Having read Ms Kennedy’s WimLearn article on civil discourse (which is really rather good – click here to read it), and with this week marking the launch of the civil discourse programme at WHS, I thought I’d quiz our headteacher on what ‘authentic encounters between enquiring hearts and minds’ really means. We touch on teachers at WHS, culture wars, feminism, ad hominen, the state of the British press and of course, the infamous “school of woke” comment, courtesy of Giles Coren. What struck me throughout our conversation was this concept of a ‘dialogue’; that the problem is really us jumping at each other’s throats when we disagree or feel offended at something. It is this that obstructs constructive, useful and mutually respectful conversations. ‘There’s more that connects us than divides us’, as Jo Cox reminds us at the end of this interview.
Firstly, what does civil discourse mean to you?
The idea behind civil discourse was a reaction to what I’d seen happening on social media and in the press, this polarisation of opinion. So, I knew what civil discourse wasn’t, yet trying to sum up what it was, was more difficult. In fact, it was in a conversation with Miss Lindon that we came up with ‘authentic encounters between enquiring hearts and minds’. It sounds a bit cheesy, but actually sums up to me that authenticity is really important in our discourse with one another. Enquiry is really important; asking questions and being willing to listen to the answers. The phrase of ‘hearts and minds’ recognises that part of the problem is that dialogue currently is about feelings, about what we feel, every much as it is about what we think. To me, cancel culture has come about because we have started to have dialogue based entirely on emotion and less on rationality; what we need to have is both in there. We have to recognise that the other person could be hurt by what you’re saying, but also have an intellectual dialogue going on that allows ideas to be openly expressed.
How do you see Wimbledon High’s teachers helping with that?
I think our teachers here – and maybe this is me being naïve and shiny about my teaching staff – but I think they’re quite good at humility: they can recognise when they’re not necessarily right about something or have a full grasp on something.
We also have really strong relationships between teachers and students here, particularly at A-level, and our lessons are very discursive, which has a positive impact on all of us. The reason I say that is that I know that lots of my views, as a now 41-year-old middle class white woman, are more progressive than others of my generation precisely because I spend time with teenagers – that’s not to say I am always going to get it right, or even agree with everything that a student says to me. But it does mean that we leave each other breathing room to get things done, and we have proper conversations.
What I’m less sure of is whether the students are having open, really authentic conversations with each other. I think there’s quite a lot of fear of what ‘can and can’t be said’. I also think that silence is being interpreted quite often amongst the student body as something quite sinister – there’s a feeling you have to be certain and vocal on an issue. However, certainty can be the death of that issue being explored properly, with nuance and sensitivity. There are lots of issues, trans issues being one of them, where we need to be able to talk really openly and at length, so that we can come together and perhaps not find consensus, but certainly mutual respect.
You touched earlier on culture wars; do you think that even the word itself is divisive?
One hundred percent, and it’s been made up! I talk with Afua Hirsch about this all the time: it’s effectively the Sunday Times and co who have decided this is how you sell papers. A real case in point is what happened to us as a school: Sian Griffiths says in the Sunday Times “this is the school of woke, they’re naming their sports hall after a living alumna, Afua Hirsch” – Not true. In fact, I said on the phone that to do so would be impossible as we don’t name buildings after living alumnae, unless they give us you know, three million pounds, which no one is going to. It is then commented upon in the Tuesday edition of The Times by Giles Coren who says, ‘The head of the school of woke needs to have a word with herself’. They’re having a conversation with each other, they’re creating a ‘culture war’ that doesn’t actually exist on the ground.
The same thing happened with the University of Sussex issue – ordinarily, do we actually think The Telegraph has any idea or care for what happens at the University of Sussex? Obviously not. They jumped on that story, absolutely exposed it, set fire underneath it, and that’s part of the outrage they are really engendering in people, so that they are continuing to sell newspapers.
You’ve spoken about the Sunday Times – is there perhaps somewhere we can find good civil discourse?
I think perhaps no – writing without a political stance or bias, without one’s own lived experiences, is impossible, and that’s why you have to get a little bit of something from everywhere. So, we should all be reading a different newspaper once a week. I read the Economist, but I also read the New Statesman. I have the occasional glance at the Daily Mail online just to remind myself how crazy it is! It’s really important; it’s tempting for someone like me to just read The Guardian all the time and to feel really self-righteous, but that is not that helpful. Sit in discomfort: challenge yourself by what you’re reading.
On a separate point – why do you care so deeply about this topic?
I know you’re aware Cara, as is the rest of the school, that I’m a staunch feminist. And I care really deeply about this because I feel that whenever something becomes polarised or binary, it is often about women being turned against other women, and this is what really troubles me. I think that at the moment the huge publicity and emphasis on gender critical theory versus trans acceptance is all about women attacking other women. There are no men involved in these discussions – I don’t see anyone questioning whether we’re allowed to use the word ‘man’, it’s all about women! This sort of made-up culture war only stops equality for women in its tracks.
Another reason is that I’m an educator, and I believe therefore that we will never know everything. Only the most studious and scholarly person understands how little they know. So, we should be asking questions, not answering them. We should be revelling in the fact that we have freedom of speech, and choice about what we read, who we are. Education in my view should be incredibly freeing – at the moment it’s not.
Following on from that – a lot of women feel they have to be over-compensating and be overly polite when arguing with men especially. How do you balance promoting girls to speak civilly, without squashing their assertiveness?
To be clear, civil doesn’t mean polite, really, really not. To give an example, let’s say someone says something that you find really outrageous, to me the civil discourse response might be to get angry at that – though being angry doesn’t have to mean being un-fluent. You’re allowed to be angry and continue a conversation; it’s about learning to continue, and really pushing through the emotion. Sometimes to show emotion is really powerful.
And what is so destructive about ad hominen attacks for civil discourse?
If you’re attacking the person not the idea, you’re skipping over what you’re meant to be talking about, which is annoying. Let’s say we’re talking about safe spaces for women, and you say to me “You’re too old, you don’t understand it.” That’s not actually talking about the argument, so it completely renders it pointless as a discussion.
The other thing I would say is I worry about this notion that you can only talk from lived experience; it means that people who do have platforms with power and privilege, are less empowered to talk on behalf of those who do not have that platform. I want men who work in the city to be vocally pro-feminist. I want white people who have positions of privilege like me in leadership to be not just non-racist, but vocally anti-racist. If you use ad hominen arguments, that shuts down the ability for people like me to try to use my platform for something that raises people up: it silences– and who does that help?
One final question: what piece of advice would you give to someone who wants to foster civil discourse?
Reading a variety of sources is really important. Also, to remember that you are not at a fixed point where you can’t change your mind. I’m going to give you a really personal example of this: when I was about your age [17], maybe a bit younger, I was massively pro-life. I was raised Catholic and believed abortion was a sin; I argued vehemently and passionately. I could now not be further from that viewpoint, aged 41. You will change over your lifetime depending on your experiences, the people you hang out with, the things you read – be open to that.
Finally, assume the best of people – if you bring positivity and a clear-eyed attitude, you’ll get loads out of it. If you go in looking for the peril in a conversation rather than the points of contact, that conversation is going to difficult. Go in remembering that, just maybe, there’s more that connects us than divides us, as Jo Cox said.
