Page 3

EDWARD FENNELLHOW TO ENTERThursday October 19 2017Competitionthe timesSTUDENT LAW3The Lemn Sissay wayPoet launches bursary for under-represented black menGo online for more news and viewsGotta teach ’em allThe lecturer who hopes a Pokémon-inspired appcan make law more funThe apprenticesQualifying as a solicitor without the burden of fees Fight for financeMeet the former student battling to widen university accessThe battle between our history and modern valuesFrom hero to villain — that’s the transformation taking place today across our university campuses and city squares. “Rhodes must fall” (and he did in South Africa) because he was a virulent imperialist. The Colston Hall in Bristol must be renamed because, on closer examination, the “philanthropist” Edward Colston turns out to have been a slaver. And, in the US, statues of Confederate commanders are being wheeled out of sight because, well, they were Confederate commanders.The demigods of the past are being brought down to earth by the realisation that they had feet of clay, their records withering when judged against our present values. Is this fair, however? “Should history be rewritten in line with modern-day views of human rights?” — that is the subject of The Times/One Essex Court student essay competition, with prizes totalling more than £10,500.The topic touches some of the most sensitive issues today in political and social discourse. How far should thepast be judged by the standards of the present? And where should the line be drawn between establishing the facts of history and disregarding the perspective of previous generations? History is, of course, being constantlyrewritten as new evidence is unearthed and fresh (or at least different) insights and understanding evolve. In Homer the word “histor” was applied to someone who passed judgment based on the facts and after investigation. So there is a parallel between the practiceof history and the judicial process. The verdict of history can, of course, change — in both directions. Members of the far-right anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, such as its co-founder Alexander Gauland, are rewriting history by arguing that the achievements of the German military in the Second World War should merit respect, while Björn Höcke, the AfD’s state leader in Thuringia, central Germany, suggests that Hitler was “not all bad”.In the UK and US, by contrast, the predominant driver for re-evaluating history is a heightened emphasis on the observation of human rights. If these rights are regarded as being universal, they should be applied across all time, and transgressions against them would render void any other attributes or achievements worthy of recognition. Hence, if participation in slavery is thegreatest of sins, should there continue to be a statue of the slave-owning George Washington in central London? And if Islamophobia is unacceptable, should we be rid of the statue of Richard I (the crusader) outside the Houses of Parliament? And why should the statue of Alfred the Great be allowed to remain in Wantage when there is good evidence that he hanged captured Vikings without any due process of law? “Rewriting history is different from celebrating people who have committed what we now recognise are wrongs in the past or are a beacon for intolerant views,” says James Goldsmith, a barrister at One Essex Court. “But, even then, should we ignore the good thingsthat people might have done as well as the bad?”At present that debate is being shapedby street protests. However, it could be argued that in a civilised society there needs to be a more measured and orderly approach to re-evaluating the past where public memorialising is concerned. Might planning regulations, for example, have a part to play here?Permission to erect statues is coveredby planning law, with decisions taken by local authorities, subject to limited rights of appeal. As Goldsmith points out: “Westminster council appears to havea ten-year principle whereby no memorials can be erected before the expiry of a decade after the death of the relevant individual or public event commemorated, to allow time for passions to cool.”That makes sense, given the ephemeral nature of much of today’s celebrity culture, but could the planning process be extended so that what is offensive retrospectively might be removed under the law? And if so, what might be the criteria applied for the compulsory removal of such historical monuments and their replacement by more politically correct candidates? There’s much to debate. We look forward to hearing your views.The demigods of the past are being brought down to earth, judged against our present values. Is this fair?“The statue of Cecil Rhodes at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, was pulled down after protests by studentsThe Times/One Essex Court student essay competition is open to anyone registered at a UK educational institution. Full rules and details of how to apply are available at oeclaw.co.uk/times-law-awards. First prize is worth £3,500 (£10,500 in all is on offer) and the closing date is Monday, December 4. The winner will be announced at a gala dinner in the spring.AFP/GETTY IMAGES