Instead of just the asinine motherhood statements that the Federal government recommends as the basis of values education in schools, Executive Director of the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria, Susan Pascoe, suggests that we should teach values education through the frame of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Business as usual won’t do. We need to attend to our own Australian values framework as well as imbue in students an understanding of universal values and intercultural and interfaith understanding. What better place to start than the United Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Wrought from the wreckage of World War II, this declaration sought to affirm fundamental and common human rights and freedoms and to lay the groundwork for a more peaceful world. A full examination of its 30 articles is not possible here. However, even a cursory look at Articles 1, 3 and 7 will illustrate the degree to which the values in our Australian framework are derived from these universal values.
* Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
* Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
* Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
The values of a fair go and freedom can be related to all three articles cited above. The nine Values for Australian Schooling are a mix of democratic virtues, ethical dispositions, personal attributes and learning principles. As such some will lend themselves to explicit modelling in classrooms and others will require cross-curricular and whole school approaches. School structures and organisation and teacher attitudes and behaviours will be as influential as learning opportunities. It is a truism that values are caught and not taught.
It is a pathetic endightment on our wet-noodle of a constitution that Australians look to the UN for higher values in liberty and rights. Where is our own aspirational enunciated rights in the Australian Constitution?
Sadly we don’t have one as Australian Government has consistently sought the absence of any enunciated rights so it can jump all over the rights of individuals whenever it is in the government’s political self-interest interest to do so.
Disgusting. No debate on Republicanism is complete without the express recognition that our constituion needs to catch up to the enlightenment, and contain express limits on the ability of government to use its monopoly on violence and coercion to ignore the rights of individuals.
I agree Cameron. The remnant preregoative powers in our constitution potentially allow the executive to do whatever it likes, without judicial or even legislative review, provided cabinet decides the country is under threat. And who among us can say they trust Ratty, Smirker and Cardinal Cuckold to use that power judiciously? Not to mention that mincing, risible uber-twat Downer.
Not I, Hermes the grumpy punter…. thats for damn sure…
I did find it amusingly ironic that the government’s list of values ended up all wet-lefty – the sort of stuff they’re always whining about eg tolerance, cooperation and other standard issue small-l values.
“Wrought from the wreckage of World War II, this declaration sought to affirm fundamental and common human rights and freedoms and to lay the groundwork for a more peaceful world.”
Didn’t work too well, did it? Russia, the Baltic States, Eastern Europe, China, Burma, Korea (N), Vietnam (all of it), Iraq, Iran, Syria, Uganda, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Sudan….
What a load of crock.
Tired and emotional RWDB.
Maybe, Mercury, “spreading freedom around the world” would have been a bit hard to explain to the kiddies?
Cameron and Hermes, I couldn’t agree more.
Rob, you have an odd perspective – would you rather that there had never been any international human rights law? I just don’t see your point. The Declaration on Human Rights was not meant to be an instrument for turning every state into a liberal democracy by enunciating those values. It’s meant to provide norms that in principle can be enforced against states, including by their own citizens (something our government is resolutely opposed to).
Your comment is confused and confusing, I’m afraid.
Get this values crap out of the schools, and this stuff back in:
Don’t you f*****g dare tell students what to think.
As for -
- words fail me. Does anyone actually take this shit seriously? Read it and weep. These people are teaching your children.
Tired etc.
I’m just in a bad mood, Mark.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Trust may not be a value as such, but is nevertheless socially valuable.
Hey Rob, when was Confucius taught in Australian schools? Just askin’.
I’d be happier if the Executive Director of the Catholic Education Commission had said : “What better place to start than the Catecism of the Catholic Church, or any number of encyclicals”, but I suppose that would be too much to ask.
She thinks the Catholic Church has to look to the UN for moral direction?
Tony, since this values education thing is mandated by the Federal government and is part of the formal curriculum (in primary schools – hence I agree with Kate that Rob’s list of writers – much as I love some of them – is inappropriate), I’m not surprised that it’s not being infused with religious content. I’m sure the Catholic Schools in Melbourne get the Catechism of the Catholic Church – George Pell made a big deal out of this. The other factor to take into account is that Catholic schools now teach a lot of students who aren’t Catholic (like my brother at St. James’ for instance).
Don’t get too worried, Mark – if St James’ is anything like pretty much every other Catholic school in the country, there’s absolutely no chance that they’ll turn him into a Catholic.
Personal opinion is that this should come with the territory – if you choose to send your children to a Catholic school, Catholic-based values both taught & demonstarted should be expected as part of the package – but this hasn’t been the case for about 40 years, which is perhaps part of the reason a secular “values education thing” is thought to be required?
And I wouldn’t be too sure that either the CEC or any of Melbourne’s Catholic schools were fundementally changed by Cardinal Pell’s high-impact but brief time as Archbishop, or refer often if at all to the Catechism (spelled correctly this time – damn, but blog comments need a spellchecker!). My original point remains – why wouldn’t someone in her position refer first to the Catholic Church’s pretty reasonable background in morals/values, instead of the UN?
I think I already answered you on that one, Tony.