Opting in: a review of the final 2010 iq2 debate

Lisa McKay

This article was published in Living Ethics: issue 82 summer 2010

The so-called “populist and uninformed debate” raging in the media was tamed into a civilised, intelligent and entertaining debate on the topic: That Special Ethics Education should be allowed for children not attending scripture classes. Lisa McKay reports.

Of those polled before the debate, 86% (480) were for, 6% (35) undecided and 8% (44) were against the proposition. After the debate, 84% (690) were for, 3% (24) remained undecided and 13% (108) were against the provision of ethics as an option for children who don’t go to scripture.

First off the blocks for the affirmative was Lisa Forrest who dived into the debate, energetically citing evidence of the 125 schools that have, to date, voted to tell the NSW Education Minister that they support a policy change to allow ethics as an option for those opting out of Special Religious Education (SRE) at their schools. Lisa argued that in a secular society, in public schools, the rights of children to undertake SRE should not impinge on the rights of those who don’t. Watching videos and picking up rubbish is what many children do each week, while their classmates exercise their right to explore ethical issues within the framework of a particular faith.

Robert Haddad had a better plan. As the first speaker for the negative, he agreed that non-SRE children doing nothing educational was not desirable. Claiming to be in favour of the teaching of ethics and philosophy, he suggested this was already being covered in both primary and high school curricula (although this debate only addressed primary schools). Robert cited the independent review of the pilot conducted by Dr Sue Knight in support of his belief that the content of the ethics pilot was flawed, in that it was not true instruction in philosophical ethics but rather lessons in value classification without a moral basis. At the same time, he implied that the report was not independent because Dr Knight and Dr Cam have held state positions in the same national professional organisation.

He proposed numerous “meaningful” activities to solve the “twiddling thumbs problem” for the non-SRE students including knitting for charity, various social justice projects and community gardening. Schools could and should, he argued, implement these activities within the current DET policy.

The teaching of philosophy and ethics ought not be “special”, but rather for everyone; available “through the front door” and taught by “professionals” (ie. teachers) rather than “well meaning volunteers with two days’ training”. He proposed it be included within the newly created National Curriculum currently being written for K-12 students throughout Australia.

Referring to the sometimes “populist and uninformed debate” Stephen Crittenden, second speaker for the affirmative, corrected some of the misleading aspects informing the public debate surrounding the ethics trial. He pointed out that while times have changed in Australian society since the 1940s and ‘50s, SRE is protected by legislation and that there never was an intention to remove Jesus Christ from NSW government schools or from the consciousness of their students. Indeed Stephen expressed his surprise and disappointment that some faith groups had not embraced secular ethics as a means of ensuring the continuity of SRE itself and misconceived their role as having a right to provide faith instruction to students. In fact, the law clearly states that it is children who have the right to religious instruction and faith groups are given the opportunity to provide it. Stephen had no qualms about whether or not ethics was actively in competition with SRE, for without competition, we have complacency; it is the unexamined life that leads to moral relativism.

Retired Brigadier Jim Wallace thought the concept of teaching ethics was so good, it should be available to everyone. As the second speaker for the negative, he expressed concern however that ethics be implemented by professionals who could better negotiate the “ethical minefield” that even the architects of the ethics pilot had struggled with. How much more difficult would the task be for volunteers faced with classes of students, many of whose moral compasses would not, he opined, be pointing “true north”.

It was a prickly issue that even a porcupine analogy could not blunt. He took a semantic point about the use of the word “complementary”, stating that it was a nonsense to suggest that ethics could be complementary to SRE when the SRE students are not receiving it and neither are the one third of students who did not elect to do the ethics trial. Prompted by the words of our avowed atheist Prime Minister, he too worried how students without biblical instruction would be able to “find the keys to western culture”.

Finding false the claim that the current policy is discriminatory (in that SRE students are receiving ethical instruction and others not), he explained how faith groups aim to educate the whole person - intellectually, emotionally and spiritually.

Dr Simon Longstaff, the twice-baptised final speaker for the affirmative, began by reiterating support for SRE in schools and indeed his desire to see it flourish - but not at the expense of those children who opt out of SRE. Citing his offer to give the faith groups all the ethics course materials to use and adapt as they see fit, he countered the notion that SRE children would be missing out. Simon stressed that the ethics program was not a replacement, but intended as a complement to the ethical instruction that SRE children receive. Parents, he said, had come to St James Ethics Centre wanting the opportunity for ethical inquiry for their children, but without a religious framework.

Simon reminded the audience that SRE is a right conferred on children and not on churches. He called for an end to what Henry Parkes had seen as the “competition for souls” in the early beginnings of public education in NSW. He steered the debate back on course by reminding the audience that it is, and has always been, about the children.

Admitting to feeling a little “underdone” having only been baptised once, the Rev Dr Glenn Davies embarked on a semantic exploration of the way in which parents were “informed” of the Ethics trial but children were “invited” to attend. As the third speaker for the negative, the Reverend wondered about “special” ethics and whether or not “special maths” or “special geography” could be undertaken. He felt that the sample of students participating in the ethics trial would have skewed the results. Ethics as a complement to SRE is not, he claimed, the answer to the “problem” of non-SRE, as the children are denied the influence of others in their ethical deliberations.

Handing over the debate to members of the audience, it was perhaps the gentleman at the back of the hall whose comment took the cake. His skillfully concocted cheesecake/chocolate cake analogy highlighted the negative team’s desire for the SRE students to have their cake and eat the other’s too. Anyone for chocolate cheesecake?