AQA critisiced over 'jewish prejudice' question

Scroll to see replies

I'm more worried about the fact it's just a bad, open ended, subjective question, rather than the fact it is offensive.

Although it has potential to go wrong when candidates could write a mroe personal approach as to why they dislike jews, as opposed to why they have endured persecution throughout history. Also considering the amount of bone heads who don't really want to be there, this is a more than likely interpretation.

But as I said, stupid question that entails wide generalisation and speculation.

Reply 21

Darth Stewie

Original post by 4RealBlud

I see where you are coming from, but EVERYTHING has a reason, whether it's valid or not, in the eyes of the believer it is a reason. For Christains, a big part of it is that they blame the jews for the death of jesus, which is a tad unfair since jesus himself was jewish and the same would have happened to him wherever he was born. Other more generic reasons could be poor eduaction on the subject of the matter and misinformation.

People generally discriminate against each other because of a murky generalised image of a group of people. BNP supporters may discriminate against Pakistanis because they believe they are taking their jobs or because they fear their different culture and feel threatened. It doesnt mean that it's true, but there is a reason behind it as well as everything else.

I dont think it's a silly or insensitive question, i think it's just another example of the over-sensitisation of anti-semitism. I understand it's a sensitive issue, but come on, this isnt anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is on a completely different level.

What about the students who will inevitably put answers relating to things like Zionism and banks? They would probably get marks for those answers because however silly, they are reasons why people dislike all Jews but giving them marks gives the answers some kind of validity.

I'm sure the majority of people would have talked about the widely accepted reasons that Jews were targeted just as if the question was asked "why are some people prejudice against black people?" the majority of answers would not be deemed as offensive but the reason you would never see that question on any paper outside a university is because inevitably answers would arise that would cause serious offense but would not be marked as incorrect thus giving the view some kind of validity according to a recognized exam board.

When questions like this come up i don't think people are being over sensitive about the offense it could cause (i wouldn't say this is anti-semitism, just a poor question to ask). If this question was about any other ethnic group it would never have reached the planning stages, even if the question was "why do some people dislike Islam?" it probably would never get considered at GCSE level despite being focused soloey on an ideology rather than ideology and ethnic group.

I'm not saying that these questions should never be asked but asking GCSE level students such a complicated and controversial question is just asking for trouble and it gives people with anti-semetic views a legitimate way to voice their opinions and they might even get marks for them.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 22

tashiepashie

As with all exam questions, there would obviously be "right and wrong" answers. This suggests that anti-Semitism can be easily explained by a few words in a mark scheme when, in fact, it is a highly complicated issue whereby it is almost impossible to get inside the minds of people who are anti-Semitic because anti-Semitism is in itself irrational.

It's an interesting idea for discussion in depth but certainly not for a GCSE exam where it can't be examined in anywhere close to the detail that is needed.

Reply 23

4RealBlud

Original post by Darth Stewie

I understand, what you mean that it opens an opportunity for anti-semites to express their thoughts in an offensive manner, but they wont be marked very well on their answer. If someone puts down an answer that is offensive, i am sure it wont be marked outstandingly. Making offensive comments is not "explaining". If someone was to put down something on the lines of "because they are inferior people" they're not exactly going to be given an A* grade. I completely agree that it isnt a GCSE question, at the least A2 maybe. But do you think that if this question was asked at A2 or degree level, they would be more lenient? I dont really think so. These questions must be asked just like any other, we cant cower away from these questions because an over-sensitive group of people complain that someone somewhere might write something offensive, despite it not being marked very well on it. I believe that at these questions must be asked at the more basic level of education than degree level, so broaden people's minds of more people on such matters and get them to start actively thinking about them. Not this question in particular, but religion, racism and philosophy on the whole. Some of the most racist people are among the least educated and encouraging only the more educated to think about these things is rather backward in terms of developing more level minded people. If such difficult questions are asked in an exam, the students must be taught the answers.

Reply 24

thunder_chunky

Original post by Kolya

Gove to students: don't seek explanations about the world.

Further evidence that the education secretary isn't the sharpest lightbulb in the toolshed.

This. The guy is a gigantic tool. I see little wrong with the question.

Reply 25

Pindar

We have an education secretary who doesn't think prejudice can be explained. So much for 'education'.
So explaining prejudice is apparently beyond the realms of modern science. :rolleyes:

What an idiot.

Reply 26

geetar

Maybe AQA should be criticised for the fact that they're **** at doing their job.

Reply 27

big-bang-theory

Original post by cl_steele

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18207323

Personally i dont see why this question has proved so controvertial ... its a valid question and could prove to havesome very interesting answers from students and its not exactly irrelevant?
what do y'all think?

So the point isn't that it's not a valid topic to explore from a historical narrative perspective but that the phrasing of the question was in mind-boggling poor taste.

Think about it, the most perceptive an answer can get on that is exploring why it took until the 60's for Catholics to formally denounce the concept of blood guilt, an exploration of the differences between Zionism, Israel and Juadaism and how they are misperceived as one and the reputation for Jews having a monopoly of power due to their history of either being forced into pariahs or forming powerful usury rings due to limitations on their lifestyle.

This is a good answer, and a good answer would eminently show why each of the reasons is more than a little silly and construed in a historical narrative.

A bad answer or even a reasonable answer would actively make all the mistakes that cause racism in the first place and still get them a good mark. An average answer would talk about the perception of Israel being a reason certain Muslim groups hate Jews more broadly without differentiating the difference between Israel and Jews. The problem is that a question like that can be answered well in an inherently racist manner.

Likewise it's eminently possible to explore the key issues of that without asking so blunt a question by posing a question in which a racist answer is a wrong one. For instance "To what extent is confusion between Israel and Juadaism responsible for modern anti-semitism" or "To what extent did the concept of a "blood guilt" contribute to anti-semitism".

The problem isn't with the issue being explored, I'm sure noone would have a problem with any of the best answers on that topic. The problem is that an average answer could be a racist diatribe reaffirming the students racist beliefs and rewarding them with an average grade.

Reply 28

TheGrandmaster

Original post by ROYP

Is that actually available to buy? I reckon it'd be interesting to read

Yeah you can buy it but I wouldn't recommend it; it's a rather boring read.

Reply 29

AdvanceAndVanquish

The question is poorly-worded, but the topic is worth exploring. This is problematic to people (such as, apparently, the education secretary) who don't understand the difference between explaining something and justfying it.

Reply 30

nmudz_009

Original post by Angry Spartan

Seemed like a fine question. Glad I didn't get it for my GCSE R.E. exam though. :tongue:

Yea just reeling off descriptions of christianity/islam just wouldnt have worked as well :redface:

Like AQA for asking that tho.

Reply 31

Adam C

Original post by ROYP

Is that actually available to buy? I reckon it'd be interesting to read

It really, really isn't. I bought it, also thinking it'd be interesting, but it turns out that Hitler, in addition to being a lunatic, was a boring, clumsy and generally untalented writer. He intended Mein Kampf to be a great work of philosophy in the German tradition, but spectacularly failed. If you want to give it a look anyway, it's available for free on the American Nazi Party's website as a PDF.

Reply 32

ROYP

Original post by TheGrandmaster

Yeah you can buy it but I wouldn't recommend it; it's a rather boring read.

Original post by Adam C

Oh, fair enough. I probably won't bother but thought it might be interesting to see the viewpoint of one of the most ****ed up people in history, but I think that's 3 people now who've said it's boring

Reply 33

books28

I did this question in my RS exam last week and it was asking you to regurgitate the seven reasons for any kind of prejudice found in the textbook. That is how they formulate GCSE exams, they test you on what you are meant to have learnt and at this level they do not particularly want/need thought.

However, I agree the wording of the question could and should have been better as it could be interpreted as saying that anti-Semitism has a basis. :s-smilie:

The biggest problem here is Gove though, honestly how can he have become education secretary in the first place and why is he not being removed???

Reply 34

Bardamu

Original post by tashiepashie

God forbid that complicated issues should be part of the curriculum. Poor argument. Similar to Gove's.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 35

Muppet Science

I don't see it as offensive (though I am not of Jewish faith so my opinion is probably quite irrelevant) and in my history AS (also AQA) there were loads of questions on why the Nazis were anti-semitic and such.

Reply 36

OSharp

I disagree purely because Michael Gove agreed and he has yet to be right about anything else.

Reply 37

lifeguardsleeping

I'd be interested in what the mark scheme says actually, I imagine that that's more likely to be controversial.

Reply 38

big-bang-theory

Original post by OSharp

I disagree purely because Michael Gove agreed and he has yet to be right about anything else.

He's right for the wrong reason if that helps?

Original post by lifeguardsleeping

I'd be interested in what the mark scheme says actually, I imagine that that's more likely to be controversial.

Tbf it's fairly predictable in my mind. A middling answer will give a narrative of how Jews are seen as responsible for the death of Jesus in a strongly Christian mindset, Israel isn't regionally popular and they occupied unpopular professions historically. A low answer will call them evil. A high answer will point out the history of restrictive laws which forced them into professions Christians were morally banned from as a result of the concept of blood guilt formally denied by the Catholic church in the 1960's meaning it has less of a modern influence and that there is a confusion between the three distinct concepts of support for Israel, zionism and Judaism in some people's mentality. My problem is that the only answer that is distinguishable from a racist one is likely to be a top bracket one when if you reframed the question as I did in my previous post you could have a serious discussion of the issues.