If you don’t like swearing this post’s probably not for you.
I’m a big fan of profanity and, much to the chagrin of my family, I swear immoderately. There are times when nothing else quite expresses the depth of one’s feelings or conveys a point with suitable emphasis. I enjoy the judicious use of most swear words and, suitably combined, they can even achieve a certain caustic beauty. Back in the mists of time when I taught EFL, one of my students’ favourite lessons was on the uses of ‘fuck’ as a phrasal verb. It really has quite remarkably varied utility.
But despite my fondness for obscenities, sometimes they jar and other times they offend. It upsets me particularly when I’m with my daughters and someone swears loudly within ear shot; it comes across as aggressive and ignorant. I squeeze their hands for reassurance and they smile back, nervous and awkward. As I’ve got older (and marginally wiser) I’ve learned there are times when using certain words is inadvisable. In front of other people’s children, for one. And in front of my mum, for another. A third is in front of people I don’t know. Unless I want to cause offence (and sometimes I do) I’ve learned it’s generally wiser to refrain from effing and jeffing in contexts where I have no idea how certain words will be viewed. But mostly I either filter out or ignore most extraneous swearing. I’d go so far as to say I couldn’t give a fuck about it.
I’m not precisely sure why I was so affronted by this outburst on Twitter the other night:
@JHC_Porter quite simply what a #dick #outoftouch attention seeking plank. You are the 1st person ever banned from @Parklandspta https://t.co/1XBUlV0jBL
— Chris Dyson (@chrisdysonHT) May 28, 2017
The most obvious problem is the fact that this a headteacher responding to an article in the TES by calling the writer a “dick”. Now, obviously, I’d be an appalling hypocrite to object simply to the use of the word dick – really fairly minor league when it comes to swears – it’s more that this is a headteacher tweeting in an official capacity – he even takes the rather childishly bizarre step of banning the writer from his school. Maybe I was being precious, but this struck me as quite extraordinary behaviour. Perhaps foolishly, I drew attention to Chris Dyson’s by making my opprobrium known:
Imagine working for a headteacher who responded with sexual slurs if you shared your opinion. Quite extraordinary https://t.co/E5aO4Omi42
— David Didau (@DavidDidau) May 28, 2017
Now, of course, I could probably have been more charitable: anyone can have a rush of blood and, especially on social media, say something they later regret. I initially assumed Dyson had had a few too many, but no, it turns out that he takes the view that he was entirely within his rights and clearly feels he did nothing wrong. The rights and wrongs can be argued, but it’s pretty clear that even if you agree with him, he looks pretty silly and comes across as unprofessional.
To say this is unusual public behaviour for a headteacher of a primary school is one thing, but what really amazed me (and what has prompted this post) was the sheer number of teachers who took the opportunity to support Chris Dyson’s right to call anyone he disagrees with a dick. One popular strand of opinion was that as the writer of the TES article had written something controversial he actually deserved such abuse. Another emerging defense coalesced around the unfortunate fact that I myself had referred to someone as a “cock” some years ago:
“@oldandrewuk: One for the “worst argument in the world” file: http://t.co/2X9hKX5bPo” What a cock.
— David Didau (@DavidDidau) April 7, 2014
The view was that if I have called someone a “cock” then I have no right to object to someone else using the word “dick’. On the face of it, that makes a certain amount of sense. Yes, of course, it was ill-judged to refer to writer of the ‘magical maths’ blog as a “cock”. It was a silly thing to do and I was in the wrong. No matter how misguided I thought the ideas expressed were, it was out of order to behave like this. But is it really the same thing? In April 2014 I worked for myself and was tweeting in a private capacity. I was then, and am now, accountable to no one. I know at times that I annoy and upset people (Chris Dyson is just the latest person to block me on Twitter) but my views on anything don’t materially affect anyone else. If a headteacher goes round proudly defending his right to call people dicks, deliberately involving his school in the process, it sends important messages.
First, it sends a message to his staff. If they were to agree with the views expressed in the TES article they might fear for their jobs. Certainly they might expect a certain level of abuse from someone able to exercise a great deal of power over their lives. Then it sends a message to the children in the school. They could be forgiven for concluding that it’s perfectly acceptable to call anyone you disagree with a “dick”, and that maybe this would be the thin end of the wedge. Why not call them a ‘fucking dick”? In for a penny, in for a pound. Is raises the question of whether it’s OK for pupils to call their teacher a dick. Might they perhaps conclude that if they don’t like Mr Dyson they are at liberty to call him a dick too? And how would he feel if all the children and staff in his school routinely referred to him as Mr Dick? My guess is that he would take steps to discourage this behaviour, but, so trying, he might discover his moral authority was on shaky ground.
Of course none of this would have been intentional, but we are judged on our actions not our intentions and when we make public pronouncements people who don’t know us will judge us. If I call someone else a cock on Twitter then people who don’t know will, quite rightly, conclude that I’m a bit of prat and that I lack judgement. They might decide they don’t want to employ me, but that’s about it. But if I worked for a school, I think my employers would be well within their rights to take a dim view of such behaviour and, ultimately, I couldn’t be too surprised if they were decide to sanction me.
I’d never encountered Chris Dyson before this incident and have no idea on his qualities as a man or a headteacher, but it seems he’s pretty popular in his community. I’m sure he’s capable of great warmth and wisdom, and passionately believes in the rightness of his position, as do we all. If wants to call someone else a dick in private then that’s neither here nor there. The substantive point is this: the swearing is, to some extent, neither here nor there. The real issue I have is with the idea that a headteacher feels able to ban anyone expressing a fairly mainstream political opinion from his school. This is questionable legally but is also irresponsible and immature. Denying that other people have the right to hold and express contrary opinions is hardly a reasonable position for someone responsible for the education of young people. It is this, I feel, that deserves our censure.
What do you think?
If I was governor at his school, this would be number 1 agenda item. It’s clearly bringing the school into disrepute, a potentially sackable offence if no apology is forthcoming.
My old headteacher was awesome in so many ways, but he just couldn’t keep a lid on what he posted online and wound up routinely denigrating staff and pupils, however unintentionally, on his blog. It bought the school into serious disrepute, crippled staff morale and provided a vast wealth of material for the press to seize on when the school later found itself struggling with the inspectorate. His writing was uniformly well-intentioned but the level of candour brought him low time and again. Long story short, what Heads say online matters. It might be time to consider whether social media managers are needed for schools.
In a word. Agree!
Sorry but for the so called Leader to use such language against someone he has never met simply because they have a different viewpoint makes me worry for the tolerance of differences within his school. If one of his staff were to stand as a Tory/LibDem/UKIP would he then try to sack them or bully them into resigning?. Such intolerance is sadly, typical of many in positions of authority. Just because someone feels they can’t support a terrorist loving, money tree shaking party of Maoist twits doesn’t mean they should be regarded as evil! One could almost argue that it is a short step from this attitude being picked up and accepted by his students to the circumstances that occurred during ‘The Wave’… 😎
I’m a swearer, must admit – but I have to be seen not to be in a professional capacity as we tell students that they aren’t allowed – therefore I’m not allowed in their earshot. Definitely not acceptable, unless he regards it as acceptable in his school. I would be on a disciplinary for using such language openly in my classroom!
Also, my husband objects hugely to me using such terms as “cock”, “dick head” and “prick” on the grounds that most civilized, polite society regards “cunt” as beyond the pail – why are we allowed to throw around phrases about male genitalia but references to the female is not acceptable?
Interesting. Words are just words, of course, but they have meaning and the context is important. In a professional setting (I don’t work in education, and there are never children about) swearing is not regarded as acceptable – it is regarded as unprofessional, in that meaning is disrupted by the swear words; likely because swear words are carriers of indiscriminate emotion. And that is the problem in this example, I think. There is no doubt that the intention here was to signal that the political beliefs put forward were self evidently unpalatable – and that the bearer of such views was also unpalatable. There was no intention to engage in rational debate. This is disappointing because the views expressed are clearly part of the mainstream of current society, and if the Head Teacher wants to persuade others that these views are wrong then the demonstration of an inability to recognise that persuasion is required will not bring that about. The Head Teacher’s reaction did not further civilisation, and serves as a poor example of what is required to build understanding and constructive debate, in my view.
It is the same thing if you work for someone or are self employed. Ultimately, you represent yourself. It is unprofessional of him and it was unprofessional of you. It is hyprocritical of you to be so offended by this when you did exactly the same. Yes, you apologised for it, once someone pointed out you had done it 3 years earlier!
As for your other arguments about the children in his school being able to call him a dick? Do you think that is the same thing? My 7 year old knows swear words, in fact he told me off for saying ‘shit’ this morning when a balloon blew up in my face. Is he allowed to say it just because I am? No – am I on morally shaky ground? It was firm when I last checked.
If Chris’s employers want to sanction him they will and knowing him he will just accept it.
Surely you have better things to blog about?
I have already agreed that it was unprofessional of me but he stands by his comment and seems to regard it as acceptable. As I explained in the post, I am not and was not offended by the use of the word dick. I was shocked by a headteacher behaving in such a cavalier, childish way in public. The fact that he used the word dick is almost (but not quite) irrelevant.
My question is why you feel the need to castigate me for writing about this? If you feel this isn’t worth writing about, then surely the only sane response is not to read it.
On a scale of 1-10 I would say this scores as 1, perhaps even less than that when you put it against the context of what is happening to public services at he moment. Are you seriously that offended? The comment wasn’t even aimed at you. If you feel the need to take offence consider what state schools will have to suffer over the next five years, and put the remark against the context of the legacy that this country’s “leaders” are planning to leave for this nation’s children. Now that really is something to be offended by.
As I made abundantly clear in the post, no, I am not in the least offended. And your logic that because there are worse things in the world then no one has the right to comment on things that are not quite as bad is bizarre. Either something is wrong or it is not. If there is a scale of response from 1 – 10 then writing a blog post is a 1. If you want to get upset about something then why not follow your own advice?
Context is everything. If he came to work dressed in distressed jeans shorts and a tie-dye t- shirt would people respect him? If he was browsing tinder during assembly? Whether you like it or not both are his business personally but not professionally.
If a leader can’t control his outbursts in public then he runs the risk of being elected president.
If you mean Trump by that many in the North of England support him – they are generally supportive of pro British policies and investment for areas suffering the consequences of globalisation.
I love to swear but I don’t love to call people names. There’s a difference. Also, as a professional person, freelance or headteacher, it never pays to be personal, unprofessional, aggressive or confrontational on Twitter or anywhere else.
Your reputation as an honourable, trustworthy, measured and professional person should always trump your need to be “right” or to “win” in my opinion.
Interesting post. Agree entirely haver as a head learnedto keep my counsel thereby allowing a diverse staff to,hopefully, thrive and be themselves. This is essential for the students who model our behaviour, what would he say to a boy who said/wrote this to another boy whatever the prevocation. Foolish and could be solved by an admission that he got it wrong. We often do!
Yes, this is what I think too
Agree with response number 1. He has brought his school into disrepute. Governors should sanction.
I’d appreciate a post about the state of our public services, in particular, the cuts to schools far more. As a headteacher, Chris has done a bloody brilliant job of turning a school around in one of the most deprived areas in the country, in spite of our current government and the hardships faced by all public services. I really don’t envy any HT in our current climate- poor funding, a ridiculous assessment system, teacher shortages etc etc. He’s had a rant at somebony defending the current system…and considering the day to day hardships he is facing, I’d say he’s well within his rights to let his staff know what they’re up against.
Yes, we are role models for pupils, but Chris isn’t calling anyone names in front of the children in his school. He’s speaking within a community of adults on social media. Perhaps not his most professional moment, but if anything, I expect his support comes from those who also feel entirely frustrated. Anyway, he has made his point and you have made yours. If you meant what you said about not wanting to gain anything from it, then good…let’s move on.
Ok, that’s interesting: your point seems to be that because a) there are cuts to public services, and b) this headteacher has been effective he is justified in behaving this way. So, if a Tory supporting head called somebody writing from an article from a Labour perspective a dick would you react differently? And what if he hadn’t done “a bloody brilliant job”? Would you then be more critical? All this seems somewhat arbitrary. For instance, do you think it’s fair enough for me to called called someone arguing that children should know less a cock?
It doesn’t matter who he is, it’s unprofessional.
I’m with Chemistry Poet here. I think the severity or otherwise of the swear word or insult is not the key – it is the example that the Head Teacher is setting – to either his staff, his pupils or indeed his parent body – about how you deal with people you disagree with in life. He’s basically saying that – if you disagree with someone strongly enough, rather than giving a reasoned response as to why, you just call them names!
Good luck to him trying to weed-out the law of playground in his primary school by promoting dispassionate reasoning after such an action which he has stood by. It’s irrelevant how successful he’s been up to this point. This action (the defending of it more than carrying it out) undermines him moving forward.
A far better action from him would be to say something like: “Okay – I disagree strongly with this person about quite fundamental things, and frankly I just want to call him a ‘dick’ – that’s human kids and doesn’t make you a monster! However, once I’ve got over that impulse, I’ll realise that that doesn’t prove me right in any way, and probably will just lead to a degeneration of what’s going on. Therefore….”
Okay – you wouldn’t get all that in a tweet, which is partly why I wrote https://steppingbackalittle.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/twitter-the-evolution-of-reasoning-and-a-right-old-classic-tragedy/ and it’s follow-ups.
Reminds me of a time when my Y10s were swearing at the back of the classroom and I went to have a word
“Guys, do you mind, this is a workplace and that’s not appropriate language,” and they replied with genuine confusion
“What do you mean? We heard Mr Phillips call someone an ‘effing dee’ yesterday” (they bowdlerised the quote of the headteacher themselves out of respect for my sensibilities)
I couldn’t even fake surprise that they’d overheard his sweary rants. I had to just shrug and remind them what my expectations were.
But taking to twitter of all places and putting evidence of your own unprofessionality on the record? Crikey.
Reminds me of the Brass Eye quote
“authentic outrage breeds faux outrage, which breeds further authentic outrage”.
It’s a good quote – I think that there is indeed a place in human life for for the acknowledgement of “righteous indignation” as my mum (and other religious people) used to call it. But pretty much everything we try to instil in children as a basic principle of schooling is the ability to channel that ‘authentic outrage’ into a reasoned, rational, productive response. It simply doesn’t resolve itself usefully otherwise.
[…] Swearing, by David […]