The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Wednesday 29 December 2004

Charles Was Right

The recent brouhaha over a leaked memo from Prince Charles to one of his staff, containing a royal rant about the state of education today, is quite interesting. And extremely revealing about the world beyond the royal family, as well.

For the record, Charles was writing about an employee who had suggested that he promote his staff from within - in other words, from the bottom up, so lowly secretaries and others, with additional training and experience, would also have a chance at top jobs. Charles apparently exploded on paper. "What is wrong with everyone nowadays?" he wrote. "Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their actual capabilities?" He blamed this on "child-centered" learning that tells children they cannot fail; they can be whatever they want to be.

Charles had a valid point, and one well worth hearing, even if he didn't argue it very gracefully. But then, one of his endearing traits (and of his family's as well) is that he and they are not "PC," or politically correct. It's very refreshing to hear someone speak his mind, and revive the debate about "nature" versus "nurture," with no dissembling. We don't have to agree, but we can admire such honesty. Only when we read some of his other famous opinions do we realize what an eggshell minuet (in John Simon's memorable phrase) 21st-century life has become. We all tiptoe around our words and deeds, looking back over our shoulders lest the thought police catch us saying something insensitive. No one tells it like it is, anymore. Except Charles, because he can.

And that's precisely why he should be the one to speak out. He's above this fray, personally disinterested. He doesn't have a horse in this race. His children and future grandchildren won't be educated in a national school system. His paycheck, re-election or professional aspirations don't depend on his words and deeds. Ambition, the media, corporate directives, "experts," religious or political bias, family budget constraints need not sway him regarding his children's education, or any other issue, as they do the rest of us.

Some characterize Prince Charles as being out of touch with reality. He's not supposed to know anything about real life, of course. Let alone achievement through merit, versus reward because of birth or "knowing the right people." True, Charles will never know what it's like to put in long hours at work or at school to earn a promotion. Nevertheless he has a right to speak out, like anyone else. But it often seems as if the man can't win. If he comes out strongly, he's a crank. If he has no opinion at all, he's a "wuss."

But it seems to me he cares about real, everyday life, and takes the time to let his future subjects know it. His success or failure in that will not be his doing, to a great degree, but theirs, if his views continue to be treated with hostility. If he really were as distant from them as critics paint him, no one would ever hear from him at all. And yet few acknowledge the nuggets of common sense in his arguments, because they come from him. So many resort to attacks ad hominem, rather than evaluating his ideas and beliefs on their own merits.

Of course, it's not the fact he has strong views that irks his critics; it's that they aren't politically correct ones. If Charles came out loudly against foxhunting, or decided to renounce all his titles, he'd be everyone's darling. But he wouldn't be true to himself and his heritage. And that heritage, of inherited rank, is naturally unfair. But less so than trying to jury-rig an artificial equality onto something so variable as intellectual ability.

Imagine, if you will, a professional sports team on which people of all ages, sizes, genders and abilities are welcome to play. This team would lead the world in fairness to its members - everyone would get to play in all its games. But unfortunately, such a team would also lose a lot. The smaller and slower teammates just wouldn't be able to score like the others and win games. Superior ability is what makes a winner, in sports. Not equal ability. If all the players hit, kick, or throw the same, it's going to be a long, boring game.

A system in which all students are deemed equally capable isn't equal, either. There are those who can't learn, and those who won't, and those who just cannot master a subject no matter how they try. Has nothing to do with sex, color, religion or race, of course, and school systems were wise to prohibit discrimination based on those variables. But lowering standards to make weaker students look good, or minimize their failures, will not help them achieve anything.

We've all heard the horror stories of children passing to the next grade level, or even graduating, without mastering the basic skills. A former coworker told me last year that his young stepdaughters' teachers are not allowed to put red correction marks on their schoolwork, because it might traumatize children and lower their self-esteem. That astounded both of us.

Should all be encouraged to develop to their highest potential? Absolutely. Should those without ability be promoted anyway? Or be told that even though they can't read at university level, failed basic math, and can't write a coherent sentence, they should still go on to college? Or should we rethink this "everyone is equal" thing, before we get airline pilots who can't navigate, surgeons who've flunked anatomy, and suchlike? There is the gist of Prince Charles' argument, and in that, he was right.

Here in America, with colleges full of people who want to be lawyers and MBAs and celebrities, but who often should have remained store clerks and yes, fry cooks, we have enough sizzle and attitude. We need folks with superior ability, substance and quality: who can read and write, build a house, cook a meal, fix a car or a computer or a toilet. Not glamorous work, but much needed.

Prince Charles understood this, when he censured an educational emphasis that, in his words, "tells people that they can all be pop stars or High Court judges or brilliant TV personalities or even infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work, effort or having natural ability." He was heavily criticized for saying this. But is it not true?

And it's sad that Charles couldn't openly express himself, but did so in a memo that was private until the employee in question leaked it to the press. His reticence is not necessarily because of the tradition of royal non-partisanship in a constitutional monarchy. Support of educational reform, or any sort of reform, must cut across party, political and class lines. No, it's probably because of the avalanche of publicity, usually negative, that falls on all his acts. Can it be that many nowadays do not reason from a basis of issues and ideas, but rather react based on emotion, personality and style? If so, Charles was more correct about the state of modern education than he knew.

This will be my final column. Thanks very much to all who read my work, and to all who have corresponded with me and shared their thoughts. Your opinions are much appreciated. Happy holidays and blessed be, every one!

- Mel Whitney

Note from Geraldine: A big "Thank You" to Mel for all her excellent columns. Hopefully we'll see you back here sometime in the near future!