Exam Board Criticised for Jewish Prejudice Question

Bad Lieutenant · 25th May 2012, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Ministers have criticised an exam board after one of its GCSE religious studies papers asked candidates to explain "why some people are prejudiced against Jews".

Education Secretary Michael Gove said to suggest anti-Semitism could ever be explained was "insensitive and, frankly, bizarre."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18207323

So no kind of bad behaviour is allowed to have an identifieable cause now. The stupid...it hurts.

MarkCorrigan · 25th May 2012, 08:46 AM

Oh shut up Gove you stupid pathetic little man.

Sheer idiocy.

Seismosaurus · 25th May 2012, 08:49 AM

What a bizarre thing to say. Anti-semitism cannot be explained? Since when?

mijopaalmc · 25th May 2012, 08:52 AM

I could see how the Catholic dogma the Jew were deicides might have contributed to anti-Semitism, and I could see how that might be elaborated in an essay without condoning the belief.

andyandy · 25th May 2012, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Oh shut up Gove you stupid pathetic little man.

Sheer idiocy.

I think you are prejudiced against over promoted public school boy toff tools.....

Examining why people hold anti Semitic views is not the same as condoning or accepting those views. Back to school for Gove.

The Don · 25th May 2012, 09:04 AM

On the radio this morning it was explained that this was a bad question because it would allow bigots to spew forth their prejudices. When Nicky Campbell asked how an answer of "Because they are idiots" the interviewee was too busy being outraged to understand what Nicky Campbell was saying at took it that he was suggesting that Jewish people (rather than those that are prejudiced against Jewish people) are idiots.

Gove has at least provided a calibration point. It used to be said that "An alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their doctor" now it can be said that "An idiot is someone more stupid than the Education Secretary".

Careyp74 · 25th May 2012, 09:42 AM

Well, the article pretty much covers my views. If they expected answers like "money hoarders" and "big noses" I could see getting upset, but the question isn't even worded in a way that it isn't looking for "irrational fear, ignorance and scapegoating."

Bad Lieutenant · 25th May 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

"An idiot is someone more stupid than the Education Secretary".

Bravo.

I wonder if Labour will try to capitalise on this. It's probably too controversial but it would be a sight to see.

Careyp74 · 25th May 2012, 09:57 AM

"because it would allow bigots to spew forth their prejudices."

If I always used my exams as platforms for my beliefs, I would have failed. So, good, keep the question in. Lower the success rate of the bigots.

"The principal examiner for this exam has been reviewing the papers and has found that students have understood the question in the sense that was intended and that their answers are in line with the mark scheme."

Well, there are a bunch of good replacements for Mr. Gove

catsmate1 · 25th May 2012, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Oh shut up Gove you stupid pathetic little man.

Sheer idiocy.

Well said. Have a muffin.

Soapy Sam · 25th May 2012, 02:24 PM

Amusing to think of the many words which might be substituted for "Jews" in that question... politicians, lawyers, Arabs, bankers, teachers...on and on.

Bad Lieutenant · 28th May 2012, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Don

"An idiot is someone more stupid than the Education Secretary".

Quote:

In 2011 Gove planned to provide each school in the United Kingdom with a copy of the King James Bible, personally inscribed by him, to celebrate the 400th anniversary of its translation into English....Considered by some to be a British neo-conservative, he called for early intervention against Saddam Hussein..."The liberation of Iraq has actually been that rarest of things – a proper British foreign policy success."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

Not just stupid, but technically evil.

sadhatter · 28th May 2012, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Careyp74

"because it would allow bigots to spew forth their prejudices."

If I always used my exams as platforms for my beliefs, I would have failed. So, good, keep the question in. Lower the success rate of the bigots.

"The principal examiner for this exam has been reviewing the papers and has found that students have understood the question in the sense that was intended and that their answers are in line with the mark scheme."

Well, there are a bunch of good replacements for Mr. Gove

5 questions out of 250+ is about as far as i was ever willing to go to say **** you to a topic. ( refused to answer questions that were expecting positive answers about homeopathy. "Homeopathy can help with which types of conditions?" as an example, and the expected answer was most certainly not 'None') And even then , i had the little angel on my shoulder telling me "But just tell them what they want to hear. "

sadhatter · 28th May 2012, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Amusing to think of the many words which might be substituted for "Jews" in that question... politicians, lawyers, Arabs, bankers, teachers...on and on.

Yep, it is a very free form question, it is simply asking folks to show the ability to understand why someone holds a view, whether said view is wrong or not.

I could see no way i couldn't write an answer that was an indictment of racism, and furthermore if some skinhead wants to use it to express his beliefs, well what is not hilarious about him getting X number of points taken off for it?

tomwaits · 28th May 2012, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Bad Lieutenant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

Not just stupid, but technically evil.

What's wrong with the King James Bible part? Like it or not, it's possibly the most important work of English literature ever.

AvalonXQ · 28th May 2012, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

5 questions out of 250+ is about as far as i was ever willing to go to say **** you to a topic. ( refused to answer questions that were expecting positive answers about homeopathy. "Homeopathy can help with which types of conditions?" as an example, and the expected answer was most certainly not 'None') And even then , i had the little angel on my shoulder telling me "But just tell them what they want to hear. "

Morgellon's, Munchausen's, hypochondria, phantom pain?

Bad Lieutenant · 28th May 2012, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

What's wrong with the King James Bible part? Like it or not, it's possibly the most important work of English literature ever.

It's just an English translation. "On the Origin of Species" is far more important than that old Pascal's Wager bullying piece of detritus anyway.

tomwaits · 28th May 2012, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Bad Lieutenant

It's just an English translation

Far more than that. Harold Bloom called it "the sublime summit of literature in English," along with the works of Shakespeare. There were English translations of the Bible long before King James, but somehow the KJB has remained popular throughout the English-speaking world even to the present. Many of its idioms have become part of the language itself.

Quote:

"On the Origin of Species" is far more important than that old Pascal's Wager bullying piece of detritus anyway.

Important to the history of science, yes. Not literature.

Beerina · 28th May 2012, 10:01 PM

Let people say it, and mock it publicly.

vs.

"Tsk tsk, don't say that!"

One of these has much greater historical success changing attitudes.

ArmillarySphere · 28th May 2012, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

5 questions out of 250+ is about as far as i was ever willing to go to say **** you to a topic. ( refused to answer questions that were expecting positive answers about homeopathy. "Homeopathy can help with which types of conditions?" as an example, and the expected answer was most certainly not 'None') And even then , i had the little angel on my shoulder telling me "But just tell them what they want to hear. "

Dehydration?

Korren · 28th May 2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

"Homeopathy can help with which types of conditions?"

"Thirst."

sadhatter · 29th May 2012, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Morgellon's, Munchausen's, hypochondria, phantom pain?

I wish, the actual answer was basically ( to avoid a lot of pharmacy jargon.) the same types of things otc and self selection medicines do. And i just couldn't bring myself to do it. Granted if it had been half the exam, i would have either sucked it up, and did it, or find a different school.

Honestly that one month of the semester ****** me off so badly, it is taking everything in me not to go into a multi page rant about it right now.

Professor Yaffle · 29th May 2012, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Bad Lieutenant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

Not just stupid, but technically evil.

Richard Dawkins the arch-atheist backs Michael Gove's free Bible plan

Duffy Moon · 29th May 2012, 09:31 PM

I'm pretty sure I remember a question similar to that in one of my exams, back in the mid-80s.

Careyp74 · 30th May 2012, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Amusing to think of the many words which might be substituted for "Jews" in that question... politicians, lawyers, Arabs, bankers, teachers...on and on.

Why, was prejudice against politicians in the curriculum?

Multivac · 6th June 2012, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

What's wrong with the King James Bible part? Like it or not, it's possibly the most important work of English literature ever.

Because the government should not be using my hard-earnt tax money to place even more bloody bibles in schools. Especially as the bibles concerned are a special edition with an inscription from Gove. Noone would read the damn things anyway.

Xulld · 7th June 2012, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Rapprochement would seem to be in the air – until Dawkins's thesis is studied more closely. While Gove believes the Bible is a guide to morality, Dawkins is sure it is not. "I have heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that without the Bible as a moral compass people would show no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself," he says.

Waaay to juicy to not quote this bit!

25th May 2012, 08:25 AM	#1
Bad Lieutenant Muse Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Cheltenham - England Posts: 612	Exam Board Criticised for Jewish Prejudice Question Quote: Ministers have criticised an exam board after one of its GCSE religious studies papers asked candidates to explain "why some people are prejudiced against Jews". Education Secretary Michael Gove said to suggest anti-Semitism could ever be explained was "insensitive and, frankly, bizarre." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18207323 So no kind of bad behaviour is allowed to have an identifieable cause now. The stupid...it hurts.

25th May 2012, 08:46 AM	#2
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,107	Oh shut up Gove you stupid pathetic little man. Sheer idiocy.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

25th May 2012, 08:49 AM	#3
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,543	What a bizarre thing to say. Anti-semitism cannot be explained? Since when?
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

25th May 2012, 08:52 AM	#4
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634	I could see how the Catholic dogma the Jew were deicides might have contributed to anti-Semitism, and I could see how that might be elaborated in an essay without condoning the belief.
mijopaalmc Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 4,634

25th May 2012, 08:55 AM	#5
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan Oh shut up Gove you stupid pathetic little man. Sheer idiocy. I think you are prejudiced against over promoted public school boy toff tools..... Examining why people hold anti Semitic views is not the same as condoning or accepting those views. Back to school for Gove.
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

25th May 2012, 09:04 AM	#6
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,235	On the radio this morning it was explained that this was a bad question because it would allow bigots to spew forth their prejudices. When Nicky Campbell asked how an answer of "Because they are idiots" the interviewee was too busy being outraged to understand what Nicky Campbell was saying at took it that he was suggesting that Jewish people (rather than those that are prejudiced against Jewish people) are idiots. Gove has at least provided a calibration point. It used to be said that "An alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their doctor" now it can be said that "An idiot is someone more stupid than the Education Secretary".

25th May 2012, 09:42 AM	#7
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Well, the article pretty much covers my views. If they expected answers like "money hoarders" and "big noses" I could see getting upset, but the question isn't even worded in a way that it isn't looking for "irrational fear, ignorance and scapegoating."

25th May 2012, 09:42 AM	#8
Bad Lieutenant Muse Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Cheltenham - England Posts: 612	Originally Posted by The Don "An idiot is someone more stupid than the Education Secretary". Bravo. I wonder if Labour will try to capitalise on this. It's probably too controversial but it would be a sight to see.

25th May 2012, 09:57 AM	#9
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	"because it would allow bigots to spew forth their prejudices." If I always used my exams as platforms for my beliefs, I would have failed. So, good, keep the question in. Lower the success rate of the bigots. "The principal examiner for this exam has been reviewing the papers and has found that students have understood the question in the sense that was intended and that their answers are in line with the mark scheme." Well, there are a bunch of good replacements for Mr. Gove

25th May 2012, 12:19 PM	#10
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,113	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan Oh shut up Gove you stupid pathetic little man. Sheer idiocy. Well said. Have a muffin.

25th May 2012, 02:24 PM	#11
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Amusing to think of the many words which might be substituted for "Jews" in that question... politicians, lawyers, Arabs, bankers, teachers...on and on.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

28th May 2012, 03:14 PM	#12
Bad Lieutenant Muse Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Cheltenham - England Posts: 612	Originally Posted by The Don "An idiot is someone more stupid than the Education Secretary". Quote: In 2011 Gove planned to provide each school in the United Kingdom with a copy of the King James Bible, personally inscribed by him, to celebrate the 400th anniversary of its translation into English....Considered by some to be a British neo-conservative, he called for early intervention against Saddam Hussein..."The liberation of Iraq has actually been that rarest of things – a proper British foreign policy success." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove Not just stupid, but technically evil.

28th May 2012, 03:48 PM	#13
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by Careyp74 "because it would allow bigots to spew forth their prejudices." If I always used my exams as platforms for my beliefs, I would have failed. So, good, keep the question in. Lower the success rate of the bigots. "The principal examiner for this exam has been reviewing the papers and has found that students have understood the question in the sense that was intended and that their answers are in line with the mark scheme." Well, there are a bunch of good replacements for Mr. Gove 5 questions out of 250+ is about as far as i was ever willing to go to say **** you to a topic. ( refused to answer questions that were expecting positive answers about homeopathy. "Homeopathy can help with which types of conditions?" as an example, and the expected answer was most certainly not 'None') And even then , i had the little angel on my shoulder telling me "But just tell them what they want to hear. "
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

28th May 2012, 03:51 PM	#14
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam Amusing to think of the many words which might be substituted for "Jews" in that question... politicians, lawyers, Arabs, bankers, teachers...on and on. Yep, it is a very free form question, it is simply asking folks to show the ability to understand why someone holds a view, whether said view is wrong or not. I could see no way i couldn't write an answer that was an indictment of racism, and furthermore if some skinhead wants to use it to express his beliefs, well what is not hilarious about him getting X number of points taken off for it?
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

28th May 2012, 07:39 PM	#15
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by Bad Lieutenant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove Not just stupid, but technically evil. What's wrong with the King James Bible part? Like it or not, it's possibly the most important work of English literature ever.

28th May 2012, 07:43 PM	#16
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by sadhatter 5 questions out of 250+ is about as far as i was ever willing to go to say **** you to a topic. ( refused to answer questions that were expecting positive answers about homeopathy. "Homeopathy can help with which types of conditions?" as an example, and the expected answer was most certainly not 'None') And even then , i had the little angel on my shoulder telling me "But just tell them what they want to hear. " Morgellon's, Munchausen's, hypochondria, phantom pain?
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

28th May 2012, 07:47 PM	#17
Bad Lieutenant Muse Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Cheltenham - England Posts: 612	Originally Posted by tomwaits What's wrong with the King James Bible part? Like it or not, it's possibly the most important work of English literature ever. It's just an English translation. "On the Origin of Species" is far more important than that old Pascal's Wager bullying piece of detritus anyway.

28th May 2012, 08:02 PM	#18
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by Bad Lieutenant It's just an English translation Far more than that. Harold Bloom called it "the sublime summit of literature in English," along with the works of Shakespeare. There were English translations of the Bible long before King James, but somehow the KJB has remained popular throughout the English-speaking world even to the present. Many of its idioms have become part of the language itself. Quote: "On the Origin of Species" is far more important than that old Pascal's Wager bullying piece of detritus anyway. Important to the history of science, yes. Not literature.
	Last edited by tomwaits; 28th May 2012 at 08:12 PM.

28th May 2012, 10:01 PM	#19
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Let people say it, and mock it publicly. vs. "Tsk tsk, don't say that!" One of these has much greater historical success changing attitudes.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

28th May 2012, 10:50 PM	#20
ArmillarySphere Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: London Posts: 713	Originally Posted by sadhatter 5 questions out of 250+ is about as far as i was ever willing to go to say **** you to a topic. ( refused to answer questions that were expecting positive answers about homeopathy. "Homeopathy can help with which types of conditions?" as an example, and the expected answer was most certainly not 'None') And even then , i had the little angel on my shoulder telling me "But just tell them what they want to hear. " Dehydration?

28th May 2012, 10:54 PM	#21
Korren Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by sadhatter "Homeopathy can help with which types of conditions?" "Thirst."
Korren Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 344

29th May 2012, 01:43 PM	#22
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Morgellon's, Munchausen's, hypochondria, phantom pain? I wish, the actual answer was basically ( to avoid a lot of pharmacy jargon.) the same types of things otc and self selection medicines do. And i just couldn't bring myself to do it. Granted if it had been half the exam, i would have either sucked it up, and did it, or find a different school. Honestly that one month of the semester ****** me off so badly, it is taking everything in me not to go into a multi page rant about it right now.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

29th May 2012, 01:50 PM	#23
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,338	Originally Posted by Bad Lieutenant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove Not just stupid, but technically evil. Richard Dawkins the arch-atheist backs Michael Gove's free Bible plan
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

29th May 2012, 09:31 PM	#24
Duffy Moon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Coventry, UK Posts: 1,594	I'm pretty sure I remember a question similar to that in one of my exams, back in the mid-80s.

30th May 2012, 06:14 AM	#25
Careyp74 Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 3,407	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam Amusing to think of the many words which might be substituted for "Jews" in that question... politicians, lawyers, Arabs, bankers, teachers...on and on. Why, was prejudice against politicians in the curriculum?

6th June 2012, 07:54 AM	#26
Multivac Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by tomwaits What's wrong with the King James Bible part? Like it or not, it's possibly the most important work of English literature ever. Because the government should not be using my hard-earnt tax money to place even more bloody bibles in schools. Especially as the bibles concerned are a special edition with an inscription from Gove. Noone would read the damn things anyway.

7th June 2012, 03:55 PM	#27
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,108	Quote: Rapprochement would seem to be in the air – until Dawkins's thesis is studied more closely. While Gove believes the Bible is a guide to morality, Dawkins is sure it is not. "I have heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that without the Bible as a moral compass people would show no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself," he says. Waaay to juicy to not quote this bit!
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus