Since when has it become such a terrible thing to offer an opinion?

Much of the criticism of Wayne Sawyer's editorial rests on a very selective interpretation of its central message. As I understand it, the primary purpose of the editorial is an argument about the importance of critical literacy in the English curriculum, and a reflection on the fact that the last Federal election was fought around many issues in which language was used to manipulate the opinions of the electorate - for example, describing 'asylum seekers' as 'illegal immigrants' or 'queue jumpers' presents a qualitatively different view of a group of people which enables political parties to exploit the nuances of language for their own personal gain.

Accusing English teachers of political brainwashing is something of a contradiction in terms. There is a world of difference between teaching students how to think and teaching students what to think. Professor Sawyer's editorial is concerned with the need for the former to occur in our classrooms. As a future English teacher, I am saddened and disappointed by the way in which the media has managed to offer its own opinions on A/Prof Sawyer's editorial without considering the nature and value of his argument. I suspect that the media's response to Sawyer's editorial is emblematic of profound lack of critical literacy skills on their behalf!

The criticisms hurled at Wayne Sawyer’s article in the past few weeks have focussed on the fact that he declares his political position upfront and with passion. What these criticisms fail to recognise is that his article is an editorial in a professional journal. As such, the writer has every right to express his opinion; indeed, that is the function of an editorial. And by stating his position, he does readers the courtesy of allowing us to place ourselves vis a vis that position in his argument. There is nothing covert here.

His opinion is NOT that we should indoctrinate our students with liberal leftist ideas, but rather that we need to examine the development of the critical literacy of our students. The profession needs to consider its effectiveness given the fact that the electorate chose to ignore the lies that were promoted by the current government (and these he cites specifically) in favour of a perceived economic benefit. The study of English has always had the mission of the development of social and ethical values. And Sawyer’s point is that there is no virtue in being critical, if that is divorced from humanity and the social good.

But aside from the subtleties of argument, the clearest evidence that Wayne Sawyer does not support any form of indoctrination despite his strongly held political views is that the article does not finish in a strong statement of his policy, but rather with a series of questions. These are flung to the profession for its consideration, such questions as
* “Has English failed not only to create critical generations, but also failed to create humane ones?
* Does a critical literacy need to become more direct and deliberate in its ethics and its critical stance?
* Does it mean having to have a deliberate and conscious ethical and critical agenda?
* Will we see a day when the potential values enacted through the study of English are made manifest?”

These questions are intended to open discussion within the profession, to further examine what teachers do to encourage a critical and moral citizenry, not peddle a party line.

Dear Kate and Eva,

Very difficult for people to rebut the points you make in defence of Sawyer; the AATE has removed the offending editorial.

Really Kevin? Are you sure the arguments made by Eva and Kate aren't just difficult to refute because they are completely sensible and valid points?
C'mon mate! I'm sure you kept a copy of that Editorial around - if not I would be happy to post or email you my copy. Seriously, just have a go!

* Explain to us why an Editor has no right to express an opinion in an Editorial.
* Explain why you think it is better for Editors to keep their politics a secret so that readers have no way of putting their views into context?
* Explain YOUR version of Democracy, where Education and Politics DON'T MIX.
* Explain why 'brainwashing students' is always assumed to be a lefty/liberal/hippy/greenie agenda, despite the fact that teachers in Australia make up perhaps the largest and most ecclectic workforce in the Southern Hemisphere (our students should be so lucky as to have all those different views represented in their everyday learning! Or is it better they just grow up only knowing about what Mummy, Daddy and the media tell them to think?)

And lastly, please, please explain why you are so intent on demonising teachers and setting the aims of education AGAINST the aims of parents and the community.