🧠 Madame Borne (Minister of Education) or the Art of Leading Without Competence

From the moment Élisabeth Borne took office as the Minister of National Education, she set the tone: “I am not a specialist in National Education.” When one lacks the competence, one does not take the position. Nor the client. Nor the mission. Period.

In education, ideas—preferably well thought out before being announced—are not enough. Their implementation makes the difference. So yes, educating about sexuality, orientation, or equality is fundamental. But in the wrong hands, these ideas become scarecrows. When the minister herself declares her incompetence, how can one hope? When you're a professional, you know: competence always precedes intervention. Why shouldn't this elementary principle apply to a ministry?

When a surgeon says they're "not very comfortable with scalpels," they are not allowed to operate. When a psychologist or coach says they don't understand the basics of psychology and human behavior, they are not entrusted with a distressed teenager, or anyone for that matter. But at the head of the ministry most crucial for the country's future? No problem. Everything goes.

Except it doesn't. Especially not what follows.

Incoherent Sex Education: Between Empty Principles and Weak Implementation

The intention? Commendable. Educating about sexuality, respect, and gender equality from a young age. But not in this order and certainly not based on ideologies!

The program? It is the product of a feeble and ridiculous movement. All this to integrate terminologies early on in a society that no longer knows how to regulate the problems it creates.

An "indispensable" program, yes. But in reality? The school takes over the educational role of parents on this issue with a questionable and unsettling intent to normalize. The problem is that this will be colored by the ideology of each teacher tasked with delivering the message, with the same shortcomings and lack of psychological aptitude or willingness to engage as in the supervision of HPI and atypical individuals.

How far the gap between stated intentions and on-the-ground slip-ups will go, we will soon find out.

Political courage, like pedagogical competence, cannot be improvised.

Now, let's move on to the orientation from kindergarten, which is currently occupying the media landscape.

The latest whim: “think about orientation from kindergarten,” "we must be careful not to condition their orientation choices."

The problem is if this nice problem is entrusted, at its core, to all these psycho-scientific puppets who build an orientation—oh, sorry, an insertion—based on personality tests.

Orient whom? Five-year-old children? Based on what? How? Their ability to sit still on a little bench? Their passion for puzzles? Their phobia of markers?

We must be careful not to "impose early biases." So, is a whole new education system planned? Or will we actually talk to them about blue, pink, and gender?

This is not about orientation; it's about training. It's the old technocratic temptation: diagnose early to sort quickly.

But true orientation is a long process. It is an education in decision-making, exploration, and critical thinking. Not an early assignment. And a school system that values autonomy, not conformity.

And that is precisely what the system does not want. That would be a mess for the economy.

Madame Borne, if you were competent and knew when not to "do," you would have understood that:

• Sex education is not just information listed in a PowerPoint approved by the council of ministers.
• Orientation is the antithesis of determinism; it is a culture of choice. And no one is fooled; that is not the objective of an economic system like the state.
• Childhood is not a time for sorting but a time for opening up to the world.

You are trying to impose ideological foundations simply by starting earlier. This is a manipulation of a scale that deeply saddens me.

One can carry great ideas without having the stature to embody them. One can want to do good but do it poorly. And when one leads a ministry, one does not have the right to amateurism. No more than a psychologist, coach, or educator has the right to project their shortcomings onto the children they support.

Parents already had the arduous task of transmission; now they will also have the heavy burden of deconstructing the influence of your works. Thank you for our mental load.