|
:
Return to Education Opinions Page
More male teachers a step towards social repair
John Anderson
March 22, 2004
"THE Government's message is clear: male teachers are worth more than female teachers and should be given a free ride into the profession."
This hysterical claim by Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja was typical of the responses when the Australian Government put forward its amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act two weeks ago.
Her argument went along these lines: On the one hand, it was an attack of the innate value of women. On the other, it was the start of a stealth campaign by reactionary conservatives to roll back anti-discrimination laws.
In reality, the Government made no such claims and has no such intention. The amendment was put forward as a small step in beginning to deal with wider social issues. The 12 male-only scholarships originally offered by Catholic education authorities could only ever be a drop in the ocean in dealing substantively with wider social issues. Those Catholic educators may have altered their position last week, but the issues remain the same.
If the opponents of the amendment – which will be back before parliament this week – had paused amid their emotional huff and puff, they could have reflected on the underlying issues at hand. The issue of male teachers and boys in schools is representative of a far greater dilemma.
As we look around us, we are constantly faced by higher levels of family breakdown, constant social violence, the prevalence of moral and social relativism and a general collapse in civility. Social breakdown, in a general sense, is what we face.
Progressivism has changed the views of what is both acceptable and possible within society. And relativism has undermined social and moral absolutes. What has emerged within society is an absence of social responsibility, relativism with truth and morals and an increasing focus on pleasing "me".
And it poses two questions. How can we confront and solve this issue? And what is the role of government in dealing with this social breakdown?
Governments are charged with the responsibility of providing a stable and secure framework within which society can operate, allowing individuals and communities to exercise their choices and fulfil their potential.
When it comes to the social maelstrom we now face, government must respectfully limit its role. It can express views, but it cannot legislate solutions. The amendment put forward by the Australian Government makes no larger claim than helping to create such a framework. It is not social engineering, nor is it legislating behaviour.
Let me illustrate this. When fathers spend only minutes and seconds with their sons, no amount of legislation will change the situation. When fractured families are shown to contribute to higher levels of suicide, juvenile crime and education under-performance for young males, no legislation will change the situation.
If real solutions are to be found to these problems, they cannot be found in legislation. Instead, three facts must be recognised as the starting points for confronting social breakdown.
First, governments cannot legislate for behavioural change. Legislation can never create, or reform, relationships.
Second, families are the principal building block for society. And the strength and stability of society has its foundation in the strength and stability of the family. It is only families that can provide the security and love and nurture that children need to develop fully. It is in families that we learn responsibility, values and hope.
Third, communities must act together to strengthen family and social ties. Instead of the self-centred selfishness of relativism and social progressivism, we must work towards regaining that sense of responsibility we have for each other and our own.
Furthermore, we must offer the hope and optimism that our youth need to be part of a vibrant future and society.
Amending the Sex Discrimination Act will never solve these problems, nor will it deal with their symptoms. The Australian Government is open in recognising this fact.
But it is a start – a small step, towards a larger and more multifaceted response to the issue of social breakdown.
Instead of bleating and moaning, the opponents of the amendment must join with the Coalition in confronting this issue and knuckling down to implement some equally tough solutions.
Why would federal Labor oppose such an amendment, when just last year the West Australian Labor Government offered 37 scholarships to men hoping to become primary school teachers?
One wonders if Mark Latham’s former colleagues, really have the ticker to truly deal with these sort of critical social issues.
top
|
