Dismissal of Mr David C. C. Watson
The dismissal of Mr David C. C. Watson from his post as head of Religious Education at Rickmansworth Comprehensive School by Hertfordshire Council, and the upholding of this decision by an Industrial Tribunal, has shocked Christians throughout the country. The Tribunal unanimously decided that Mr Watson was justifiably dismissed for refusing to carry out what was a legitimate requirement of his employers: namely, to teach in accordance with the agreed syllabus of the county. In a letter, which appeared in the “Daily Telegraph,” Mr Watson made clear that what he refused to teach from the agreed syllabus was the assertion in the syllabus that “the Genesis stories of Creation are of course only part of the collection of myths, legends and Hebrew folklore . . .” He had refused to give a written assurance that his teaching would conform to this statement.
One serious aspect of the case is that an agreed syllabus containing assertions of this kind should be drawn up and approved by any responsible authority, and the fact that this is so must create alarm in the minds of true Christians everywhere. The enforcement of this kind of teaching, even to the extent of dismissal of the teacher who refused so to teach, is an instance of such callous bigotry as should call forth the condemnation of all right thinking people. How strange it is that an age so tolerant of any and every false view and of every kind of evil should manifest such antagonism and intolerance towards Biblical teaching! Perhaps it is not so strange after all. The truth has always been hated by the natural man.
It is clear that action will have to be taken by those who embrace the orthodox Christian position that the early chapters of Genesis are factual, in order to secure a change in the Hertfordshire agreed syllabus, and to prevent a repetition of this incident in other parts of the country. So, too, should every effort be made to secure Mr Watson’s reinstatement.
Violence on T.V. Programmes
Dr Belson, a reader in research methods at the North-East London Polytechnic has produced firm proof that T.V. violence breeds real life violence. This conclusion — long asserted by lay people — will induce the B.B.C. to re-examine the matter of T.V. violence and will result, it is to be hoped, in a considerable reduction of violence on television. The B.B.C. have conceded that they will consider carefully the implications of the new findings and evaluate the report in relation to their existing code of practice.
The need for action in connection with this aspect of television has been long overdue. It is to be regretted that it has taken the B.B.C. so long to waken up to its responsibilities in this matter. The influence of television is tremendous and, where programmes glamorise what is evil, nothing is to be expected from it but more evil. How essential it is that control of the mass media ought to be placed only in the most responsible hands, otherwise the potential for evil of the media is beyond what we can grasp.