characterized by such statements as “You’re not lesbian to me, you’re a person!” or “What you do in bed is your own business” or “That’s fine with me as long as you don’t flaunt it!”

5. Support: People at this level may be uncomfortable themselves, but they are aware of the homophobic climate and the irrational unfairness, and work to safeguard the rights of lesbians and gays.

6. Admiration: It is acknowledged that being lesbian/gay in our society takes strength. People at this level are willing to truly examine their homophobic attitudes, values, and behaviours.

7. Appreciation: The diversity of people is considered valuable and lesbians/gays are seen as a valid part of that diversity. People on this level are willing to combat homophobia in themselves and others.

8. Nurturance: Assumes that gay/lesbian people are indispensable in our society. People on this level view lesbians/gays with genuine affection and delight, and are willing to be their allies and advocates.

It is generally accepted that you are homophobic if you fit into the 1-4 section. What, I wondered, would be the reaction if there was a similar test for another protected characteristic – people of Christian faith, maybe, although any faith group would fit. It would read like this:

1. Repulsion: Faith is seen as a crime against reason. Christians are considered to be homophobic, indoctrinators, determined to proselytise, etc. Anything is justified to attack their beliefs, including ridicule, mocking and social isolation.

2. Pity: Represents secular chauvinism. Liberal secularism is considered more mature and certainly to be preferred. It is believed that any possibility of enforcing secular neutrality should be reinforced, and those who choose faith should be pitied as brainwashed.

3. Tolerance: Religious faith is viewed as a phase of adolescent development that many people go through and most people grow out of. In some cases, it should be allowed as an opiate for the people. It is believed that Christians should not be given positions of authority because they are likely to abuse their position by indoctrinating colleagues.

4. Acceptance: Still implies that there is something to accept; the existing climate of discrimination is ignored. Characterised by such statements as ‘You’re not a Christian, you’re a person!’ or ‘What you do in church is your own business’ or ‘That’s fine with me as long as you don’t flaunt it!’

5. Support: People at this level may be uncomfortable themselves, but they are aware of the anti-religious climate and the irrational unfairness, and work to safeguard the rights of people of faith.

6. Admiration: It is acknowledged that being a Christian in our society takes strength. People at this level are willing to truly examine their attitudes, values, and behaviours.

7. Appreciation: The diversity of people is considered valuable and Christians are seen as a valid part of that diversity. People on this level are willing to combat anti-religious bias in themselves and others.

8. Nurturance: Assumes that Christians are indispensable in our society. People on this level view people of faith with genuine affection and delight, and are willing to be their allies and advocates.

But promoting any one group in this way cannot be the route to a fair, balanced and equitable society, where we can accommodate each others’ beliefs and opinions whilst living in peace. Where Ofsted has gone wrong is in enforcing active promotion of other faiths and beliefs. What we should be actively promoting is respect for people of other faiths and beliefs.  In that case, the scale, which I am calling the Humanity Measure for a Decent Society, reads like this:

1. Repulsion: Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Anyone different from me must be considered sick, crazy , wicked, etc. Any amount of bullying, lobbying and shouting is justified to change them to my way of thinking. If unsuccessful, erect barriers.

2. Pity: Represents chauvinism. My point of view is considered more mature and certainly to be preferred by any reasonable person. It is believed that any possibility of being like me should be reinforced, including diverting education to fit my single ideology.

3. Tolerance: Views that differ from mine are clearly just a phase of adolescent development that many people go through and most people grow out of. Any one doesn’t align with my political/moral ideology should be treated with the protectiveness and indulgence one uses with children who are still maturing. They should not be given positions of authority until they are willing to conform, because they are still working through their adolescent behaviour.

4. Acceptance: Still implies that there is something to accept; the existing climate of discrimination is ignored. Characterised by such statements as ‘You’re a person! ‘ (‘who disagrees with me’ remains unspoken ) or ‘What you choose to believe in private is your own business’ or ‘That’s fine with me as long as you don’t invade the neutral space!’

5. Support: People at this level may be themselves uncomfortable with the views and beliefs of others, but they are aware of the ideological climate and the irrational unfairness, and work to safeguard the rights of all people in society equally, despite their personal discomfort.

6. Admiration: It is acknowledged that being different in our society takes strength. People at this level are willing to truly examine their attitudes, values, and behaviours to try and build bridges to people who are very different from themselves.

7. Appreciation: The diversity of people is considered valuable and everyone is seen as an equally valid part of that diversity. People on this level are willing to combat prejudice in themselves and others, whoever it is against.

8. Nurturance: Assumes that all people should be respected and treated equally as individuals, because they are indispensable in our society. People on this level view humanity with genuine affection and delight, and are willing to be the allies and advocates of all for the common good.

So, Ofsted, stop the politicisation. Assume that point 8 is the benchmark for which all schools should be aiming. Society needs to be made up of people who want the good of all, where the equal value of every person is recognised, where we work for the opportunity for each person to flourish and, above all, where we recognise that inter-relatedness is an essential part of our humanity regardless of what we believe or think.