Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Life as an Infidel

    ‘I’d been a Muslim myself and I’d reacted in the same way when Islam was criticised.’

  • Timothy Garton Ash Replies to Pascal Bruckner

    ‘We also need a large tolerance for cultural diversity.’

  • Ian Buruma Replies to Pascal Bruckner

    ‘Women should be protected from abuse.’ Oh good.

  • The Meaning of ‘Groundhog Day’

    Is it torture or a path to enlightenment?

  • Grayling Reiterates the Challenge

    To explain what Christianity, a body of supernatural beliefs, had contributed to science.

  • I’ll decide how much light you need

    Noga pointed out two more articles, and I’m feeling slightly peeved at being told not to ‘blame the Jews, for Chrissakes,’ as if I had, so I’ll say a little more. The articles are interesting. From The Canadian Jewish News, which says the Canadian Jewish Congress doesn’t agree that the synagogue should have asked the Y to frost its windows.

    [C]ommunications director Leyla Di Cori…said CJC is trying to get the message out to the public that the entire chassidic population represents only five to 10 per cent of the Montreal Jewish community and “does not reflect the community as a whole.”

    Well of course it doesn’t, and neither does anyone else, because there is no such thing as ‘the community as a whole’ except in the case of a town or neighborhood, in which case there is still no one who can ‘reflect the community as a whole’ because that doesn’t mean anything, because people don’t think in a bloc. Why would anybody think that the people at the synagogue did ‘reflect the community as a whole’? I suppose because people keep talking about ‘communities’ that way, just as Leyla Di Cori does.

    What the people at the synagogue may ‘reflect’ is a growing tendency for religious zealots to think they can tell everyone else what to do, but that’s not the same thing as reflecting a ‘community.’

    Di Cori said she thinks this seemingly minor incident has been played up in the media because it fits into the “reasonable accommodation” debate going on in Quebec today about how far a society that prides itself on being secular and progressive should go to tolerate practices of religious and cultural minorities that are at odds with the majority.

    I’ll tell you how far. Zero far. Unless of course there’s no issue, which is no help, because when there’s no issue there’s no debate about how far anyone should go. If there’s no harm and nothing at stake, no problem; if there is harm, the society should go zero far.

    B’nai Brith Canada legal counsel Steven Slimovitch “commended” the Y administration for good neighbourliness and finding a “compromise” that poses little or no inconvenience to the institution or its members. In fact, it appears to have been a plus for the Y, because the congregation paid for the change to the windows.

    Why is that a plus? The congregation paid to make the windows opaque so that there is less light inside. Why is that a plus? Many of us like natural light.

    “Was the space rendered any less comfortable? Can they not work out there any more? No. If it had been, for example, a sewing class that was held there that required a lot of natural light, it would be a different story.”

    Ah – so it’s up to him to decide how much light the people at the Y get to have in a situation where the people at the synagogue want them to have less. It’s up to him, not up to them. I see.

    He deplored what he regards as the visceral “us versus them” mentality among some Y members. In an increasingly diverse society, he said, it’s necessary more than ever to co-operate and show respect and understanding.

    Respect and understanding for the religious zealots who want women to hide, not respect and understanding for people who don’t share their religion and don’t want it telling them what to do and how much light they’re allowed to have in a public gym. No, it’s not necessary to show that, it’s necessary to refuse to show that.

    Slimovitch said he doesn’t see this case as a status of women issue in any way, or one that endorses a view that women are somehow shameful and must be kept out of sight.

    Well he would say that, wouldn’t he. And he’s not the one who’s being told to cover up, is he, so I really don’t think his opinion is interesting or relevant.

    And here’s an ugly little finale:

    Alex Werzberg, president of the Coalition of Outremont Chassidic Organizations and a Satmar community member, called “the whole thing a big joke…Everything was fine for months, and then somebody came in and made a big deal out of it – an agent provocateur – who says, ‘Those Jews are not going to tell us what to do,’ called the media and made a hullabaloo.”

    Did she? Did she say that? Did she? Or did he just say she did? I know what I think.

  • Cover yourself!

    So if there are ‘devout’ people around, then anyone living or working or exercising or playing sport in a building near them has a responsibility to make sure that the devout people don’t see anything that they (or, really, some of them) don’t like. Even if that means that a subset of the devout people can see what the other people are doing only by going outside, around the corner, into the alley, where they peer into the windows – it is the responsibility of the horrible non-devout people next door to wear armour or paint their windows black or turn all their lights off, because after all what right does anyone have to wear shorts and a skimpy top for athletic purposes if there are devout people nearby? No right at all of course. Devout trumps non-devout. Right? Right.

    Some members of the Avenue du Parc YMCA are upset with the centre’s administrators, who allowed windows on the building’s west side to be tinted in order to placate leaders of a Hasidic synagogue across the alley. The Y members claim the tinted windows compromise the building’s interior lighting and make it hard to practise tai chi and yoga.

    Oh grow up. For heaven’s sake. So the Y is a little darker than it used to be; get used to it.

    Members of the Yetev Lev synagogue, on Hutchison Street, paid for tinted windows at the Y after they complained their children and youth were unwittingly watching too many women in various states of undress work out at the gym. The congregation’s rabbi said public nudity is not acceptable to his members, nor to any religious Jew.

    Public nudity in the sense of inside a building, next door to another building containing people who ‘unwittingly’ watch women in various states of undress. Right; well that makes sense. It’s perfectly fair, too.

    But some people just won’t see reason.

    [N]ow the windows have opened up a rift over whether the institution went too far to accommodate a minority. Some Y members have circulated a petition demanding the opaque windows be removed because they not only deprive the room of light, but allow a religious group to impose its ways on the majority.“It’s like getting us to wear a veil. Since we represent temptation, we’re being asked to hide,” Renée Lavaillante, who started the petition, said yesterday. “We shouldn’t have to hide in order to exercise in Quebec. We’re a secular state, and shouldn’t hide ourselves for religious reasons.”

    It’s also like ordering you to go to the back of the bus – but hey, be reasonable; the back of the bus is a perfectly nice, homey place. Settle down, get comfortable.

    The Hasidic community says it is not out to stop women from exercising the way they like. Members just want to find a way to maintain their strict traditions in a secular world, and felt the windows – for which the congregation footed the $3,500 bill – were a reasonable solution.

    Of course they were! Perfectly reasonable! Hey, if a neighbour of mine decided he couldn’t stand the possibility of getting a sight of me reading a godless book (which he couldn’t, because I live at the top of a hill and my windows face into thin air, but never mind), of course it would be perfectly reasonable of him to demand that I have the windows painted black, especially if he footed the bill. Why should I mind a darkened living room if it makes a neighbour happy? I’m not so petty, I assure you!

    “We have a belief in being dressed modestly, and we want our kids to see women dressed modestly,” Mr. Weig said.

    Not just in our own living rooms, but also in their living rooms. We want our kids to see women dressed modestly, therefore we think we have a right to demand that all women everywhere ‘dress modestly’ according to our definitions and no matter where they are. We don’t want much, do we.

    Serge St-André, director of the YMCA branch, said the Hasidim’s request had been submitted to an advisory committee, which judged it to be reasonable…“We are geographically at the junction of several communities, and the YMCA has to take on the colours of those communities,” he said…“We try to be responsive to the requests of the community. It’s a challenge to satisfy everyone.”…a Y member walked up to say he objected to the windows. “We can’t let ourselves be imposed upon by extremist religious groups. What’s next? Separate gyms for women and for men? Wearing long pants and long sleeves to exercise?” Outremont resident Robert Dolbec asked. “They [the Hasidim] should cover their own windows. I respect their right to practise their religion, but not their right to impose their religion on us.”…The frosted-window kerfuffle is just the latest flare-up between the fast-growing Hasidic community in Outremont and the larger secular community that surrounds it. In the 1980s, Outremont passed a bylaw banning the wearing of bathing suits in its public parks; the law was struck down as unconstitutional by Quebec Superior Court in 1985…Asher Wieder, a rabbi at the Yetev Lev synagogue, said he hoped the window row would be resolved peacefully. “We felt the way we worked it out was very fair. They still have light in the room and we help our children keep their traditions and religion,” he said. “I think it’s a good compromise.”

    They don’t have as much light, but hey, that’s what ‘compromise’ means. So if that neighbour wants me to paint my windows black and I agree to paint just half of the windows, everybody is happy. Compromise is great.

  • Goldenbridge II

    “The Children Act allowed destitute children to be sent to industrial schools, even if they hadn’t committed a crime.” Paddy Doyle.

    Incarceration

    This “destitution” lark was a ruse used by the judiciary and the religious in order to obtain convictions. I was, for example, in a feeder institution, known as The Regina Ceoli, Mother and Baby unit for over four and a half years. So how could I have been even considered “destitute” by the judiciary? “Destitution”, this terminology, was in my estimation “illegally used” on my committal order to Goldenbridge Industrial School – where I was incarcerated until I was sixteen years old. There was no limit on my stay in the “hostel”.

    It is imperative for people to comprehend that “touting for business” explicitly from feeder institutions, such as the aforementioned hostel, went on big time. As well as, I might append, “baby farming” which is an additional gigantic undeclared subject. Like the Magdalen Laundries, it is an extraordinarily brittle subject. The Irish powers-that-be are fearful to shine the torch down that very indistinguishable shadowy road.

    The religious colluded in this unauthentic committal lark in order to boost up their numbers in the mainstream industrial schools. They railed at the judiciary who were becoming unenthusiastic about sending children to the gulags. They insisted on wanting to know why their wishes were not being adhered to as they (the religious) were very bothered about the up-keep of their mammoth Victorian “private” buildings. As with all, they unquestionably won out! The Irish Church/State was and is synonymous with conjoined twins.

    At first, girls only went into the industrial schools run by the Sisters of Mercy and others, but when numbers began to diminish, they asked for boys up to the age of ten. Consequently, survivors like Paddy Doyle landed up in one. On attainment of ten years the boys customarily thereafter graduated to the industrial/reformatory schools such as Artane, Daingean, and Letterfrack. These boys-only child labour camps were run by the Christian Brothers, Oblate Fathers and other orders of that ilk. A majority of older boys in these industrial schools were there for minor criminal activities, such as mitching (skiving) from school or stealing apples from orchards. A smaller number of older boys would have been there for more serious misdemeanours. These boys were naturally more streetwise. They had the wherewithal to be able to differentiate between the outside world and their newfound abodes. Boys who came from the female-religious-run institutions on the other hand did not have a clue about outside life and were thus treated abominably by the system, which could or would not tolerate their social inadequacies. They were classed as orphans, yet they too, like myself, would have been taken from their parent or parents, and would have been hauled before the courts and would have been considered to have been “destitute” and would have been sentenced until they were sixteen years old. Boys who were criminally committed would have received sentences ranging from as little as six months to roughly six years.

    Mass and Breakfast time in Goldenbridge.

    Throughout the winter months those who were not doing duties like getting small children up, cleaning dormitories, washing soiled sheets in cold water in the uniformly cold stone school laundry, lined up in the cloister, which was situated just outside the wicket gate, with no warm clothing other than our berets. We could not enter the chapel without the arrival first of the convent chaplain to the chapel. He generally arrived at 6:55am for 7 am mass. It was okay though, at this time, for the convent nuns to sit comfortably in their pews. The chapel was a private one and it would consequently have served the children who were usually freezing to have been able to have to go into it even – just for warmth’s sake. There was never any such luck. We were mere mediocre little people who must at all times be kept in place.

    On the arrival of the chaplain, we made our way silently to the chapel. The priest said the mass in Latin. Again, those on the lowest rungs of the Goldenbridge ladder would not have been allowed by the nuns to serve mass. This was a very privileged task! Children couldn’t dare to turn their heads around in the chapel to look at the nuns behind. The all-black, bended, hooded figures sat some distance behind us in rows of pews. It was always a scary, eerie pursuit for the children when they did turn their curious heads as the nun’s heads were hidden, I always wondered why they were hiding – after all did these holy nuns not sacrifice their lives for God? It should have been an uplifting happy experience. They exactly reminded me of people who were waiting for death.

    During the course of mass children fainted through sheer hunger, as no food would have entered the children’s’ bodies from 6 o’clock the preceding evening, and that would have been a inadequately two slices of smelly bread and marge and a cup of black sugarless cocoa. The children who passed out also had the misfortune of being reprimanded by the nuns in charge of the institution. The nuns consistently told the weakened children “You are a notice box – looking for attention, and what will the other nuns be thinking” how dare ye show us up in their presence.” Children who fainted were indeed also told to go to” the notorious Goldenbridge landing” by the nuns or staff to wait for a flogging from the head capo, Sister X. It was suffice it to say hard luck all round.

    In the classroom

    St Bridget’s classroom had massive windows, we sat two to a desk which were made of heavy oak, attached to curved wrought- iron legs. Each desk also had two inkwells with copper lids. The dark walls were adorned with pictures depicting the Joyful, Glorious, and Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary. Posters, also of mothers/fathers in domestic situations for teaching purposes bedecked the walls. Children were not allowed under any circumstances to write with the right hand it was classed as “the devils work”. I am naturally citeog, so one can imagine how difficult that was to use right hand.

    Ms. L was legendary for using the corner of the ruler on the very young children’s knuckles and tip of the fingers. Ms L always for some strange reason, cried out: “I will draw blood. I will write your name in blood.” She was not though despite all the cruellest teacher.

    Sister Fabian always called children by disparaging names; she had a list as long as her arm. Amadan; oinseach; gombeen; half-wit; crackawley; cracked; dope, clown, clot, crackpot; she predominantly said to me; “there is a ‘want’ in you Lougho” – meaning that I was not “the full shilling!” Nonetheless, at the time of declaration it went in one ear and out the other. I did not have the foggiest discernment as to its denigrating meaning.

    We were mere nonentities who were never going to quantify to anything in this life. We were never, ever, going anywhere. The sisters could as a result unremittingly lay before us reminders of our lowly status. We were everlastingly receiving negative sound bytes.

    Sister Fabian also systematically threatened children with”Moate” again, nobody had a notion what this word signified. “You ninny hammer, if you do not watch yourself, or pull yourself together you will find yourself up in Moate.” I now know that Mount Carmel, Moate, Mullingar, was an Industrial School run by the Sisters of Mercy. I heard from others that it was not as bad as Goldenbbridge.

    Sister Fabian, being a Donegal country sister, loved flowers; in later years, there was a rockery outside the Wicket Gate, which lay along the side footpath leading up Goldenbridge Avenue. I remember helping with the spraying of the bi-annuals. The children in general considered it an honour when Sister Fabian specially selected them to do this interesting task. It was in colossal disparity to the more repugnant, loathsome, monstrous and detestable chores I (and other girls – on different occasions) had to do which was to sweep up residue of excrement from the never-ending overflowing, end of the yard shores. No wonder children ended up with scabs, warts, ringworm, serious forms of conjunctivitis, or as we called it – “shut eye”, and every other conceivable ailment.

    Miss G, who taught “third” and “fourth” 8 to 10 yrs class was something else, she, like Sister X, put the fear of God in us. We were petrified of her; she too, moreover was also an un-trained “jam” teacher. I have never forgotten the merciless, callous ruthless acts of this teacher, for example, she compelled us to stand on top of the school seats or desks with our hands held high in the air for unwarranted extravagant amounts of time, and she would at the same time flay us on the legs with a long bamboo stick or long ruler. She also made us stand on one foot for some unknown reason. She also would boomerang the long “ruler” at children who, she professed, were not learning fast enough.

    We learned parables, miracles, and the catechism off by heart. Children had to circle around her desk and thump each other whilst almost singing the above in unison. Little boys learning the Koran would not have been up to the likes of us. Again, we also rocked like mad in order to learn the whole lot off. She invariably unexpectedly crept up behind us and gave us thumps on our backs with her fist that jolted us or else she needled us with the bamboo stick, causing stinging pain. Monday mornings were the worst as she was enthused with fierce energy.

    St Teresa’s classroom was nestled on its own in the back of Goldenbridge. It was a cold miserable large open spaced room, which also doubled up as a locker room after classes. Ms G, as it were, could do what she liked as there was no authority figure in near sight to hear her or our cries. Everyone in Goldenbridge dreaded this teacher.

    The children who were privileged to go to “the outside” National School, said that they were initially asked to spell the word “ingredient” and do a simple arithmetic question which they got correct hence their getting selected from Ms. G’s class.

    Children were also made to stand in the corner of St Teresa’s classroom with the name Amadan or Dunce pinned to their backs. I also explicitly remember at various times a wicker waste paper basket being put over the heads of the children while they stood in the corner of the classroom. Some children were always told to stand outside the classroom. Two children at any given time were also sent into a separate area and the brighter of them was obliged to thump religion into the slower one. They were bright enough then but not enough to secure them a position in the national School.

    We were sporadically sent out of this class to do work in the scullery or outside yard,washing and cleaning vegetables which were placed in a big aluminium tub.

    Ms G hailed from Kildare and commuted to Goldenbridge Industrial School each day. She was very prejudicial in that she repetitively uttered the following mantra, ‘dirty Dublin, dirty Dublin, dirty Dublin!’ I believe at one stage Ms. G lived on the premises in Goldenbridge, she was thick with Sr. Xaveria. We knew not what she was on about notwithstanding the fact that we were approximately near the heart of the city of Dublin. Gosh, in retrospect, we were implausibly institutionalised and in this fashion hideously green. Dublin could have been in Timbuktu as we were concerned!

    Each year a priest came to examine us in cathechism – I recollect winning 2/6 but remember even more not being in receipt of same, it was typical. This also was very prevalent with the making of the rosaries, in that we too never got our proper yearly earnings of 2/6d – it was always deviously clawed back.

    Christine Buckley told me that she was grateful to Ms G, as the teaching that she indisputably had in her class stood her in good stead. Bernadette Fahy, who was given a similar “outside” education became a Psychologist. Christine eventually went into mainstream outside school afterwards. She then became a midwife by profession, so she had a lot to be indebted in that respect. Ironically, both ended up doing fantastic work on behalf of victims/survivors of institutional abuse, and many are much indebted to them.

    I would have endured any punishment from this teacher if it would have gotten me somewhere later on in life as she certainly knew how to teach.

    Sr. Fabian’s Classroom – One afternoon

    Valerie made a clatter as Sister Fabian tackled inhumanly with her “soiled” clothing in order to remove them. Valerie clasped forcefully on to them to save herself from this loathsome embarrassing act. All was in vain as poor Valerie was conquered by this malevolent piece of work. She succeeded in savagely stripping her of her soiled clothing – this sister of mercy – who always said to Valerie “you have evil eyes, you have the devil’s eyes.” It caused her to keep her head untiringly down, as she was so feeling shame at having even been born with all the systematic abuse that was consistently thrown at her. It was said, by Sister Fabian to Valerie, “it is nothing more than the devil that is coming out of you”.

    This episode occurred in front of young girls in St Philomena’s classroom. Children were totally beside themselves frightened out of their wits and with ignominy and astonishment and did not know where to put their heads. Unexpectedly, like lightning, Valerie roared like a wild animal and with all her power went for the jugular, the “sacrosanct” holy “veil”. All hell was let loose. Sister Fabian then let go of Valerie as she tried to fix her veil into position. She then said to us “get on with your work”.

    The raison d’être behind this whole monstrous performance was medical. Valerie had a severe hormonal problem whereby she haemorrhaged profusely. Her face was always as white as snow. She thus became delirious and hallucinated, and constantly talked about ‘moving’ statues before they ever came into vogue. Also because of the nature of her illness and no medical treatment/supervision, she was at a loss as to what to do. There was no considerate or kind adult in Goldenbridge to direct her in her need. Ironically, the washroom was right next door to St Philomena’s but it was out of bounds, so when she was having hygiene problems there was nowhere for her to go. As a corollary, foreseeable accidents occurred which resulted in overshadowing repugnant smells. It permeated all over, but what was she to do? Well enter Sister Fabian, she indisputably sorted it out. A lot of victims and survivors have never forgotten this sad sordid saga.

    Sr. Fabian for all time held her nose at children and said “you dirty thing, get out of my sight.” She was a very intolerant sister and caused huge damage to children because of it. One afternoon in St. Philomena’s was no exception to the rule. Valerie died last year due to self neglect, but she lived long enough to tell the sad tale.

    Valerie, who unendingly held her head down in shame, had Bambi-type beautiful brown eyes. She also made the most neatest of rosary beads, and we always complimented and sought out her assistance. I wrote in my best English a long witness statement to both the CIRCA and the RIRB on behalf of Valerie, who was not conversant. Bernadette Fahy also stood up for her.

    Valerie’s mother who hails from the North of Ireland was only fourteen years old when she gave birth to her first boy child, and was sixteen years old when Valerie was born, there was also another girl some years later but she was lucky enough to be contentedly adopted. The boy went to another disreputable Industrial School – Artane. So he too was just a stranger to his sister.

    The adopted sister some years ago suddenly arrived at Valerie’s abode. It caused great consternation as Valerie never knew of her existence. She took Valerie under her wing, but the wounds were way too deep for her to appreciate any kindness. Valerie could not grasp the logic as to why she was also not adopted, and it caused deep friction and resentment. This type of thinking is very common with those who were detained in Goldenbridge. The sadness of it is that one is not dealing with just normal sibling rivalry.

    Valerie’s mother went on to have a second family and wanted nothing to do with any of her children who were born outside of that union. A cousin whom she had no contact with sadly died in the Northern Ireland Omagh Bombing of some years ago. Christine Buckley, Bernadette Fahy, and a host of us from Valerie’s era were all present at her funeral. She had insisted on being cremated. Everything about one’s bodily functions was cloak and dagger stuff. Prepubscent children were an enigma to sister Fabian.

    Memory

    Time, never erased my memories of Goldenbridge, I did not have the added distraction of the outside world to contend with.

    I worked to rule, every day was the same, with the exception of summer time when other children and I, who had no family, went to a holiday home in Rathdrum Co Wicklow, which was, incidentally, paid for with monies accrued from the Rosary Beads “lark”. The only happy memories I have are connected to this exquisite environment, (not staff) which was the only positive thing in our lives. Not ever having human comforts we could at least enjoy the absolutely natural beauty of our surroundings. To this day I still love the Garden of Ireland. There is now a statue of Charles Stewart Parnell standing on the spot where once the old rambling Victorian house stood. We always thought that there should have been a plaque erected to all the Goldenbridge inmates as well.

    Appendix: Some Testimony from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Public Hearing, Dublin, 15 May 2006. Evidence of Sister Helena O’Donoghue

    Q: …I am more concerned with the statements of Sr. Fabian, as it were, against interest both on her part and the interest of the Sisters of Mercy, that the general atmosphere was excessively and consistently cruel, even relative to the standards at the time?

    A. Well, we have acknowledged that we believe that industrial school life and system was not an appropriate system for children who had come into care through various difficulties. We do recognise that it would have augmented the regime itself being so stylised in many ways, would have augmented their pain, but we do not accept that it was excessively harsh.

    Q:…but in his report he records her confirming that: “Fear of and actual beatings and verbal abuse was a matter of routine. And that the general account of children, for example, waiting on landings was accurate…Wetting was defined as a crime and, therefore, punishable through humiliation and physical beatings. Sr. Fabian confirmed the allegations in relation to the tumble drier and drinking from the toilet cistern. She also confirmed the bead making and that failure to obey rules was normally punished by physical beatings”.

    …….

    A: We cannot be absolute about it, but I think it was a feature of Goldenbridge that when a number of children came to 16, and were for one reason or another, people, children, young women who might have been at risk or unable to manage outside of the school, and there was no further funding for them, a way of, if you like, meeting their need in particular was to become helpers, as they were called. It was not, I suppose, looked at in the way that we might look at it today, which was, well, were they appropriate for the care of children? They were young people who had actually lived through their years in the institution to that point and were familiar, obviously, to everybody there.

    Q. Yes. I think you have fairly acknowledged in your written statement of evidence that poor educational achievement and inability to find employment, other than domestic service, was a consequence for many children; cleaning and scrubbing and household work elsewhere. These staff then retained were clearly not up to that standard of being let out into the world and were put in the care of children?

    A. That is the reality and we regret that that was an aspect, that there wasn’t an awareness or a sensitivity to at the time.

    Q. Have you any reason to think that they received any training at all other than their experience of having gone through Goldenbridge themselves?

    A. I would be confident in saying there was no training. There was no training for the adults or the teachers who were employed at that time in childcare.

    Q. Is there any evidence of which you are aware, that they were made familiar with any rules relating to discipline and punishment?

    A. I couldn’t make any comment on that at this distance back.

    A: Why were children in Goldenbridge not allowed out to attend the local national school? Why did there have to be one secured up in Goldenbridge?

    A. I am not in a position to answer that.

    Q: One of the things that the Commission will have to consider is obviously the nature of the education facilities and the teaching staff, but also its interrelationship with the work regime in Goldenbridge. There seems to have been a considerable lack of opportunity for a number of children, perhaps unquantifiable, who were pulled out of classrooms to do work, when perhaps they should have been staying in the classroom to become educated, and being required to do the laundry two days a week and prepare vegetables and minding of babies, cleaning of windows, tilling the land, tending the vegetable garden. All taken away from their schooling for this work…I have referred already to the passage in your statement of evidence about the lack of opportunity that the education provided for getting employment, other than sort of domestic work as scrubbers and cleaners, many of them feel they were educated to be. Would you be concerned, and have you heard complaints over your years of contact with the survivors, about a high level of functional illiteracy on the part of those who are said to have been educated by the Sisters of Mercy? One of the other complaints made about the relationship between study and work is that there was little time allowed for any sort of study or reading in the evenings. In your own statement, you say: “A few pupils persevered and sat the Leaving Certificate. Such students did not do much of the domestic chores carried out by the other children, but instead had extended study time”. Do I understand from that, that it was only the few who were chosen would get out of the work and therefore have the extended study time?

    A: I understand from the Sisters who were there at the time, that that was the practice. That those who went out to the secondary school did not have to take the same share in the chores as those who were inside.

    Q. Okay. So the heavier burden then would fall on others, who were then deprived of their study time, to allow some of the few to be released?

    A. I would have to say about Goldenbridge it is acknowledged that homework at primary school level did not feature really in the after school time of the children. Now I am not in a position to say why was that.

    Q. Can I suggest to you it was because they were required to do other work?

    A. In actual fact they weren’t doing other work at that time. They had a half an hour after school for play in the yard. They then went to the bead making, perhaps that is what you are referring to, but it wasn’t the ordinary chores of managing the house.

    Q. Just touching on that point. Do you accept on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy that the burden of work placed on the children there was excessive?

    A. No, we don’t accept that. We would recognise that children had chores to do, and the children who were doing the industrial school training, particularly in the afternoon, there would have been 70 to 80 children in that group at any one time. So the sharing out of the tasks would have eased the amount of work to be done.

    01 February 2007

    Marie-Therese O’Loughlin can be reached at mariethereseoloughlin@yahoo.com

  • Russell Jacoby on the Seminar That Failed

    The humanities are eroding everywhere thanks to: not lefty academics but market forces.

  • Andrew Murray Pitches a Fit at Nick Cohen

    Chair of Stoppers is very cross indeed.

  • Gym Tints Windows at Behest of Synagogue

    ‘We have a belief in being dressed modestly, and we want our kids to see women dressed modestly.’

  • So Tint Your Own Windows

    ‘The congregation’s rabbi said public nudity is not acceptable to his members, nor to any religious Jew.’

  • David Thompson Interviews Windbag

    Why does ‘Why Truth Matters’ inspire peevish emails?

  • Spotting Abused Children Accused of Possession

    Number of cases linked to spirit possession is small compared to total number of cases.

  • The psychology of such accommodations

    Jonathan Derbyshire’s interview with Nick Cohen is very good.

    ‘I realised that people on the left who had once supported Iraqi socialists were going to dump them. That’s when the iron entered the soul. That’s when I thought something is going very badly wrong and that I need to write about it.’Instead of supporting socialists and trade unionists in Iraq once Saddam had been overthrown, some on the left went so far as to romanticise the insurgency launched by Baathist irregulars and radical Islamists, declaring it to be a movement of ‘national liberation’…‘To say it’s left-wing to turn your back on Kurdish and Iraqi socialists is to throw the best traditions of left solidarity out of the window. What kind of left is it that betrays its comrades?’

    A very confused one, at any rate.

    ‘What’s Left?’ is not a book about the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq but rather an attempt to answer the question of betrayal…[H]e compares the strenuous act of historical forgetting involved in seeing Islamism as authentically ‘anti-imperialist’ with the mental gymnastics demanded of Communists and their fellow-travellers in 1939 when the Nazi-Soviet pact was sealed. Cohen is interested in the psychology of such accommodations.

    Yeah. So am I. I always have been, for some reason – I spent most of my twenties reading about the mental gymnastics of the left in the 30s. I’m very interested in the psychology of such accomodations. And the weird gymnastics of today are indeed reminiscent of those of the 30s – Nick and I did some muttering about that while he was writing the book.

  • Metaphysical naturalism

    Mark Vernon takes issue with Anthony Grayling on the question of the latter’s challenge to Madeleine Bunting ‘to name one – even one small – contribution to science made by Christianity in its two thousand years’.

    After all, there are a number of essentially theological ideas that underpin modern science, such as the notion that the universe is coherent, intelligible and so on.

    But are those ideas essentially theological? Are they theological at all? (Does ‘essentially’ there mean – necessarily, or of its essence, or something like ‘perhaps not obviously but down deep beyond appearances’? It could be just a no true Scotsman move.)

    I don’t think the ‘notion’ that the universe is coherent, intelligible and so on is an essentially theological idea, and I tend to suspect that claims that it is are part of the usual pattern of giving theism, or particular religions, credit for pretty much every idea anyone’s ever had, including some pretty obviously secular ones. We’re told that Christianity invented the idea of equality, anti-slavery, science, the worth of the individual, human dignity, secularism – you name it. But the notion that the universe is coherent and intelligible doesn’t depend on also thinking there is a god; the two can be separate thoughts; one can have one without the other; in fact, lots of people do have one without the other (some of them are called ‘scientists’). Why would it depend on thinking there is a god? Because the universe couldn’t or wouldn’t be coherent and intelligible unless a god had made it that way? That must be the thought, but it doesn’t seem like a very compelling thought to me. It’s the regress problem again, for one thing. If you think the universe couldn’t or wouldn’t be coherent and intelligible unless a god had made it that way, then why not also think a god couldn’t be a coherent-universe-maker unless a bigger god had made it that way, and so on? And for another thing, it adds a kind of person to the puzzle, instead of just stopping with a coherent universe, for reasons which are not self-explanatory, at least not to me. So why couldn’t people just look around them and see a lot of coherence and intelligibility and come up with the notion that the universe is coherent and intelligible, and leave it at that? They could; lots did; so in what way is that notion essentially theological?

    I said at Comment is free that the coherent-universe notion could be a metaphysical belief (as opposed to a theological one) but also that it could equally well be a working assumption, which is what most scientists take it to be.

    I don’t like this habit of labeling all or most human ideas religious or theological. It really is possible to think thoughts that are not essentially somewhere down at the bottom theological.

  • Global Warming, Intelligent Design and the Re-Ascendancy of the Pro-Scientific Political Left

    In his State of the Union address, President Bush said something that was sadly remarkable:

    America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

    In a major speech, the President of the United States openly acknowledged global warming, the fact that human activity is having an effect, and that we face a challenge in dealing with it. This should not be news, but that this President has done so, in light of his previous tap dancing around the scientific consensus around the issue, shows a shift in American politics. We are seeing a resurgence of the power of the scientific left.

    The dominant progressive voices throughout 80s and 90s were largely from the humanistic, anti-scientific contingent. But the recent excesses of the religious, anti-scientific wing of the conservative movement around issues like stem cell research, climate change, and intelligent design have given rise to a general insecurity about the power these people hold. These are challenges the post-modern crowd is ill-suited to confront, a fact which creates a political opening for pro-scientific progressives to return from the outer darkness. At this time, we are facing an opportunity we cannot afford to squander.

    The Uneasy Marriage of Corporate Interests to the Christian Right

    The charge to power of the American conservative movement in the last several decades is based upon being able to combine the economic desires of corporate moneyed interests with the social policy aims of the Evangelical Christian movement. Recent books like Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas? and Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy do a wonderful job of chronicling this union and its clout. While interests of the corporate and religious elements of American conservatism do not necessarily intersect, their combined muscle has been used in concert in a fashion effective beyond any expectations.

    But one place the two factions tend to part company has been science. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, advances in science and associated technologies have provided new products and increased efficiency for business. This generated a pro-science movement among conservatives, who not only saw the financial benefits of its results, but warmly received Herbert Spencer’s social re-interpretation of Darwin. The likes of Andrew Carnegie and H. L. Mencken embraced the scientific worldview and saw it inextricably linked to their conservative outlook, which places the wealthy above the workers on the Great Chain of Social Being.

    The result of this was that the burgeoning American Evangelical movement, comprised of very religious working class people, became distrustful of science. Led by figures like William Jennings Bryan, the original opposition to the theory of evolution in America was based more on its reaction to social Darwinism than to any concerns about science and particular theological views. These opponents saw biology being used to bolster oppression, and therefore they fought it with a Bible in one hand and a pitchfork in the other. These were the populists and they saw science as politically conservative.

    This situation changed radically after the 1960s. The social justice that formed the backbone of Evangelical populism changed into a culture war against modernism itself. The rise of Communism, with its atheistic foundation, allowed the puppet masters of the red scare to refocus religious indignation from the conservative corporate giants trying to consolidate wealth to those who aimed to redistribute it. What had begun as race-baiting in the South was then enlarged into the “Evangelical Strategy” to do for Republicans what Roosevelt’s New Deal had done for Democrats –provide enduring majorities. Where the religious passion had favored progressive causes, it now turned against them with incredible ferocity.

    This resulted in an uneasy alliance between corporate and religious conservatives – uneasy because the financial interests of the vast majority of religious conservatives were not being served. But with powerful enough rhetoric and constant baiting with abortion, flag, burning, and gay marriage, these details were kept from view.

    The Rise of the Humanistic Left

    The populist left was largely focused in the center of the country, especially in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, with a movement of farmers out to challenge the political and economic structure that kept them struggling. On the coasts, however, the intelligentsia of the left was wary of the full-throated, overall-wearing anger of populism. They preferred the sophistication of Europe to the rhetoric of Eugene Debs. But what came ashore from the Continent because of the World Wars was a divided left – part seeing science as the problem and part seeing it as the solution.

    The influx of refugee intellectuals around the time of the Second World War brought with it the remnants of a fight over responsibility for World War I. The horrors, death, and futility of WWI are unfortunately eclipsed in our cultural memory because of the death camps and nuclear weapons of WWII, but the effects of the Great War cannot be underestimated. The war brought down the old monarchic order and introduced the world to the brutality that was possible through technology. With the Continent in ruins, the humanists largely blamed science for providing the massively effective tools of destruction. Seeing the mass death caused by new weapons, especially chemical munitions, figures like Edmond Husserl argued that science had become divorced from its social context and therefore capable of the worst evils. Science was to blame.

    The European scientific left on the other hand, with Albert Einstein as its great symbol, saw science as a truly international enterprise, rational and democratic to its core, which stood in stark opposition to the religious, militaristic, and dictatorial nationalism responsible for the horrors of the War. The scientific worldview, they contended, would eliminate the preconditions of this sort of war itself. Science knows no country; the brotherhood of science was beyond politics as the world needed to be.

    When the many of the major participants in this battle came to this country fleeing Nazism, an interesting thing happened. Whether it was the rise of McCarthyism or a sense of displacement in their adopted home, the European scientific left stopped being overtly political. But the humanistic side, with the arrival of Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno, continued to wage their side of the battle. With the scientific left quiet, the anti-scientific contingent won the day, largely shaping the character of the intellectual left after the first half of the 20th century.

    This was aided in part by events on the ground. The 1900s saw some of the greatest strides towards justice in the history of the nation. The women’s rights, civil rights, and gay rights movements all broke down barriers and enlarged the definition of what it was to be an American. The inclusion of these groups created a wonderful problem. History in the form of our national narrative had been written by the victors, the powerful, the oppressors; but now, that narrative had to be re-written to include the stories and perspectives of those who had been on the outside. How could we make sense of the competing and contradictory accounts? How could we meaningfully re-imagine our history in a way that brought into the story the experiences of those who suffered oppression?

    This rewriting of the national narrative was a humanistic problem and a focus of the left, hence it was the humanists who rose to intellectual power. Questions about political power and linguistic meaning inherited from Friedrich Nietzsche became all the rage. Good and interesting questions in social epistemology were raised, and the sociology of knowledge was placed in the spotlight.

    But stardom often goes to one’s head and so it was here. This work gave rise to the excesses of post-modernism with its denial of any epistemological meaning beyond the cultural. On the postmodernist view, “All truth is social construction.” The only meaning is political meaning. There was no truth, only the results of as of yet un-deconstructed oppression. The leading voices of the intellectual left became deeply anti-scientific. Science was the ultimate in epistemic domination. It took its socially derived theories and its hegemonic demands for absolute adherence and forced its resultson everyone, despite the fact that they deserved no more legitimacy than any other perspective, than any other testimony.

    This ruffled feathers on the pro-scientific left, but with the exception of the environmental movement, they had little influence. Physicist Alan Sokal published an article in a major post-modern organ, Social Text, designed to show that even the experts could not differentiate between an imposter designed to resemble the work in form, but intentionally vacant of any meaning, on the one hand, and good faith attempts to do the sort of social deconstruction they considered legitimate, on the other. It caused a bang, but the revolution did not come.

    The Opening

    In the meantime, to say that the American left in general lost ground in the larger political arena is a stunning understatement. Overplaying the white guilt card had helped Ronald Reagan get elected. Scandals by elected Democrats from ABSCAM to sexual infidelities had cost the moderate elected base its claim to moral superiority in defending the interests of the common person. The media strategy of conservatives like Irving Kristol, Richard Mellin Scaife, and John Olin allowed the conservatives to tilt coverage of the news. Add to that the joke that political correctness had become and it was unclear whether it was, in fact, a strawman that the right attacked.

    But once the right had the power, something interesting happened. Both the corporate and religious side of the movement turned against science. Having the power, the social conservatives declared open war on scientific results they disliked, especially evolutionary biology. With control of school boards and local and state governments, the teaching of science was turned into a battlefield.

    However the formerly pro-science side was also finding itself battling against science. Corporate interests are fickle. They support science as long as and only as long as it bolsters the bottom line. But when the results are undesirable, the loyalty disappears. When business interests ran into conflict with environmental or public health concerns, suddenly science was easy to demonize. Easier still, they could produce their own “experts” to muddy the waters for a largely scientifically illiterate electorate. Political reporters don’t know the difference: if you tell them that something is still unproven and a matter of debate, they’ll report “both sides” in a “balanced” way regardless of the existence of consensus among actual experts.

    Thus, the right declared open season on science. And the left, with its humanists in positions of socially constructed power, were unable to stand up to it.

    But then…

    Dover as a Watershed Moment

    In the last couple of years, both the social and fiscal conservatives have overplayed their hands with respect to science. Small scandals related to Bush administration appointees were embarrassments individually. When the Union for Concerned Scientists released its study “Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: Investigation of the Bush Administration’s Abuse of Science” in 2004, the examples of putting corporate interests ahead of public health got some press attention, but the study was largely written off as election year noise. When George Deutsch, a politically connected young man without a college degree, was appointed NASA press officer and began censoring astronomers, he was portrayed as a bad apple, an anti-science lone ranger. Similarly in the case of the appointment of Phillip Cooney, the chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who in order to take the position, had to step out of being a lobbyist for Exxon/Mobil.

    But the tide began to turn in Dover, Pennsylvania. When this small school district tried to model itself on Kansas and force Intelligent Design into the science classroom, the right at first saw the national spotlight as an opportunity. Their PR machine, led by the Discovery Institute, put out the “teach the controversy line” and it sold extremely well. Why are scientists afraid of a fair fight? It was brilliant framing.

    But not for long. The scientists successfully showed that there was no controversy to be taught. The funding of the movement was exposed. Its connection to creationism was laid bare. The cynical political nature of the entire enterprise became public. At that point, the bubble burst and something that may end up crucially important to American history happened. The seemingly unstoppable tide of the right was not only fought to a halt, but actively retreating because of the pro-scientific left. It was the scientists (and philosophers of science like Robert Pennock and Barbara Forrest) who had won the day.

    The pro-scientific left had been relegated to the environmental movement, while the rest of the battle had been led by humanists. But here, the pro-science progressives had shown themselves capable of doing what the postmodern crowd never could: winning. And the tide continued. Chris Mooney’s wonderful book, The Republican War on Science, became a best seller.

    Then came Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which succeeded in a way that no one could ever have expected a filmed PowerPoint presentation to have done. Global warming may be to the corporate side of the right, what Intelligent Design was to the religious fundamentalist faction. The pro-science left is not only organized, but energized. Opposing science is once again being seen as an offense to rationality and the harbinger of danger.

    We therefore seem to be at a crucial point now: a time when science may be making a resurgence in terms of policy-making clout. But like any movement, it takes resources and will. We need more scientists like Rush Holt, the nuclear physicist/Representative from New Jersey, to stand up. We need more scholars like Robert Pennock and Barbara Forrest. We need pro-science citizens to make their voices heard, especially scientists who have so much to contribute to society.

    Philosopher of science Hilary Putnam describes what he calls the intellectual division of labor. Scientists, he argues, play a crucial role in determining the meanings of words. I would argue that this division of intellectual labor extends into the political sphere. When scientists do not speak up it leaves a vacuum for charismatics and charlatans. We now know what that world looks like. Intelligent Design and global warming may have just provided those who take science seriously with a chance to influence the world, a chance like we haven’t seen since the 1940s and 50s. It is important for scientifically minded people who care about the planet to see this opportunity and not let it pass us by.

    Steven Gimbel is a philosopher who blogs at Philosophers’ Playground.

  • Steven Pinker on the Mystery of Consciousness

    Some of our deepest convictions about what it means to be human have been shaken.

  • Critics Ignoring Most of Nick Cohen’s Book

    The story of the Stop the War coalition fills just half of one chapter in a 13-chapter book.