January 29, 2004

SHORT ANSWER: YES

"Are state schools politically correct?" asks Andrew Bolt, back on deck at the Herald Sun. "Unions and Leftie journalists say no. But have a look at what they preach and make up your own mind."

Professor Bunyip unearths yet more thinking matter on the same subject. My own state school teachers (Werribee Primary, PS 649) were among the last of the non-PC breed; years after leaving I'd sometimes drop in on them, to chat and help mark a few tests or whatever. Once a former teacher and I set a sixth-grade class this impossible, practically university-level combination maths/English/science quiz ("the results will be on your permanent record!") so we could go outside and talk about cricket for an hour.

Posted by Tim Blair at January 29, 2004 10:31 PM
Comments

Perhaps Werribee Primary is the rule - not the exception of.

Posted by: johnny at January 29, 2004 at 11:31 PM

Werribee eh?

I went there for a short course in food science. Afterwards I went to one of the bars there - I have never seen so many ugly women in one place in my entire life. What's with that place? And there were so many Maoris (or some other polynesians) that I could have sworn I had somehow teleported to the set of Once Were Warriors... turned out to be a good night though, ended up banging some random chick on the boot of a car not far away from the hotel where I was staying, the Werribee Motor Inn (or lodge, I forget)

Posted by: taspundit at January 29, 2004 at 11:56 PM

I know the people who run that place. Time to call up the security video ...

Posted by: tim at January 30, 2004 at 12:30 AM

It would have been close to a year ago, so I don't think they have any footage of it. Besides, it wasn't in view of the hotel, it was just around the corner. We did eventually migrate to my room, I hope the hell your friends don't have a hidden camera somewhere.

As I remember, the only reason we started on the car boot was because she had wanted to do it while we were still walking along the main street. It was a job to convince her to walk to a street that was a little more secluded.

Posted by: taspundit at January 30, 2004 at 01:41 AM

So, chivalry is not dead then?

Posted by: Steve in Houston at January 30, 2004 at 03:52 AM

In some cases. But when you first meet them, it does not pay to be chivalrous, especially to the point of buying women drinks. Lighting cigarettes is ok (even if you don't smoke). But offering to buy a drink before a woman has bought you one is tantamount to your writing "I am a chump, expect nothing more from me than money, drinks or friendship, and certainly under no condition sex" in bright neon all over your face.

Posted by: taspundit at January 30, 2004 at 04:33 AM

1) Once Were Warriors...good movie (in that I use it as a demonstration of some points in the domestic violence classes I run)-- Had a blast showing to a group of guys two days before Christmas this year...

2) Now, Taspundit, I'd be really impressed if you finished your story with a line about how much she paid you afterward...

Posted by: Jerry at January 30, 2004 at 05:30 AM

"your writing "I am a chump, expect nothing more from me than money, drinks or friendship, and certainly under no condition sex" in bright neon all over your face"

See, this must be the problem. Not the buying-a-drink part, but the writing part.

I kept thinking it might get me a Shag of Sympathy.

Posted by: Steve in Houston at January 30, 2004 at 06:18 AM

"impossible, practically university-level combination maths/English/science quiz so we could go outside and talk about cricket for an hour."

I still do that. Footy as well.

Posted by: Tony.T at January 30, 2004 at 06:45 AM

Is it just me, or does anyone else find Andrew Bolt's writing style very difficult to read?

Posted by: Justin Miller at January 30, 2004 at 09:00 AM

No, but I still wish he had a TV show. Preferably on the ABC

Posted by: Johnny Wishbone at January 30, 2004 at 10:52 AM

It's just you.

Posted by: Marty at January 30, 2004 at 10:53 AM

Bolt, like some writers, 'reads' better in print than on screen.

I know it doesn't sound logical, but it seems to be true. Someone might have a theory why.

Posted by: ilibcc at January 30, 2004 at 11:08 AM

I usually like Bolt's commentaries but I think he's wrong on his claim that Christianity is the source of our deepest values. The Enlightenment was the source of those values, and it was in part a movement against the long dominance of Christianity. Christian values predominated in Dark Age and Medieval times - which were more like life under the Taliban.

Posted by: Ashley Mountworthy at January 30, 2004 at 12:11 PM

Ashley

I think Roger Scruton writes well on that issue.

See here.

Taspundit - thanks for the advice.

Posted by: Pig head Sucker at January 30, 2004 at 12:47 PM

Bolt is not a christian yet has a better handle on what values a civilised society should dear than many christinas.

Posted by: ilibcc at January 30, 2004 at 01:14 PM

... should hold dear than many christians.

(Mind you, I'm sure there's a few value-free christinas around the place as well.)

Posted by: ilibcc at January 30, 2004 at 01:20 PM

This kids had to do a hard exam so the adults could talk about cricket for an hour??? - I'm confused, who was really being punished here?

Posted by: Tom at January 30, 2004 at 01:25 PM

Jerry, I would write that if I could do so honestly. It would feel somehow wrong though to ask for money... although I have no problem accepting drinks.

Posted by: taspundit at January 30, 2004 at 02:11 PM

My own state school teachers (Werribee Primary, PS 649) were among the last of the non-PC breed; years after leaving I'd sometimes drop in on them, to chat and help mark a few tests or whatever. Once a former teacher and I set a sixth-grade class this impossible, practically university-level combination maths/English/science quiz ("the results will be on your permanent record!") so we could go outside and talk about cricket for an hour.

What an inspiring example of a dedicated teacher with a genuine commitment to the education of his students. Truly a memory to be proud of, Tim.

Posted by: Gummo Trotsky at January 30, 2004 at 03:23 PM

Have you done a 'university-level' exam lately?

No so 'impossible' - not even for sixth-graders.

Posted by: Alex Hidell at January 30, 2004 at 03:30 PM

Enlightenment was the source of those values, and it was in part a movement against the long dominance of Christianity.

To be more specific, the Enlightenment was more a movement against dogmatic Catholic centralist Christianity. Many of the prominent figures in the Enlightenment (especially some of the monarchs) were Christian, though Protestant.

Isaac Newton wasn't, but he had some really wacky occult ideas.

Posted by: Quentin George at January 30, 2004 at 04:04 PM