Explaining Prejudice
It is a shame that in libel law there is no penalty for a grossly misleading headline if it’s remedied by the body of a story. The damage done by the impact of the original headline is hard to undo through the body of a story.
This is not a case of libel, but it is one of, if not outright misinterpretation, then very poor journalism.
Put simply, the Jewish Chronicle is stirring up outrage over a question in a GCSE Religious Studies paper that asked pupils to explain, briefly “why some people are prejudiced against Jews”. This is printed, under a scare headline, as “why do some people hate Jews”, and several MPs have now gone over the top and called for resignations and so forth.
Unlike most people involved in this story I’ve actually sat AQA’s Religious Studies exams, both at GCSE and A-Level. I’ve sat the exam paper and done the courses. Had anybody bothered to stop for just a few minutes and think, they’d have realised that this is a complete non-story.
I don’t like seeing people jump up and down and take to the airwaves over something that wasn’t in the remotest bit anti-Semitic, and either say that it was, or if it wasn’t that it was inaptly put. It wasn’t either of those. The question has been taken out of context and distorted, and the ensuing outrage not only unnecessarily tarnishes the reputation of an excellent exam board, but cheapens the accusation of anti-Semitism and gives succour to the real anti-Semites who duck the accusation by accusing us of being over-sensitive.
Let’s start with the question itself. It was not “why do some people hate Jews”. Even if it was, that would be fine, just a little maladroit, and certainly not worth a small media storm. The question was “explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews”. That is not an invitation to give a list of anti-semitic stereotypes. The clue is in the word “prejudiced”. That word makes it abundantly clear that the view is not a legitimate or justified one. It is asking examinees to briefly explain, sociologically and historically, why people hold anti-Semitic attitudes, but phrased in such a way that “because they’re true” is not a legitimate answer. The question is carefully worded, because it does not allow for the possibility of anti-Semitism being justified; in other words it does exactly the opposite of what AQA is now being accused of. The answers expected are sociological and historical, not justificatory.
It’s not badly written. It’s very well-written.
Now let’s put this into context, first in terms of the exam paper, and then the overall course of which it is a part. From what I remember of doing this GCSE, the paper’s questions are divided into sections that carry different marks. The “explain” section is the shortest and easiest part, testing a student’s recall, but not asking for any analytical insight. It simply wants a few facts regurgitated for a few marks, before moving onto the meat of the question, which is analytical. You start with recall, before moving into analysis. This reflects the grading system, where you get the lower grades for recall and regurgitation, but the higher grades for analysis and insight. This question is there to test that lower-grade ability.
So the paper is more likely to read like this:
- (a) Explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews (2);
- (b) What did Jesus say in his ministry about prejudice? (3);
- (c) Discuss an appopriate Christian response to prejudice and discrimination today (5).
Question (a) tests pure recall; (b) tests the ability to sift and analyse data (i.e. it’s looking for you to discuss the Parable of the Good Samaritan and draw the lesson out of it); (c) Tests analytic and discursive ability. This is a rough, over-simplified outline (it would probably say “with reference to a particular religious tradition” now rather than being exclusively Christian) and the paper is probably slightly different to how I remember it, but that’s the gist of it. It is not asking for a list of stereotypes about Jews. To the extent that someone might give that as an answer, the problem isn’t the drafter’s, it’s that of the persom sitting the paper (and to an extent their teacher).
This also has to be looked at in the context of the course as a whole. This paper is part of an AQA module on “Prejudice and Discrimination”. If there is any objection to this part of the course, it is that it is too PC. It promotes a straightforward soft-left attitude to racism and prejudice of all kinds. It is unrelenting in its view that prejudice, in all its forms, is a very bad thing. The origins of racism and prejudice are largely pathologised and agency on the part of the racist is diminished. I’m fine with that as an approach for GCSE: it’s a basic matter of moral teaching and they can look at the issue more subtly when they grow up. But irrespective of what you think of that approach, it makes it abundantly clear that racism is never legitimate. And in that context any question asking why certain people are racist is not going to be viewed, by anyone who so much as turned up to one lesson, as an invitation for a list of disparaging remarks against Jews.
And this all forgets the most important point: explaining something does not condone it.
This is profoundly irritating. Precious political capital has been squandered formenting outrage over a complete non-issue. It’s unfair on AQA and a disservice to the Jewish community. Those calling for resignations should apologise and get a sense of perspective.
