Re: Yorkshire, Azeem Rafiq and racism
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:02 pm
DFM,
As mentioned recently, the England team recently broke a record for private educated representation when (IIRC) all of its British born players picked for a match were from private education. Only Jofra Archer, not from the British Schooling system, was not. In the context of a debate about inclusion, one could make as much of a case about class being an institutional barrier to entry into the game than race. Remember that education level and academic achievement is written into the ECB player pathway as a requirement for top level coaching and opportunities, so this established bias is very much part of the game and is no fluke that inside the 10 years that Downton and Flower made it a criteria to represent England, the next generation coming through fit that mould more and more.
I have stated many times here before about my experience with class issues in club cricket, it is very real. Its sufficient to say working class people with low education levels are not accepted at clubs in my experience, regardless of their merits as cricketers. You have to fit a certain type of person and if you dont you simply get batted away. I have talked about my younger brother here in the past, who struggles academically and has learning difficulties - I have seen him bowl in nets to established club pros and rip them apart, but he never got a game at a club despite years trying. He was much better than me as a player - but I got chances. I went to Uni and had a strong academic background, it was the only difference.
If this Rafiq issue is supposed to be the moment to embrace change and inclusion on al levels, having it lead by a member of the house of Lords does not in anyway make me encouraged. And do you think young cricketers will see a member of the aristocracy riding in and feel the wind of change coming with him? To a large extent what he achieves matters little, this is a confidence and trust issue, one about optics - and the optics of this for me are wrong. I guess the ECB see the optics solely on race - he ticks a box of inclusion because of his Asian heritage, but as a working class kid does he make me think he's going to end elitism in the grassroots of the game? As a women, do I feel like this sort of appointment makes me safe in the game? Not really for me.
I feel very strongly about that. Others might not care, might feel different - or that my opinion is dumb. But its honest.
As for Grammar schools, arent they by their very nature elitist? I dont know how old you are, but if you were at school in the 60s then you could say it was less elitist, but the 11 plus exams under the tripartite system were designed fundamentally to test a certain type of curriculum taught in middle class schools, and were not designed to test cognitive capacity. Which meant there was an overwhelming bias to separate middle class kids from working class ones, which very much in general would be separated from one another under the Grammar School system. If you went to school in the 70s, by that stage I think only 5% ish kids went to Grammar schools, and in both cases university admission was based almost exclusively on Grammar school attendance (as Grammar schools taught the Uni entry exams, secondary schools did not, meaning a secondary school children had zero hope even in cases of excellent achievement and cognitive ability in getting in).
As mentioned recently, the England team recently broke a record for private educated representation when (IIRC) all of its British born players picked for a match were from private education. Only Jofra Archer, not from the British Schooling system, was not. In the context of a debate about inclusion, one could make as much of a case about class being an institutional barrier to entry into the game than race. Remember that education level and academic achievement is written into the ECB player pathway as a requirement for top level coaching and opportunities, so this established bias is very much part of the game and is no fluke that inside the 10 years that Downton and Flower made it a criteria to represent England, the next generation coming through fit that mould more and more.
I have stated many times here before about my experience with class issues in club cricket, it is very real. Its sufficient to say working class people with low education levels are not accepted at clubs in my experience, regardless of their merits as cricketers. You have to fit a certain type of person and if you dont you simply get batted away. I have talked about my younger brother here in the past, who struggles academically and has learning difficulties - I have seen him bowl in nets to established club pros and rip them apart, but he never got a game at a club despite years trying. He was much better than me as a player - but I got chances. I went to Uni and had a strong academic background, it was the only difference.
If this Rafiq issue is supposed to be the moment to embrace change and inclusion on al levels, having it lead by a member of the house of Lords does not in anyway make me encouraged. And do you think young cricketers will see a member of the aristocracy riding in and feel the wind of change coming with him? To a large extent what he achieves matters little, this is a confidence and trust issue, one about optics - and the optics of this for me are wrong. I guess the ECB see the optics solely on race - he ticks a box of inclusion because of his Asian heritage, but as a working class kid does he make me think he's going to end elitism in the grassroots of the game? As a women, do I feel like this sort of appointment makes me safe in the game? Not really for me.
I feel very strongly about that. Others might not care, might feel different - or that my opinion is dumb. But its honest.
As for Grammar schools, arent they by their very nature elitist? I dont know how old you are, but if you were at school in the 60s then you could say it was less elitist, but the 11 plus exams under the tripartite system were designed fundamentally to test a certain type of curriculum taught in middle class schools, and were not designed to test cognitive capacity. Which meant there was an overwhelming bias to separate middle class kids from working class ones, which very much in general would be separated from one another under the Grammar School system. If you went to school in the 70s, by that stage I think only 5% ish kids went to Grammar schools, and in both cases university admission was based almost exclusively on Grammar school attendance (as Grammar schools taught the Uni entry exams, secondary schools did not, meaning a secondary school children had zero hope even in cases of excellent achievement and cognitive ability in getting in).