Education secretary Michael Gove has defended
the study of the arts, including French lesbian
poetry, this week as he accused the engineer
and inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner, Sir
James Dyson, of ‘anti-intellectualism’.
Michael Gove’s comments came after Dyson,
Britain’s 22nd richest man, said that we should
talk about technology more so that “little Angelina wanting to go off to study French lesbian
poetry will suddenly realise that things like
keeping an aircraft industry, developing nuclear energy, high-speed trains, all these things
are important”.
At the Independent Academies Association
Conference in central London, Gove
said, “I fear the anti-intellectual
bias in our way of life has, at
times, become a bias against
knowledge and a suspicion of
education as a good in itself.”
He went on to say, “I am certainly an enemy of those who
would deprecate the study
of French lesbian poetry. Because the casual dismissal of
poetry as though it were a useless luxury and its study as selfindulgence is a display of prejudice. It is another example of
the bias against knowledge.”
Dyson’s comments appear to
have sparked controversy within Oxford. Dr Jennifer Yee, tutor
in French at Christ Church told
Cherwell, “The reference to ‘little Angelina’ seems to suggest a
return to the sort of hearty unabashed sexism
one associates with the 1950s rather than the
2010s, but I confess I am rather puzzled by the
more specific reference to French lesbian poetry. Three possibilities spring to mind: 1) this
was simply intended as a homophobic slight; 2)
Dyson was making a rather erudite reference to
the Franco-British poetess Renée Vivien; 3) Dyson was actually thinking of the
(heterosexual) poet Charles
Baudelaire.”
She continued, “If little Angelina decided one day to work
alongside other British employees of Airbus near Toulouse, or
Électricité de France, she could perhaps rely on French interpreters to get by. I still think she
would have missed out on a
wonderful experience reading
Baudelaire’s poetry at University. She would have thought less
about her own language and
the nature of language in general; she would have
thought less
about sexuality, the
nature of
evil, and the creation of art.
Dr Carole Bourne-Taylor at Brasenose College was sceptical about
the perceived differences between
the arts and sciences, saying, “Sir
James Dyson has a rather dogmatic
style that I wish I had; he is a brilliant engineer and gets the headlines in a way I
could only dream of in my pursuit of “study for
the sake of knowledge”. We can be truly grateful that Sir James (and now Michael Gove) has
given us a little publicity that would otherwise
not have come our way! He is a philanthropist
as well as a brilliant engineer: the Dyson Foundation has done much for education, for example, through the schools’ “education box” that
is designed to inspire young minds.
“In both the humanities and sciences, a lateral and inquisitive mind is the key. So when
“little Angelina” (or “little James”, perhaps?)
pursues an interest in the unusual, we rejoice.
That clever turn of mind that revolutionised
the way we clean our carpets is surely
the same beast! I suspect that Sir
James Dyson and I probably share
the same ground when it comes
to our eagerness to not
only identify and nurture
that quirk of mind that
is genius, but to enable it
to bring forth, improved
social mobility and opportunity. We are both in the same
field, just at different ends.”
Second year biologist, Sarah Worsley,
agreed, saying, “The world would be a
very dull and uninspired place if we all
studied the same thing. Understanding
our culture and differences in society
is just as important as inventing new
and wonderful things and the two
are probably interlinked more than we
might think.”
Second year chemist, Gogulan Karunanithy
warned, “Though it pains me to say this, on this
occasion I agree with Gove. Whilst I agree that
technical subjects should be encouraged, if students taking these courses are not motivated
(and would rather be reading French lesbian
poetry in a field somewhere) all that you’re creating is a generation of disillusioned and
probably unproductive scientists
and engineers.”
Magdalen biologist, Peter Gleeson sympathised a little more with
Dyson’s opinion, saying, “I think it is
fair to say that as a society we need
medics and engineers and research scientists, and from
that perspective it seems
fair to say that the study
of arts subjects is an optional extra, or a bit of a
luxury.’
However, second
year French and German student at Keble College, Brendan
Fletcher, defended
the study of French
poetry and the
arts, saying that,
“Whilst it probably isn’t entirely
useful for designing vacuum cleaners, it opens our eyes to
other cultures, perspectives
and who we are.”
Education secretary Michael Gove has defended the study of the arts, including French lesbian poetry, this week as he accused the engineer and inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner, Sir James Dyson, of ‘anti-intellectualism’.
Michael Gove’s comments came after Dyson, Britain’s 22nd richest man, said that we should talk about technology more so that “little Angelina wanting to go off to study French lesbian poetry will suddenly realise that things like keeping an aircraft industry, developing nuclear energy, high-speed trains, all these things are important”.
At the Independent Academies Association Conference in central London, Gove said, “I fear the anti-intellectual bias in our way of life has, at times, become a bias against knowledge and a suspicion of education as a good in itself.”
He went on to say, “I am certainly an enemy of those who would deprecate the study of French lesbian poetry. Because the casual dismissal of poetry as though it were a useless luxury and its study as selfindulgence is a display of prejudice. It is another example of the bias against knowledge.”
Dyson’s comments appear to have sparked controversy within Oxford. Dr Jennifer Yee, tutor in French at Christ Church told Cherwell, “The reference to ‘little Angelina’ seems to suggest a return to the sort of hearty unabashed sexism one associates with the 1950s rather than the 2010s, but I confess I am rather puzzled by the more specific reference to French lesbian poetry. Three possibilities spring to mind: 1) this was simply intended as a homophobic slight; 2) Dyson was making a rather erudite reference to the Franco-British poetess Renée Vivien; 3) Dyson was actually thinking of the (heterosexual) poet Charles Baudelaire.”
She continued, “If little Angelina decided one day to work alongside other British employees of Airbus near Toulouse, or Électricité de France, she could perhaps rely on French interpreters to get by. I still think she would have missed out on a wonderful experience reading Baudelaire’s poetry at University. She would have thought less about her own language and the nature of language in general; she would have thought less about sexuality, the nature of evil, and the creation of art.’
Dr Carole Bourne-Taylor at Brasenose College was sceptical about the perceived differences between the arts and sciences, saying, “Sir James Dyson has a rather dogmatic style that I wish I had; he is a brilliant engineer and gets the headlines in a way I could only dream of in my pursuit of ‘study for the sake of knowledge’. We can be truly grateful that Sir James (and now Michael Gove) has given us a little publicity that would otherwise not have come our way! He is a philanthropist as well as a brilliant engineer: the Dyson Foundation has done much for education, for example, through the schools’ ‘education box’ that is designed to inspire young minds.“In both the humanities and sciences, a lateral and inquisitive mind is the key.
‘So when ‘little Angelina’ (or ‘little James’, perhaps?) pursues an interest in the unusual, we rejoice. That clever turn of mind that revolutionised the way we clean our carpets is surely the same beast! I suspect that Sir James Dyson and I probably share the same ground when it comes to our eagerness to not only identify and nurture that quirk of mind that is genius, but to enable it to bring forth, improved social mobility and opportunity. We are both in the same field, just at different ends.”
Second year biologist, Sarah Worsley, agreed, saying, “The world would be a very dull and uninspired place if we all studied the same thing. Understanding our culture and differences in society is just as important as inventing new and wonderful things and the two are probably interlinked more than we might think.”
Second year chemist, Gogulan Karunanithy warned, “Though it pains me to say this, on this occasion I agree with Gove. Whilst I agree that technical subjects should be encouraged, if students taking these courses are not motivated (and would rather be reading French lesbian poetry in a field somewhere) all that you’re creating is a generation of disillusioned and probably unproductive scientists and engineers.”
Magdalen biologist, Peter Gleeson sympathised a little more with Dyson’s opinion, saying, “I think it is fair to say that as a society we need medics and engineers and research scientists, and from that perspective it seems fair to say that the study of arts subjects is an optional extra, or a bit of a luxury.’
However, second year French and German student at Keble College, Brendan Fletcher, defended the study of French poetry and the arts, saying that, “Whilst it probably isn’t entirely useful for designing vacuum cleaners, it opens our eyes to other cultures, perspectives and who we are.”