Abuse and Intimidation of Anti-Abrortion Protestors at #notavessel Demonstration, Galway, 20 August 2014

I attended a counter-protest in Galway yesterday evening, as Galway Pro-Choice and NUIG Choice Society held a demonstration calling for the 8^th Amendment to be appealed.  As an alumnus of NUIG Life Society I felt it my duty to be there, to show the general public that not all NUIG students and alumni wished to have the right to kill the most vulnerable in society – the unborn child. Our protest was quiet, yet strong. We didn’t shout or chant, we didn’t physically or verbally abuse anyone, we didn’t break the law in any way; we simply presented our side of the debate, civilly and peacefully.  As they stood on Eyre Square, and clapped and cheered, we stood too – quietly and unobtrusively. As they marched down Shop Street, we marched too – steadily and unashamedly. After all, who would be ashamed of standing up for the most precious right of all – the right to life?

Sadly to say, the pro-abortion marchers found it very difficult to bear our presence. One of them raced up to a girl holding high a poster saying ‘Love them both’ and ripping it from her hands, torn it up – as her fellow marchers applauded and cheered. A Choice cyclist repeatedly obstructed us, driving into our banner, and showering us with vile obscenities; our banner was continually assailed by individuals attempting to destroy it. Others physically rammed into us, trying to push us off the street and out of their way. They chanted ‘Pro-Life People, Go Away!’ and at times, we felt seriously intimidated.

This debate is one clearly where rationale and respect is clearly needed. Any debate hears equally both sides. Added to this, the situation at the moment involves a baby struggling to live, and an at-risk young woman. Above any time, sensitivity, clear-thinking and a strict adherence to our fundamental, inalienable rights is vital. My experience yesterday showed me a mob of jeering pro-abortion protestors who disregarded freedom of opinion, and simply wanted us, with our small quite protest, off the streets. Let’s not be fooled by subjective, emotional rhetoric; let’s not be fooled by their professed deep care for a migrant woman. Yesterday they shouted obscenities at us, ripped our posters, and threatened physical abuse – remember that actions speak much louder than words.

Why a YES to Neutrality, No to BDS vote is a Vote for Decency and Fairness and a Vote Against Bullying and Intimidation

The Canvassing Tactics of Fem Soc, Choice Society and the Palestinian Solidarity Society in NUI Galway

Universities throughout history have been centres of independent thought, promoting the free movement of opinions and beliefs. They have championed those sacred elements necessary to the procuring of a truly broad, liberal education – tolerance, inclusion and free speech. The vivid melting pot of ideas, attitudes, and opinions that once characterised university campuses have inspired students throughout the centuries to stand up, speak out, debate, discuss and take action - from the University of Paris strike in 1229, to the Iranian student protests for the right to freedom of speech that took place in July 1999. Today, more than ever before, we urgently need a generation brave enough to speak their minds, encouraged enough to express their opinions, man enough to stand tall and say, ‘This is what I believe’.  More than ever before, we badly need to foster an environment of openness, broad-mindedness and tolerance of all opinions on our university campus. The most important aspect of university ought to be its protection of those vital academic freedoms – freedom of opinion and freedom of speech.

Intimidation on NUIG

In a democracy, referenda will have groups campaigning for and against the proposed legislation. On the NUIG campus, those campaigning for a NO to Neutrality and a Yes to BDS vote are the people behind the names FemSoc, Palestinian Solidarity Society and NUIG Choice Society.  They disagree with certain viewpoints in Irish society – and that’s perfectly fine. They hold certain beliefs – and that’s perfectly fine. They have a table at Smokey’s and give out leaflets and stick up posters – and that’s perfectly fine. Unfortunately however their campaign does not stop there. A recent YouTube video produced by the Yes to Neutrality campaigners showed their Yes posters being pulled out of garbage bins around campus and posters covered and ripped on poster boards. Students have remarked that they use obscenities and inappropriate language while ‘canvassing’. There have also been reports of ‘thuggery’, bully-boy tactics, defamation and slander.

(Watch Video here)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwAJyG63wDg

Personal Experience

My personal experience of the people behind Fem Soc, Palestinian Solidarity Society and Choice Society goes back a long way. I thrived in university, because I found it a place where I could learn, expand my horizons and educate myself on the issues that fascinated me, namely social justice, education, history and languages.  I was involved in student politics (SU Council, Class Rep, journalist, etc) and volunteering and was often involved in counteracting injustices that exist on campus. As an Education postgrad, for example, I was involved in issues surrounding the quality of the degree being delivered to my class and I fought a hard battle regarding this.

 My reputation as ‘a person with an opinion’ grew and I was approached by Joseph Loughnane about joining the fight against the rising education fees. We agreed that this was hopefully something we could work on together and indeed, I attended some of his FEE meetings for a number of months. We disagreed on other issues however (which were completely unrelated to university fees and education)  and when I steadfastly refused to capitulate, he told me, in no uncertain terms,  that I would no longer be welcome at these meetings – which incidentally were advertised to the public. A short time later, as I left a lecture, I was addressed by one of Loughnane’s friends, Ben O’Ceallaigh, whom I had never met before. For about 15 minutes he shouted at me, cursing profusely and threatening me in a very intimidating way – for simply holding an opinion that differed to his. When I attempted to debate reasonably with him, his frightful rant only worsened. I was physically shaking after the encounter and felt insecure and even in danger on the campus of NUIG. To be honest, in all my time involved in public campaigns, I had never ever had an experience like this. Others in the group stopped speaking to me, and I was treated like an outcast, a pariah, a worthless person.

Time to Stop Bullying 

This group seem to have a serious issue with anyone holding and expressing an opinion that differs to their own; their opposition extends far beyond the lawful methods of canvassing and debate. Ripping down posters, verbally abusing people with a different opinion, blackmail and defamation are only some of their tactics, and some of them, including Loughnane,  have been in trouble with the police. It really is time they were stopped in their tracks and firmly shown - in a democratic, lawful way -  that these tactics are not acceptable. I have had experience with these guys – I know what they are like. They do not have your best interests at heart. Yes, they like to use emotional language and sob stories to promote their opinions, but, believe me, they themselves are guilty of the crimes they profess to be against. As an NUIG alumnus and an educator,  I ask the students of NUI Galway to put a stop to bullying and intimidation on campus. Stand up for Free Speech. Stand up for Respect. Stand up for Fairness.

Vote Yes to Neutrality.

Vote No to BDS.

The NUIG students of the future will thank you.

What Homophobic Really Means

RTE and the IONA Institute 

The recent social media furor over RTE's apology for calling John Waters and Breda O' Brien 'homophobic' centered essentially around one word. One of the more bizarre statements I read while browsing the #IONA twitter stream was that 'homophobic is a word with a developing meaning’. A quick Google check of the 3 most dependable dictionaries in the world reveals a common definition of the word ‘homophobic’:

The Oxford dictionary defines it as ‘an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people’, the Collins dictionary defines it as ‘a strong and unreasonable dislike of homosexual people’ and the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines homophobic as ‘irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals’. There was no noticeable difference between the definitions, neither was there anything to indicate that the definition was in a state of continual change.

Each definition describes an attitude which is unreasonable and has no basis in reality or fact. Homophobia is one of thousands of phobias, all of which are described as irrational. Phobias are indefensible attitudes, cannot sensibly stand up for themselves, own no logical or credible arguments and are unpredictable. In fact a phobia is termed by some mental health experts as a psychiatric condition, requiring medical attention. The Philadelphia Mental Health Clinic says that for a person with a phobia, ‘exposure to the object or situation causes an immediate anxiety response or a panic attack’. These responses can range from screaming, washing hands and clothes after contact, heart palpitations, sweaty palms, adrenaline rush and extreme fear to feelings of impending doom and the avoiding of public or unfamiliar places. Treatment of phobias has many forms including cognitive behavior therapy and the learning of basic techniques such as muscle relaxation, deep breathing and refocusing skills.

The Daily Mail recently carried the story of a woman, Diane Freelove, who has Chloephobia, a phobia of newspapers. She must wash her hands after touching one, and says that if she sees a newspaper flash up on the TV screen , 'I must physically turn away'. If she has to buy a newspaper for some else, she uses gloves and a plastic bag to pick it up. Her phobia is extreme and inexplainable, yet it is a genuine problem for her. More common phobias include agoraphobia- fear of being in a place without being able to leave, claustrophobia - fear of being closed in and acrophobia - fear of flying.

Homophobia is, accordingly, an irrational fear of homosexual behavior and people who practice homosexuality. One would imagine that people with this condition have panic attacks and scream when they see or hear anything related to homosexuality, wash their hands and clothes after contact with homosexuals and generally avoid public places for fear they might meet a 'gay' person. All of the above would be irrational and unreasonable responses. John Waters and Breda O' Brien were called 'homophobic' recently on the Saturday Night Show; however I have yet to see John Waters experience a panic attack or Breda O'Brien start screaming loudly when faced with anything relating to homosexuality. Rather their responses to a lifestyle they disagree with have been measured, civilized, calm and always well-supported – in other words, reasonable and rational. Thence the obvious necessity for an apology from RTE. Also there is no doubt that any legal proceedings taken by Waters or O'Brien would most likely be overwhelmingly successful.

Moreover, it is ridiculous to term 'homophobic' as a word with a 'developing' meaning. It is the sign of a dishonest and unprincipled lobby group to begin restructuring and redefining when it is convenient for themselves. To call someone 'homophobic' is a serious declaration and one with extremely defamatory undertones. In the upcoming Same-Sex Marriage debate it would be nice to think that a educated and mature contribution can be made by the opposing side without that side being labelled irrational and unreasonable - simply because they hold a viewpoint that mainstream media disagrees with. If such a debate is rendered impossible due to bigoted name-calling, it will be a grievous slur on the professed democratic nature of our country. 

Soroptimist Public Speaking Competition:If you are neutral in situations of injustice you have chosen the side of the oppressor’

 This speech was one competitor's entry from my school for the Soroptimist Ireland Public Speaking Competition

(Student Speech, November 2013)

Introduction

Life isn't fair. Financial problems plague some people. Others suffer continual ill health. Some people struggle with personality problems and others have family issues. These are tough problems. They’re part of our everyday lives – and we have learnt in many cases how to make these difficulties tolerable. But for some people life really and truly is not fair. These are the people who are forced to leave livelihoods, homes and families and flee to the unknown in search of safety. They are the broken individuals who dread the light of each new day. They are the victims of situations of injustice, of bullies, of dictators, of tyrants, of cruel oppressors, of dark, fearsome powers. Some of them live far away in other countries. Some of them live next door, attend my school, and walk the streets of my town. If we choose to remain impartial in these situations of injustice, then we are supporting that dark power. If we are neutral in situations of injustice, then we have chosen the side of the oppressor.

What is a situation of injustice?

A situation of injustice is when a victim is persecuted for no reason. The victim has done nothing wrong, yet a stronger power rules over them. Justice is not appropriately served, and the situation becomes tyrannical and often bleak. Powerless and unable to speak, the victim suffers silently, wishing, hoping, and longing for help, for someone to reach out and say, ‘I care about you’. Too often however the watching world remains neutral. It decides to take no side, to travel that broad middle road of indifference; in World War 2 Ireland remained neutral and did not side with the Allies nor Germany. As a result, Ireland experienced no mass destruction and very little damage to infrastructure. Choosing to be neutral meant that Ireland remained safe and relatively untouched.  And so for us, neutrality means we can be safe, secure and comfortable. The danger won’t touch me. The tyrant won’t target me. The problem isn't mine.

Being Neutral

Being neutral is the easy option. But often taking the easy route is morally wrong.  Let us take two situations as examples. As we speak, horrors are occurring in Syria.

 4 million people there desperately need assistance - food, water, medical aid, warm clothes, a place to live. As we live each day safe and warm in our country, women and children in a place far away are fleeing, starving and afraid. These women are abused, injured, forced to live on the run with no home and no privacy. They are being targeted by snipers along with their children, and the reports are simply atrocious. No matter what the political background to the conflict, no matter how complicated it is, we must not forget that these people are human beings just like you and me. We must not stand back while they are stripped of their human rights. We must not ignore this problem and hope big countries like Great Britain and America will deal with it.  We must not look the other way and say, ‘This isn't my problem’.

But not all situations of injustice are far away. Let’s come a little closer to home. All of us know what bullying is. And sadly to say, we witness it almost every day, be it on the school corridor, the workplace or the internet.  We see hidden punches and ashen faces – we hear degrading slurs and untrue rumours – we read vile accusations and unkind jokes on Facebook and Twitter. So often we know it’s wrong. But being neutral is so easy. Sometimes we are simply afraid that we’ll be bullied too.  Love of a comfortable life silences us.

The Peril of Indifference

Allow me to take you back 60 years to a time when one racist, tyrannical dictator ruled Germany – Adolf Hitler. He persecuted Jews, black people and the disabled and was responsible for the slaughter of 6 million innocent people.  However fellow leaders failed to halt his cruelty and throughout the 1930s the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain followed the policy of appeasement.  This meant that the Allied nations would not oppose Hitler in order to prevent a war.  Instead they tried to make him happy by conceding some powers to him – anything to avoid war breaking out. However their policy only postponed one of the cruelest wars ever fought. Hitler’s time in power caused widespread death and destruction, and it left Europe broken and in ruins. One of Hitler’s victims was a Jew called Elie Wiesel. He survived but his family and friends did not. After the war he rebuilt his life and became a famous journalist and writer, always seeking to remember the past so the future would not repeat its mistakes. At the White House in 1999 he spoke these words concerning individual neutrality – he called it indifference:  

‘Indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own’.

And so history repeats itself in Syria as once again thousands of vulnerable women and children find themselves facing tyranny and death since 2011 – what are we doing about it?  We can prevent the loss of lives by taking action. We can raise money, we can donate clothes and time, we can encourage our government to liaise with other countries and make some difference in Syria.

 And history repeats itself again and again in the life of each tortured, bullied individual who sees no way out of oppression but death – what are we doing about it? We can report the bully, we can befriend a lonely person, we can call out and say ‘That’s wrong!’ We can take risks, or we can take the easy option and just stand and watch a person being bullied, maybe to death. What if the victim was you? One friend, one kind action, one sentence can make a world of difference.

By remaining neutral, we become oppressors too, because we refuse to oppose evil and injustice – and in the process we betray our own humanity. By saying ‘I care’ and by offering a hand to the victim, we fight oppression and change situations of injustice. Let us pledge today to choose the side of justice and to actively make a difference in the world.

Thank-you. 

Discipline - A Teacher's Greatest Struggle

As teachers our greatest struggle on an everyday basis is discipline. Schools in my area are rated on how well the discipline is and whether the school management is truly in control or not. This information is garnered from experience; no official surveys are carried out, yet the local people can name out confidently the ‘decent’ schools. Everyone knows them.

The school where I work is currently in the league of decent schools. Its current status is mainly the result of conscientious dedicated work on the part of the principal. The attitude of a principal really dictates the teaching and learning environment of a school. Technology has been used to document and support positive student behaviour, discipline methods are consistent throughout the school, as are rewards and punishments, and we boast a relatively respectful school community.

However the battle to create and maintain an environment where students learn and develop to the best of their potential is a constant one. No school will ever be perfect. Indeed the evolving nature of modern society indicates that discipline in even Irish rural schools will continue to be an ever increasing problem. The diminishing of family, particularly paternal, authority, due to the trend of family breakdown has led to a generation of pupils who have no clear knowledge of what respect is, few boundaries in their own lives, and in most cases little idea of what the word obedience is.

Added to this growing distaste for authority is the problem of Ireland’s recent painful history regarding Catholic schools. A fellow teacher recently regaled the staffroom with stories of Brother Michael, a teacher of his, who delighted in using a heavy wooden set-square to slam down on the trembling fingers of teenage miscreants.  Today everyone has a Brother Michael story, and some have even made a lot of money through relating their experiences. What is vitally important of course is that today our schools will not give whiff of old-school methods. No teacher wants to be another Brother Michael.

We all know that some people were terribly abused and indeed their testimonies serve to remind us how inhuman human beings can become. We regret such experiences had to be endured and that there were teachers who were so obviously unfit for their positions allowed to go on scarring young lives. However we rarely hear about the successes during this period of Irish history; they exist. These are the students who were not abused, but who were the recipients of the accepted system of discipline. They thrived in a school environment of respect, encouragement and opportunity. These are our parents and grandparents, writers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, academics, civil servants, practical workers, artisans, builders – people who had principles of good manners, honesty, critical thinking, and delight in learning instilled into the them by gifted teachers who knew how to wield authority and also how to truly inspire. Amidst all the sad stories, it’s so easy to forget the successful majority.

In considering this situation, it is interesting to examine what has happened in Germany over the last 70 years. Germany during the 1960s experienced an education revolution. The children of World War II were now students and young adults and, inspired by the anti-authoritarian ideology of the 60s, wanted to rid their schools and universities of the dictatorial, dogmatic methods of education which they believed had created the monster of Nazism. The reason for Germany’s adulation of Hitler stemmed from Germany’s culture of strict obedience and order. Ushering in a new era of education, they abolished school uniforms, rewrote school rules, created a relationship of equality between pupil and teacher, changed classroom structure, and abolished the authority of both teacher and parents. It was an attempt to create an ideal, equal, learning environment.  ‘Let the pupils grow, let them discover knowledge for themselves,’ was their mantra. A few decades later, teachers were in despair; Dr. Bernhard Bueb wrote in 2007, ‘…all over the country, adults just got tired. Kids got used to arguing about everything. They had to discuss why they should have to empty the garbage or help in the kitchen...  the result is teachers can’t cope any longer’. Doris Schroeder-Kopf, wife of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, also drew attention to the difficulties that post-war liberalism had caused in schools: ‘Things have to change. We must bring our children up better and teach them good values...a sense of duty, diligence, honesty, helpfulness, reliability, decency and good manners.’ Here in Ireland we are in danger of following the same disastrous path in our attempt to prove how liberated we are from the ‘oppression’ of the past.

As teachers today much of our energy is sapped by trying to keep our classes quiet, by remonstrating with the insolent kids who have no interest in learning, by threatening those who continue to disturb the learning environment with their behaviour, by worrying over the kids who aren’t afraid of detention, suspension or expulsion. The good kids often get ignored by virtue of their accommodating behaviour. Often we don’t even know their names. Academic success is being pushed to the side as it seems all that matters is the level of noise in the classroom.

For some classes in my school, we have a new definition for the word ‘teacher’. You no longer ‘impart knowledge, you simply ‘practice crowd control’. And I begin to wonder if there’s anything positive at all we could learn from the schools of fifty years ago. 

Everyday Nightmare

Bullied Kids Need Heroes

He has only come to one day of school so far, and we are almost at the end of the first month of the year. Phone calls to the boy's home are answered by a frazzled mother who says weakly that her son does not want to go to school and refuses to leave the house in the mornings. Paddy is an only child, he is overweight, does not enjoy sports, wears glasses and has only recently moved to the area. Attending a new school is a frightening prospect; but even worse is when it is a secondary school where you know absolutely no-one. Paddy has not got the desire nor the will-power to make his first week in school a part of history. Bullied in primary school, he can only imagine that secondary school will be ten times worse.

Today I learnt of another child, another boy. His mother is distraught. She has already kept him back a year. He simply refuses to go into first year: 'This morning, he came into the kitchen, hand on throat. Still in his pyjamas at ten to nine. 'I think I have a bit of a sore throat..' I just hadn't the heart to force him.' This boy was also bullied severely in primary school, being unfortunate enough not to fit in to any clique in the classroom or the year. His mum is not only upset however – she is angry. 'I'm sick and tired of teachers just not 'seeing it'', she fumes. 'My boy comes home, pale-faced, silent, never anything exciting to tell me about his day. 'We monitor the corridors continually' his teachers say. But he is bullied. It's the little things – he was picked for the school team last year, but every match, when he was out on the pitch, never once was that ball passed to him. And he never is asked to a friend's house at the weekend. He has no friends.' She stops, broken-hearted. It hurts so much when it is your own child and there seems to be nothing you can do to help.

These are only two example that I have heard of in recent days. It would be ridiculous to think that these are isolated instances, unique only to one part of the country, There are children all over Ireland struggling with every new morning, every new possibility of their worst nightmare coming true.

What can we do? The mother's criticism of teachers is unfortunately true in many cases. Wrapped up in our own lives, we often refuse to see the blunt reality staring at us on the corridors and in our classrooms. We know the lonely children, wandering aimlessly up and down the corridors at break-times, we do hear the veiled comments and the faint sniggers of laughter and most of the time, sadly to say, we refuse to recognize and refuse to act. Somewhere along the way the teaching profession has lost its heart and a vocation has become simply an occupation. Staffroom conventionalities have made the best of us afraid to speak out; pride often makes the most alert of us unable to reach out and change an hour, a day, a life.

And so parents need to rise up and force change. Firstly be attuned to your child's feelings and then refuse to send your child into a situation where they feel unloved, unwanted, rejected. Your duty is to make sure your child feels special and needed. Speak out about the bullying, let the world know that you will not accept the abuse of man by fellow man. Ignore the bemused glances, the whispered words, the blank responses. If necessary take your child out of school and educate him/her yourself. Complaints from parents do have an effect in the staffroom and on school management, especially if we know that the parent really does mean business.  As teachers, we badly need more parents and guardians to let us know what is happening to their child in school and how they feel about it. This is the only way that much-needed change will occur.

I heard the end of the story too. The broken-hearted mother spoke of her sister's son, now 29, living in Cork. He lives alone in a small room and has no friends. He was bullied in school just like her boy. He no longer lives, he just exists.

Every bullied child who experiences their worst nightmare coming true every day needs a special hero. Be your child's outspoken, vocal, active, determined...special hero.

Why Junior Cert History Ought to be Compulsory

The Folly of Making History Optional

Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn, recently challenged historians to show the country why their subject mattered. He proposes to make history an optional subject at Junior Cert level.

As a young historian and as a secondary school teacher, I would like to briefly respond to Mr, Quinn’s challenge. I am firmly against this move, as are all history teachers in Ireland. I believe that the removal of history as a compulsory subject can only have a detrimental effect on the study of history in general. History is important on one level as a practical subject: it teaches one how to research, how to evaluate sources and viewpoints and how to argue. More importantly it teaches us who we are and where we have come from - it links us with the past and brings a sense of order and continuity to our existence. 

Mr. Quinn tells us that making history is simply a logistical decision - one part of a long overdue revamp of the junior cycle. Questioning the position of history however is far more than simply to do with timetabling and finances. Rather it has to do with power, underpinning political belief and ultimately an attempt to create a different Ireland. 

We all know how important our history is to our identity. As a small and relatively new nation, Ireland is still establishing itself as a young democracy and at this time of change and upheaval in Europe, it is important to realize that our strength lies in maintaining our Irish uniqueness and individuality. In order to fully understand why we are unique, it is crucial that we as a nation, and as individual citizens, have an adequate knowledge of our history. The old proverb says, You don’t know where you’re going unless you know where you've been’ - if we want to remain respected as a credible state among the nations of the world, which as a clear idea of how it wishes to develop in the future, the we must have a firm grasp on where we have come from and how we have got to where we are.

In England, history is optional at GCSE level. Statistics show that in 2011 only 30% of students in state schools studied the subject. The result has been a shocking fall in the quality of historical knowledge among British teenagers, with a recent survey revealing that many did not know which countries had taken part in World War II. Historian Eric Hobsbawn wrote that when history is not taught, young people ‘grow up in a permanent present, lacking any organic relation to the public past of the times they live in’. This results in a disinterest in sustaining community, and little awareness of one’s own responsibility as a public citizen. Healthy interest in politics and public development will fall and the domination of certain, inadequate world views becomes probable. Debate dies away because national knowledge is no longer deemed important.

Mr.Quinn’s proposals are therefore worrying. When one downgrades history and other ‘knowledge’ subjects, and places heavy emphasis on practical aspects of the curriculum such as literacy and numeracy, there is a real danger that upcoming generations will lack ‘higher order’ skills such as analysis, critical thought and creativity. They will be able to perform simple maths; they will be able to write; they will be able to read; they will be able to follow instructions; but if they have not been allowed to experience and become acquainted with the lives of those who came before them, the development of society, the power of propaganda, the signs and effects of dictatorship and tyranny, the causes of war, the changes in religion, the Reformation movement, the potential of revolutions and rebellions, the acquisition of power, the importance of knowledge, they will have no precedent to refer to, no sense of societal continuity, and indeed no knowledge of the mistakes and successes of the past to aid them in their evaluation of the present. Life can then become very simple. Society can become very orderly. A population with no troublesome criticisms based on historical knowledge can become a useful ‘human resource’. People can content themselves with a regular wage, food on the table and access to leisure pursuits. Without a knowledge of the past, there is little impetus to change, criticize, suggest better ways, demand a better life or to engage in critical thought. 

Finally, Mr. Quinn encourages us, as history teachers, to lure students rather than coerce them. While this is an admirable sentiment, and indeed it would be hugely desirable that students choose to study history of their own accord, it must be pointed out that it is 12 and 13 year olds in question here. It is out of character for this age group to want to study most subjects that are important, including Maths and English. Let us be careful of treating children like 3rd level students. It is our duty as teachers to choose the subjects for our pupils that will enable them to develop into fully-formed , capable, well-educated citizens who are an asset to the country. Many national leaders were one-time students of history and it must be remembered that Winston Churchill declared that it was through the study of history that ‘statecraft’ would be learned.

The study of history is vitally important for the future of Ireland. The recent decision by Mr. Quinn to make it simply optional is to be regretted. The parents and teachers of this country owe it to our nation to demand that history be maintained as a compulsory subject in our schools, and to ensure that our talented children be given the opportunity to know who they are and where they have come from. 

AislingNB
https://twitter.com/AislingNb