I saw quite an odd programme on bbc3 last night. It was about ginger people and their place in society. The fellow (who professed to have ginger hair, although it looked more like brown to me) claimed gingers are an oppressed minority, on a par with gay and ethnic minorities.

I think I agree with him. Poor ginger folk have a raw deal, with their pasty faces and terrible acne. They must have such terrible times at school, too. To protect them from bullies, wouldn’t it be better to put them in special schools, where they’ll be among kids just like them? Surely carrot tops can’t cope in comprehensives, even though they are so brave!

Ha! Sarcasm rules. Once I realised this chap wasn’t being serious, I read the programme as exposing the ridiculousness of all prejudices. Interestingly, much of what this chap was saying – increased ginger representation on TV, etc – is akin to what the disabled community seek. Obviously, the programme was meant to be taken with a pinch of salt (or else this guy had an extremely large chip on his shoulder), and so the programme can be taken as a kind of synecdoche: the absurdity of the programme mirrored the absurdity of all prejudice.

It is indeed absurd. Just as my idea about schools for gingers is ridiculous, so is any idea about schools for cripples, but there is still support for the latter. However, whenever I bring the subject up with certain people they accuse me of being dogmatic and akin to a creationist. This is both insulting and untrue; I have a firm belief in inclusion, and know it can be made to work. I have also seen firsthand how damaging special schools are, enough to know exactly why they cannot be allowed to continue. This is not dogma, but a profound desire to improve the education system. Moreover, likening me to a creationist really riled me: given that the vast majority of (peer reviewed) academic research suggests inclusion is the way forward (see http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/) this seems a case of pots calling kettles black. Most arguments against inclusion are as baseless as they are patronising, and I have yet to see any academic research opposing it.

Thus the programme serves a purpose. Prejudice of any kind is laughable.