William Sitwell is one of the well-connected blockheads who writes for The Daily Telegraph. On the 7th March 2025, he treated his shrivelling readership of pensioners and Toryboys to an attack on classical learning (The Loss of Latin from Schools is a Triumph, not a Tragedy.) He begins:
Those lucky state-sector-educated kids. What did the pesky Gen Alphas do to deserve it, being let off Latin?
His opening is, even by Telegraph standards, a memorable exercise in philistinism masquerading as analysis. But he continues:
With its abrupt cessation under the current administration, the proportion of state schools offering Latin remains at a mere 3%, a figure that is anticipated to decline further. In stark contrast, approximately 50% of independent schools continue to provide Latin instruction, with numbers on the rise.
Did he write this? Or is it something spat out by a chatbot that he was then too idle to edit. I have no idea, but I will assume he wrote it. This having been done, I will observe that, just before an unashamed account of the private schooling on which his parents wasted their money, Mr Sitwell has given a classic summary of the regrowing class segregation in education. The rich are to keep Latin, the poor to get PowerPoint presentations on “resilience.”
Let us turn to Mr Sitwell’s “Relevance.” This is the favourite word of those who measure education by its ability to produce obedient functionaries. Latin, you see, does not teach
the likes of economics, business, entrepreneurialism, spreadsheets and profit and loss.
Indeed, if his article itself weren’t already embarrassment enough, Mr Sitwell offers this confession:
Nothing I do, say, see, observe or experience ever bears any relation to, or could possibly be enhanced by, an appreciation of Latin. It’s never helped me order a beer in Spain, have a sea urchin removed from my foot in Greece nor brought me any closer to understanding the constitutions, cultures or history of the West.
Hardly surprising he never found Latin useful. He might as well moan that algebra too never helped him buy beer in Spain. The problem here is not the language but the mind attempting to grasp it. That Latin never brought him closer to understanding the constitutions, cultures, or history of the West is no fault of the subject. It is simply that he is too thick to understand them.
The truth is that learning Latin—and Greek; or, perhaps above all Greek—is part of a civilised man’s mental cultivation. A true education is not about teaching second order subjects that anyone with half a brain can pick up by himself. It is about cultivating the mind. It is about encouraging a state of mind in which everything else becomes easier. Latin teaches mental precision and an awareness of what civilisation is—both of these dangerous qualities in a population meant to consume trash rather than think. If you can translate Cicero, you can write an argument. If you can handle Tacitus, you can see through propaganda. If you can master Virgil, you can see history not as a random collection of disconnected events, but as a coherent struggle between order and decay.
A further truth is that the ruling class wants to keep real education for its own, while everyone else is groomed for a life of obedient mediocrity. Therefore, supposed conservatives preach that education should produce efficient workers rather than cultivated individuals. Therefore, supposed socialists whine about “narratives of exploitation,” rather than demand the uplifting of the working classes. Both sides claim to hate the other. Both sides nod along to speeches about “levelling up” in full knowledge that the only thing levelled is the curriculum.
Of course, none of this will affect the important people. Their sons will continue to have Greek and Latin. They will have lessons in the language of power. For everyone else, it will be continued slide into intellectual oblivion—given training enough to press the right buttons on a screen, but never to question why.
So, the abolition of Latin in state schools is not about “modernisation.” It is an act of cultural arson, designed to widen the gap still further between rulers and ruled. Mr Sitwell, in his cheerful ignorance, is simply playing his part. Be assured—I have him on my list.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Understanding Latin is fundamental to understanding
I disliked Latin at school and gave it up at the first oppoprtunity.
But I am very glad I was forced to learn the rudiments. Including grammar which the English department had given up on.
Labour killing it off in the state sector is moronic and divisive.
I do hope that when young master Mercadente says he has Mr Sitwell “on my list”, he only means an e-mail list (which would certainly be apposite given his role as Director of Communications).
This debate seems to be between two basic perspectives on education:
Utilitarians, like Dr. Gabb, believe in education as something for the greater betterment of society, which requires that educators foster a cognitive elite.
Vocationalists, on the other hand, believe that education should prepare people for jobs and work. (I’ve long thought that progressivism lends itself to, and perhaps inexorable slides into, vocationalism, and as such vocationalism may be its spearhead, but that’s another matter).
The two perspectives are not mutually exclusive because utilitarianism does imply vocationalism for those outside the cognitive elite, and utilitarians are not against relevancy in education anyway. The real problem seems to be that our supposed ‘cognitive elite’ have pursued the opposite elision: vocationalism (alongside other instrumental approaches) has become predominant in the majority of schools and thereby pruned and killed off emergent meritocratic elites, leaving us with a ruling class based on wealth and family connections, rather than elite ability. Idealised utilitarian educational philosophies have been marginalised because elitism has become a dirty word and forbidden thought.
Everything has become instrumentalised and cynical: earning a grade or certificate, passing an exam, pursuing a career. The consequence is that the brightest children from state schools, if they emerge from working class families, will be culturally ignorant and may struggle with higher level studies and with fulfilling professional roles. The purpose of selective education and grammar schools was to address this by filling a gap in the cultural capital of children from ordinary families. Now everything is openly and explicitly about money, getting ahead and economic success, and standards have had to be watered down so that people can pass. This has been the case for decades, it is nothing new of course.
Perhaps the marginalisation of Latin and Ancient Greek is part of a trend, but it is a secondary consequence of two deeper things:
First, technology and economic forces have made education structurally more child-centred. This really started with the modern school textbook. I remember the old school textbooks contained little if any explication. They were simply aids for blackboard teaching and tools for rote-memorisation. They could not typically be used in isolation away from the classroom, say at home. This changed maybe in the late 80s and textbooks became more engaging, replacing the teacher as the authority and source of knowledge in the class, and could be used to complete ‘homework’ and ‘self-study’ and ‘coursework’. The teacher didn’t need to stand at the front of the class as much. Instead, kids were given exercises to do in the textbook or worked from other learning aids.
If everything is more child-centred in this way, subjects such as Latin become less teachable because they are ‘dry’, ‘boring’ and ‘unengaging’ and require discipline to learn. Discipline first has to be instilled. I have not learned Latin myself, but I assume that at least in the early stages it is necessary to sit in a classroom (or the virtual equivalent) and be taught it. Learning it yourself would be a considerable undertaking with unreliable results, especially for a child. Being taught something implies deferring to someone else who is an authority on the subject: it is a disciplined, top-down, hierarchical idea of learning.
Second, parents don’t like selection in education. Selection means competition. This is politically unpopular, because it means that your child may lose out to another child. Better to just let everybody pass. Latin and Ancient Greek are, I assume, too difficult for most children, and even able children will have a disinclination towards it. It has to be taught and its use implies selection and elitism – dirty words.
Maybe this is how Rome died? I wouldn’t know on any sophisticated level because I am one of Dr. Gabb’s “high-tech barbarians”. I am ‘high-functioning thick’. I attended a working class northern comprehensive and never had the chance of a classical education. Had there been that opportunity, you would have been met with mostly blank and uncomprehending faces, with me and maybe one or two others being the enthused minority. That classroom split would have been reversed if, instead, you had conducted all classes in a workshop. To be realistic about it, the vocationalists [really progressives in disguise?] have a point in the practical sense. Maybe they are crude and ignorant and have proletarianised education, but utilitarian arguments will always be weak if fought on vocationalist ground because the virtue of Latin and Ancient Greek are their irrelevancy, or counter-relevancy. It’s the very fact that you are teaching a child how to light a fire in a wood or shoot an air gun or sleep in a bivy bag at the top of a mountain, things he will never do as an overweight, middle-class suburbanised adult, that make it a virtue and a noble mission.
This works better as an original post than as a comment. I will deal with it later
[…] This debate seems to be between two basic perspectives on education: […]
Classical Latin is the only well known language in which you cannot say “Mortality rose”. It is concrete, concise and drily funny and teaches those virtues in writing English.
But Mr Mercadente, young though he is, really should not have risen to the bait of a Telegraph opinion piece. He ought to be engaging with weightier minds past and present.
The recent article, “The Daily Telegraph’s War on Latin: A Class Enemy Writes,” stands as a glaring testament to the regressive forces clinging to antiquated traditions that have long outlived their relevance. The impassioned defense of Latin and classical studies within its lines is not merely an academic stance; it is an endorsement of systemic structures that perpetuate elitism, exclusion, and oppression.
Latin and the broader canon of classical studies are not benign academic pursuits. They are the bedrock upon which notions of objective truth and beauty have been constructed—concepts historically wielded to marginalize and devalue diverse cultures and perspectives. The veneration of these so-called “classics” instills a worldview that elevates a narrow, Eurocentric ideal, dismissing the rich tapestries of knowledge and aesthetics found in non-Western traditions.
Moreover, the study of Latin serves as a gatekeeping mechanism, preserving access to prestigious educational and professional avenues for a select few. It is no coincidence that Latin has been predominantly taught in elite institutions, effectively barring individuals from marginalized communities—be they people of color, women, or those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds—from partaking in its purported benefits. This exclusivity entrenches societal divisions and upholds a hierarchy that privileges the few at the expense of the many.
The glorification of classical antiquity perpetuates an exclusionary utopia, one that erases the contributions and existence of those who do not fit its narrow mold. The classical world, as idealized through these studies, becomes a sanctuary for supremacist ideologies, subtly endorsing the values of colonialism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.
To dismantle these oppressive structures and pave the way for a truly equitable and inclusive society, we must take decisive action:
– **Eradicate the Study of Latin and Classics:** Remove these subjects from educational curricula at all levels. Their continued presence only serves to indoctrinate future generations into accepting and perpetuating systemic inequalities.
– **Destroy Classical Texts and Artifacts:** By eliminating these relics of oppression, we can symbolically and materially break free from the chains of a past that glorifies exclusion and subjugation.
– **Reeducate Devotees of the Classics:** Implement comprehensive programs aimed at deconstructing the elitist and supremacist ideologies ingrained through classical studies. Encourage a critical examination of history that amplifies marginalized voices and promotes diverse epistemologies.
Only through such radical measures can we hope to cultivate a society that values all cultures and perspectives equally, free from the insidious influence of a classical tradition that has for too long dictated narrow standards of truth and beauty.