The Guardian recently published an edited version of a letter from a number of Socialist Teachers’ Association activists. They had responded to new advice issued by the DfES about school uniform. This advice, which is available to read and respond to on the DfES website, draws partly on the decision in March 2006 by the Lords of Appeal to overturn an earlier decision in the legal dispute between Shabina Begum and her school (over whether or not she could wear the jilbab, a long gown). Briefly, the Lords of Appeal decided that the right to hold a religious belief was absolute, but the right to manifest it was qualified. By a majority of three to two, they decided that Shabina Begum’s rights had not been interfered with in this case.
I think the letter written by some STA activists is misleading. It suggested that Head Teachers “are to be given the right to ban” items of clothing such as the niqab. But Head Teachers can already ban items of uniform or aspects of appearance, provided they have the support of school governors. There is no existing legislation on the matter of school uniform: DfES advice is non-statutory. It is for school governors to make policy about uniform and related matters. The new DfES advice re-states the status quo, albeit in the light of the Lords of Appeal judgement.
The DfES advises schools to act fairly and reasonably, to bear legislation in mind, to consult widely on matters of uniform and appearance, to consider how a uniform policy might affect different groups involved with the school, and to give due consideration to concerns raised by those groups, especially concerns to do with the right to manifest a religious belief.
It also outlines some reasons why a school might not be able to accommodate the wishes of every group. These include matters of health and safety, of identification, of student involvement in learning, and of the protection of young people from pressure to adopt clothing they otherwise would not wear. DfES specifically advises that schools should consider the request to vary uniform-policy to meet the needs of any individual student on religious grounds. It also re-states the salient judgement that there is no general right to manifest a religious belief at any time, in any place, or in any manner.
It seems strange to me that a socialist organisation such as STA might appear to want to prioritise the right to religious expression (for example, to be attired in a certain way wherever and whenever) over all other claims. It seems even stranger when such a position would appear to ally secularists with that small minority of Muslims who take a position about women’s clothing in Islam which is highly disputed by others of their co-religionists.
The Guardian letter goes on to comment on the situation in France: “[W]here the hijab or headscarf has been banned in some schools, the result has been division and conflict.” But the division and conflict within the French state education system will have many causes.
In England, we might point to division and conflict generated by the class-determined National Curriculum, the over-testing regime, student-grouping by so-called “ability”, systemic restrictions on teacher creativity, the high levels of deprivation faced by significant numbers of students, and structural inequalities embedded by racism, sexism and class. To imply that a ban on the niqab is at the root of division and conflict (whether in France or England) is reductive.
The Guardian letter was edited to remove a paragraph pointing out that it is not necessary to see a student’s face to be able to gauge whether they are involved in learning. This is true, but only for a moment. The niqab is worn all the time in school. It is designed to prevent seeing and hence reading the face.
As a teacher I was happy to have students sit with their back to me in class, but I would make sure that I would move around the class in order to be able to see how they were getting on visually, for example by checking their face from time to time. Making that kind of face-to-face contact seemed to me essential as a teacher. (Other teachers may feel differently; I’m only speaking for myself here.)
To have someone in class entirely covered is a qualitatively different situation from not being able to see their face on occasion. The face seems to me to be uniquely important in communication, and for the sharing of views, ideas and experience.
It is not quite the case, as the letter states, that some “very few young women” may be banned from school. What may be banned from particular schools are items of clothing or aspects of self-presentation, for example the niqab. Banning a person from an educational institution is different from denying them the right to be attired in a certain way while there. Again, not to make this distinction seems to me to invite socialists to line up with those pushing a particular religious agenda. The politics latent in such an agenda should be made apparent before we give our support.
I would hope we were committed to building anti-racist, anti-sexist and socially-critical school communities, and to a position in favour of secular state schooling. The Guardian letter risks undermining rather than sustaining the progress won for these positions through years of struggle.
Patrick Yarker
