So Toby Young was eventually hounded into resigning from the board of the Office for Students. I confess, I was one of those who hounded him. I thought, and still think, that his appointment was wholly inappropriate. I was not sorry to see Jo Johnson subsequently moved out of the Department for Education, either, though personally I would have sacked him. Johnson, who was instrumental in bringing about Young's appointment, defended it to the House of Commons on the extraordinary grounds that Young was on a "developmental journey". It's absolutely fine for Young to go on a developmental journey, of course, but not paid for by my taxes or affecting the lives of my children (my daughter is currently a university student). But there is a much bigger issue here. Why was Young ever appointed
Frances Coppola considers the following as important: Education, eugenics, politics
This could be interesting, too:
run75441 writes The High Cost of End-of-Life Healthcare – Myth?
Barkley Rosser writes On, Wisconsin?
Dan Crawford writes Employment by community size
Nick Falvo writes Ten considerations for the next Alberta budget
So Toby Young was eventually hounded into resigning from the board of the Office for Students. I confess, I was one of those who hounded him. I thought, and still think, that his appointment was wholly inappropriate.
I was not sorry to see Jo Johnson subsequently moved out of the Department for Education, either, though personally I would have sacked him. Johnson, who was instrumental in bringing about Young's appointment, defended it to the House of Commons on the extraordinary grounds that Young was on a "developmental journey". It's absolutely fine for Young to go on a developmental journey, of course, but not paid for by my taxes or affecting the lives of my children (my daughter is currently a university student).
But there is a much bigger issue here. Why was Young ever appointed in the first place? He admitted to me on Twitter that he did not have the academic experience the Department of Education said he did, but then said that it did not matter because of his work with free schools and as director of the New Schools Network, a charity funded by the Department of Education that promotes "free schools" (yes, I know, what does the DoE think it is doing, funding an organisation that sets out to undermine local authorities?). He said this gave him "some experience" of innovation in the educational sector.
Ok, so let's look at that experience. Young has been director of the New Schools Network for only a year. However, his Free Schools experience is more extensive. He co-founded the West Kensington Free School so that his own kids didn't have to go to the local comprehensive. Currently, the West Kensington Free School is on its fourth head in five years, but its Ofsted rating is "good". The trust that runs it also runs three primary schools in the Kensington area, all of which are successful. So far, so good.
But is this really that great? Free schools, academies and educational trusts were becoming reality long before Toby Young got involved. Where I live, education is dominated by academies and educational trusts, many of which are larger, longer established and doing better than Toby Young's enterprise in West Kensington. For example, Rochester Grammar (Ofsted rating "outstanding") is the lead school in the Thinking Schools Academy Trust, which currently runs seven primary schools and four secondary schools in Medway and Portsmouth. What does Toby Young bring to the New Schools Network, or to the OfS board for that matter, that the CEO of such a Trust would not?
A clue to what exactly Toby Young brings to the party is in this angry article that he posted on The Spectator shortly before his resignation. The last paragraph reads thus:
The reason for all this confected outrage, of course, is that I’m a Conservative and an outspoken supporter of Brexit. Because I’ve said and done some pretty sophomoric things in the past, the government’s opponents think they can use me to embarrass Theresa May. I’ve become a political football.My personal opposition to his appointment had nothing whatsoever to do with his political views. I objected to his lack of appropriate experience, his support for eugenics, his apparent dislike of diversity in education, and the obnoxious misogyny of his tweets and articles. His supporters said that his crudely misogynistic tweets and articles were from some years ago, and he had now changed his views: but his repellent writing on eugenics and disability is far more recent. And anyway, it is hard to see why tweets and articles from some years ago should be ignored when experience he claims from some years ago apparently justifies his appointment.
I did, however, mention his political views, not because I objected to them but because they appeared to be the principal reason for his appointment. I am now more certain than ever that he was appointed not because he has experience and expertise to bring to the OfS, but because he moves in the right political circles. It was his connections, not his abilities, that got him the job.
Why am I certain of this? Firstly, because it is now abundantly clear that he was appointed despite there being candidates with substantially more experience, more expertise and better behaviour. And secondly, because in the furore around his appointment, he listed his supporters. Here they are:
Boris Johnson (journalist turned Conservative MP, Brexiter, brother of Jo Johnson, knew Young at university)
Kemi Badenoch (Conservative MP, formerly a director of The Spectator, Brexiter)
Michael Gove (journalist turned Conservative MP, Brexiter, married to Sarah Vine)
Priti Patel (career politician, Conservative MP, Brexiter)
Sir Anthony Seldon (Vice-Chancellor of the private university where Young is a visiting fellow)
Jenni Russell (journalist, Times columnist)
Fraser Nelson (editor of right-wing political magazine The Spectator, Brexiter)
Merryn Somerset Webb (editor of Moneyweek, Brexiter)
Nick Boles (Conservative MP, Remainer)
Laura McInerney (education writer)
Phillip Blond (director of ResPublica think tank)
Maria Caulfield (Conservative MP, Brexiter)
Jesse Norman (Conservative MP)
James Kirkup (journalist turned director of the Social Market Foundation)
Sarah Vine (Daily Mail journalist, also writes for The Spectator. Married to Michael Gove)
Guido Fawkes (right-wing contrarian blogger)
Mary Curnock Cook (former CEO of UCAS)
Iain Martin (right-wing journalist, Brexiter, editor of Reaction)
Claire Lehmann (editor of Quillette, which published Young's piece taken down by Teach First)
Piers Morgan (nuff said)
Stephen Daisley (right-wing journalist and broadcaster, left STV amid accusations that SNP MPs tried to "gag" him)
Mark Lehain (former head of Bedford Free School, now director of Parents and Teachers for Excellence, a campaign group for free schools)
Rob Colville (journalist, director of right-wing CPS think tank, editor-in-chief of online magazine CapX)
Simon Dudley (Conservative, Leader of Windsor council, controversially called for homeless in Windsor to be locked up for the royal wedding in 2018)
Jonathan Simons (Director of Policy and Advocacy, Varkey Foundation; formerly head of the Education Unit at the right wing thinktank Policy Exchange)
Adrian Hilton (writer and speaker, council member of the right-wing Freedom Association, Brexiter),
Adam Perkins (author of "The Welfare Trait" which argues that social welfare damages children)
Dennis Sewell (journalist, contributing editor to The Spectator)
Charlotte Gill (journalist, contributing editor to the Daily Mail)
James Delingpole (Breitbart London executive editor, right-wing writer, Brexiter)
Adrian Wooldridge (writes the Bagehot column for The Economist)
Kirstie Allsopp (broadcaster, Brexiter)
Ryan Bourne (Cato Institute, formerly Institute for Economic Affairs, right-wing, Brexiter)
Julia Hartley-Brewer (journalist, Brexiter, right-wing)
Nick Timothy (former adviser to Theresa May)
If so, then Young is absolutely right that he was attacked because he is a Tory and a Brexiter. But that is because being a Tory and a Brexiter got him the job. He was there not to bring experience and expertise, but to promote the policies of the right-wing tribe of which he is part. He was, in short, a political plant.
Inevitably, now that they know the real reason for Young's appointment, the Left is out for blood. Not that they are admitting that they don't like political appointments unless they are from their own side, of course. Dear me, no. And to be fair, Young has given them plenty of ammunition. They don't need to reveal their real agenda. Here is Polly Toynbee, in the Guardian, casting doubt on his suitability for any position in education:
...How can someone who toys with eugenics expect to hold a post in education, where all classes and races should be treated equally? The revelation by the London Student newspaper that only last May he attended a secretive eugenics conference – “the London conference on intelligence” at UCL – raises questions about his suitability. And that’s leaving aside the porn, malice and misogyny.And here is Tim Fenton alleging that the real reason why Young has resigned not only from the OfS but also, now, from his position as Fulbright Commissioner for Harvard, is the growing evidence that Young's interest in eugenics is anything but benign:
His presence at the London Conference on Intelligence last year, alongside white supremacists and the occasional paedophile, was not the only eugenics bash he had attended recently - there had been another in Montreal.Fenton may well be right, but that doesn't mean the Left's sudden interest in dislodging Young from his position at the New Schools Network has anything to do with his views on eugenics.
To me, this looks much more like a tribal fight. The right-wing "chumocracy" planted their own man in an educational establishment that they view as historically biased to the left. It is hard not to see this as a deliberate attempt to move policy to the right, especially as they rallied round to defend Young when his serious weaknesses were exposed, and cried "foul" when he was forced to resign. This is why I view Young's appointment as entirely political. He is a puppet of the Right, a pawn in their game.
But the Left is equally deceitful, claiming that this is about Young's unacceptable views on eugenics. The fact is that they were out to dislodge him long before these were exposed. They just didn't have enough ammunition to get rid of him - after all, being a right-wing Tory and a Brexiter is hardly justification for completely removing him from the educational establishment. Now they do.
As it happens, I genuinely believe Young's views, and his habit of dissembling - and even, at times, lying - when challenged about his views, make him wholly unsuitable for any position in education. I do think his directorship of the New Schools Network should be brought to an end, and he should never again hold a publicly-funded educational post. But I am concerned about reinforcing political tribalism. The Right has already used the Left's campaign against Toby Young as evidence that the Left is rallying round to protect their hegemony in the educational establishment. Unless the call to remove Toby Young from his remaining publicly funded educational position spans the political divide, removing him could prove extremely difficult and highly divisive.
Removing Toby Young from the New Schools Network directorship must be done in such a way as to leave no shadow of doubt about the reason why he can no longer be allowed to hold such positions. It is emphatically not because he is Tory and a Brexiter. It is because his language is offensive, his views are repellent and his behaviour dishonest. And above all, because a man whose career has always been defined by his political connections is now associating with white supremacists, racists and Nazis at a time when right-wing nationalism is reawakening all over the developed world.
Image of Toby Young with Boris Johnson is courtesy of Getty Images.