The creation of the New College of the Humanities, a new private university in London staffed by some of the world’s leading academics and charging fees of £18,000 a year, is a frightening extension of the Government’s growing desire to see the so-called free market at the heart of everything.
The increasing use of competition in education will widen the gap between the richest and the poorest in our society. It has already resulted in increased university tuition fees and the growth of free schools. However, it is the curious involvement of Professor Richard Dawkins, the eminent evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist, which seems particularly at odds with all this.
It is important to recognise that the rise of free schools, the increase in tuition fees and the foundation of the NCoH are part of the same cohesive neo-liberal project which believes free-market principles improve educational standards because of increased competition. The NCoH is the logical conclusion of the rise of free schools because it comes as a result of the erosion of state authority and the idea that the market can provide for everyone’s needs. The enforced abdication of state authority creates a power vacuum, which then is filled by other powerful bodies, such as private companies or organised religion.
The establishment of the NCoH does not in itself contradict Dawkins’ disciplined atheism. But when it is seen within the context of educational liberalisation and free-market expansion, a conflict with Dawkins’ profound religious scepticism can be seen. The rise of free schools has enhanced the influence of organised religion.
There are a number of reasons why free schools reinforce hierarchy and exacerbate social division. Perhaps the most significant factor is when these schools have a strong religious dimension. Free schools in Britain are based on the Swedish model, which has been criticised for rapidly increasing the number of religious schools and giving undue influence to controversial institutions such as the Church of Scientology and empowering fundamentalist Islamic organisations. In this country, half of Education Secretary Michael Gove’s first tranche of free schools have a religious ethos.
Gove has acknowledged concerns that faith schools may make use of new legislation to push their own agenda, but – in contrast with Sweden – no guidance has been issued relating to free school applications. Yet in its paper Faith Schools We Can Believe In, even the right-wing Policy Exchange, David Cameron’s favourite think tank, argues that free schools are increasingly vulnerable to extremist influences.
While many faith schools have remained in the private sector so as to not compromise their religious beliefs, under a free school system, they can access state funding without state control. Further, teachers in free schools are not required to have recognised teaching qualifications.
In his bestselling book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes: “Children are educated, again often from a very early age, with members of a religious in-group and separately from children whose families adhere to other religions. It is not an exaggeration to say that the troubles in Northern Ireland would disappear in a generation if segregated schooling was abolished.”
Dawkins sees religious education and the enforced endowment of religious beliefs onto children as a form of child abuse, and this lies at the core of his critique of religion. One facet of this criticism is that segregation and religious groups, whether “in” or “out”, create conflict. So Dawkins’ association with the NCoH is hypocritical on two levels.
The opportunity to develop the NCoH has only arisen because of the spread of free schools and the inevitable rise of faith schools – something that Dawkins, if he is to remain intellectually consistent, should be opposing. Second, both free schools and elitist higher education further encourage segregation on the basis of wealth and class. Dawkins criticises religion for encouraging segregation, so why doesn’t he apply the same analysis to education?
Dawkins’ involvement with the NCoH neo-liberal experiment suggests that he may be more interested in his bank balance than his academic integrity. The Bible tells us that Jesus taught his disciples: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”. Fortunately – for Richard Dawkins, at least – there is no such place as the kingdom of God.
