Secondary history curriculum should not be used as ammunition in religious debate
AS a historian who is also a secularist, I feel compelled to comment on Professor (formerly Bishop) Tom Wright’s recent intervention. He argued (“Professor: Jesus’s life should be taught in history lessons”, The Herald, September 27) that study of the life of Jesus should be included in the mainstream history curriculum in schools. This is indeed an interesting idea, but one which might best be characterised as unrealistic and misguided.
As Prof Wright will be aware, study of the “historical Jesus” is a complex area which requires a serious grasp of historical method and addressing complex and contradictory sources. What he is in fact proposing is a university course and not appropriate for the constraints of teaching history in secondary schools.
Secondly, as various commentators have already pointed out, more than half of Scotland’s population is known to identify as “not religious”. Given this social and cultural context it is bizarre to suggest that more Christianity in schools as opposed to less might be appropriate. If anything, if put into action, Prof Wright’s suggestion would likely damage history as a secondary school subject area by creating an impression that it was irrelevant and hopelessly out of touch with contemporary society.
If Prof Wright were serious about strengthening the place of history in Scottish then he might turn his attention to some of the problems our university departments are encountering. They are frequently under-resourced and viewed as a low priority by university managers. He might also lobby for action on the pathetic state of postgraduate funding, which has increasingly resulted in the perception that history is some kind of luxury subject open only to those who can raise the required fees for postgraduate study. In the long term, this is damaging the profession by threatening to turn it into a “genteel hobby” open to those who are able to pay for access, and this will adversely affect the relevance and credibility of history as an academic discipline. Perhaps these issues are less visible from the neatly-mown lawns and ivory towers of St Andrews?
More encouragingly, though, this debate has demonstrated that knowledge of the past and contesting how it is studied remain pertinent issues in Scottish society, and this can be seen through the level of comment which Prof Wright’s intervention has raised. Clearly, how we teach history and what content that teaching includes is a subject that matters for many. This is something we should be glad of. But I do not think it is appropriate that the secondary school history curriculum should be used as ammunition in the debate over the role of religion in Scottish education. Charlie Lynch, Secretary, Scottish Secular Society, 17 Queens Crescent, Glasgow.