The Politics of Envy
written by Kevin Summers, October 2001
Every so often a political catchphrase, usually of American or British origin, washes upon our shores like so much jetsam. They are found and employed by our political masters who lack the wit to alter them even slightly. They have no function other than to obfuscate genuine thought and debate. Presently, no discourse about the funding of education can be attempted without the appearance of one such phrase: "the politics of envy".
It's not new. It was used by Margaret Thatcher in 1979 to lash her political adversaries regarding wealth creation. Ronald Reagan's advisers slipped it into his mind to undermine opponents of tax cuts to the affluent. Now it is in vogue with John Howard and his Education Minister Kemp. They maintain that to carp over Federal monies going to wealthy private schools is to pander to base and unworthy instincts.
Well, I have to confess to being both base and unworthy. I choose to practise the politics of envy without hesitation or guilt. Schools which offer lavish facilities, amazing student-teacher ratios and hectares of playing fields don't need more cash. Rather, they should feel guilty about putting out their hands. And politicians should be ashamed about handing it over.
"We remain a relatively classless society, aspirational yet egalitarian." So said the Prime Minister in this year's Australia Day address. That he regularly projects this view does not hide the fact that it is a load of rubbish. Our education practices prove it. Do Howard and Kemp really believe that they preside over a fair and decent system of education? The present state of affairs beggars belief.
A recent short-term teaching appointment to a state secondary school revealed that nothing has changed from when I taught in the outskirts of Frankston and Dandenong many years ago. Class numbers remain large. Teaching resources remain scarce. Teachers remain committed but work under great pressure. The students might be as aspirational as Howard contends but they aren't studying on a level playing field. Amiable types, they display little envy of their private school comrades. They leave that to me.
The very foundation of private school education is built on shifting morality. If a group of wealthy citizens decided to raise a private police force to exclusively protect them we would view it as destructive of the social fabric. In the same way, private and elitist education should be seen for what it is - a tragic aberration. Moreover, it is an admission that as a society we lack the will to comprehensively educate all our children.
We lack the will but we certainly have the means: capital, expertise and experience. A state education - compulsory, free and secular - is also capable of offering quality, if only we had the determination. It is truly remarkable that a nation which readily follows the United States in so many areas refuses to embrace the American system based on merit and industry.
It is difficult not to be intimidated by this animal known as elitist education. It is powerful and has a voracious appetite. Its champions are essentially those spawned by it. Look no further than the education backgrounds of members of the Federal Cabinet. Their propaganda is couched in reasonable terms - respect for parental choice in the face of financial sacrifice - but it remains a spin, a bit of slick verbiage.
It is deployed to ensure that the community loses sight of the most important issue: that our present way of educating our children is riven with injustice and represents nothing more than the theft of opportunity. The politics of envy? Yeah, you bet. Let's have a bit more of it.
Home