LETTERS
From Anthony Thwaite, Lionel Bloch, Geoffrey Kennard, George Chowdharay- Best, Dr E. 1. Mishan, L. E. Weidberg, R. L. Travers, F. .1. A. Cruso, Carola Oman, Harold Braham, Peter. 1. Smith, C. 0. 1. kamsden.
Education without reason
Sir: I shan't attempt to deal with Tibor Szamuely's general remarks about what he calls 'comprehensivisers' ('Personal column'
14 February), except to point out that the book he flourishes with such satisfaction— Julienne Ford's Social Class and the Com- prehensive Schools—has already been re- futed in most significant points of detail
by Professor Harry Bee. I am more con- cerned to put the record straight about Mr Szamuely's account of the Richmond-upon- Thames Parents' Association meeting which he attended.
My wife and I attended this meeting as ordinary members of the Association. We were invited to have a drink beforehand with the speakers (two pro-comprehensive, three anti-) and, having met Mr Szamuely socially in the past, we reintroduced our- selves and had what I thought was an ami- able chat. The atmosphere was in no way hostile. In the meeting itself, the five speakers' introductory statements were not 'interrupted by boos and insults': Mr J. M. Cobban, who also spoke against com- prehensive education, was warmly applauded more than once. However, I think it fair to say that the tone of Mr Szamuely's re- marks, being more contemptuous than his fellow anti-comprehensivisers, was not cal- culated to encourage cool debate. Mr Szamuely says that he was 'shouted down and prevented from answering the very first question'. What in fact happened was that Mr Szamuely either did not understand, or affected not to understand, the first question (which was admittedly rather clumsily phrased), and answered it with a long dis- quisition on Soviet education. After some minutes of this, the chairman evidently noticed that the audience was growing rest- ive at such irrelevance, and politely asked Mr Szamuely to draw his remarks to a close, so that another question could be asked. Throughout the question period, the chair- man was almost excessively scrupulous at trying to keep speakers, both pro- and anti- comprehensive, to a time limit. Mr Szamuely seemed to resent being checked in his long digression. and the chairman then asked the audience directly whether they wanted • to hear him out or have another question. They wanted the latter. This may be bad chairmanship, and the original question may have been a poor one. But it is ridiculous to maintain that the chairman did not make 'the slightest attempt to defend [their] right of free speech'.
I heard no one (certainly not 'people') scream, 'Cut defence expenditure'. As for 'expecting at any moment to hear the chant of "Ho-Ho-Ho-Chi Minh",' I think even Mr Szamuely's fellow anti-comprehensivisers would ascribe this to his evidently fertile political imagination. In an Association which has many Conservative members, such a performance would be unthinkable.
Mr Szamuely says that he 'saw faces filled with cold hatred'. The only 'cold hatred' I saw was in the face of Mr Szamuely after the meeting, as he berated the officers of the Association. I have the feeling that Mr Szamuely must have arrived expecting hostility and fanaticism. The fact that he found none perhaps upset him. I can't otherwise account for his travesty of a description.
Anthony Thwaite 91 The Vineyard, Richmond, Surrey Sir: I was present at the meeting organised by the Richmond-upon-Thames Parents' Association to which Tibor Szamuely refers in his article (14 February) and I am writing to say how shocked I was by the behaviour of the 'BBC personality' who was in the chair.
The whole discussion was filmed for a special programme on education to be shown on TV in October. When Mr Szamuely was answering an important question, a persis- tent heckler made it impossible for him to conclude his remarks. In desperation, Mr Szamuely turned towards the chairman for help. Instead of bringing the heckler to order, the chairman, who should have known better, asked for the next question.
I have never witnessed such rudeness from a chairman at a public meeting.
Lionel Bloch 9 Wimpole Street, London wl
Previous page
