Headscarves In Public Schools Research Articles

The Arrogant Eye and the French Prohibitions of the Veil

Evânia Reich presents the argument that the veil laws in France—the banning of the full-face coverings in public and the banning of the headscarf in public schools—are consistent with the emancipatory project of French Laicite. According to this argument, the veils that Muslim women wear are symbols of their oppression, whereas French education seeks to liberate each individual and Laicite serves as a bulwark against the creeping oppressive influence of religion. Unveiling Muslim women, then, is an act of emancipation. In this essay, I argue that the view of French secularism as an emancipatory project to free women of the oppressive mechanism of the veil is an example of what Marilyn Frye calls the “arrogant eye.” In this essay, I offer an alternative approach on the veil following Frye’s notion of the “loving eye.”

Groups in Context: An Ontology of a Muslim Headscarf in a Nazareth Catholic School and a Sephardic Ultra-Orthodox Student in Immanuel

Two separate Israeli Supreme Court cases led to decisions in which a Christian school in Nazareth was permitted to deny admission to a Muslim student who insisted on coming to school with her headscarf, while an Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox school in Immanuel was not permitted to exclude Sephardic students from its ranks. Intriguingly, the Israeli Supreme Court reached these apparently contradictory holdings by reference to the same liberal ideals of equality and commonality. The article analyzes both holdings to show that the Court’s resolutions cannot stand on their own terms. To reconcile these outcomes it is necessary to locate the groups involved within the religious and ethnic power structure in Israel, and to determine the legal and social significance of defining the group as a minority or as a majority. The analysis of the particular cases draws on the controversy over the use of headscarves in public schools in Europe, and the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education in the United States, in order to propose a new means of evaluating the legitimacy of group accommodation in general. The principle is to ascertain whether it is the hegemonic or the subordinate group that is seeking to be separate. In general, we should be more tolerant of exclusionary measures practiced by a minority than when practiced by the majority. Ultimately, a constitutional evaluation committed to basic individual freedoms cannot refer to the individual without her or his group.

Belief and/in the Law

Abstract This article examines how ‘belief’ has emerged as the privileged site of religion in human rights law, rendering some forms of ethical life unintelligible to secular-modern law and politics. I first analyze models of ethical personhood in which actions like veiling or praying do not only signify piety but are also integral to achieving it. I next turn to tracing how the 2004 French ban on headscarves in public schools was seen as a non-violation of religious liberty, examining the particular relationship between interiority and exteriority, mind and body, and belief and practice that underlay arguments for the ban. I then show how these distinctions produce another distinction between conscience and its manifestation, one that is institutionalized in secular legal conventions that make the freedom to believe unalienable but the freedom to manifest that belief alienable. Finally, I examine the paradox of legislating the inviolability of the freedom to believe.

Veiling, secularism and Islamism: gender constructions in France and Iran

In this article we will explore the politicisation of the ubiquitous Muslim veil within a French and Iranian context respectively. We will examine how the prevailing political discourses in both these contexts construct particular representations and realities for Muslim women. Despite different ideological structures and contexts, both France and Iran impose laws and regulations that reduce many Muslim women's capacity for agency and self-expression in the public sphere. We identify certain parallels in how seemingly disparate cultural and national political discourses in these two contexts instrumentalise images of Muslim women for specific ideological agendas. We note how in these very different contexts, dominant discourses on veiling continue to objectify Muslim women and do not engage with Muslim women dialogically as subjects capable of agency and self-definition.France: Pursuing Laicite or Legalizing Xenophobia?Towards the end of the 20th century the veil has emerged as a highly politicised symbol, and often acts as a visible boundary marker between what characterises the West and Islam.2 In many Western societies the overriding association of the veil with oppressed Muslim women has had a negative impact on understandings of Islam as a whole. Especially post- September 11th 2001, the view of Muslim women as both supporting an inherently violent religion, and as subordinated members of the self-same religion has increasingly gained currency in the West In many Western contexts, the veiled Muslim woman has come to symbolise Islam's otherness and its irreconcilable differences from post-enlightenment Western cultures.In France where Islam is a minority religion, the hijab (head-scarf) was prohibited in all public schools by law on 10th February 2004.3 Along with other obvious religious symbols such as the Jewish kippa and flashy Christian crosses, the hijab was seen as a public symbol of strong religious commitment (Plesner, 2004: 153). Before the prohibition by law, each school could decide whether or not they wanted to ban the hijab. This led to heated exchanges regarding schools that prohibited the use of hijab. Consequently, the French government implemented a law prohibiting the wearing of obvious religious symbols at all public schools (Giddens, 2004: 127). The prohibition unleashed intense and, at times, furious debates in Europe. There were massive protests against this prohibition of the hijab from Muslims living in France and other parts of the world.4The apparent reason for the prohibition of the Muslim headscarf in public schools can be found in the French principle of secularisation known as laicite'.5 This principle signifies a separation of church and state as a prerequisite for peace and national integration. As such, maintaining religious neutrality in civil society is seen as central to French secular identity. In this context, the donning of obvious religious symbols are perceived as antagonistic to laicite, fostering forms of diverse public religiosity that purportedly hinder national integration. Simultaneously, the French constitution clearly states that laicite also incorporates the individual's right to religious freedom and the equality of all citizens regardless of origin, race or religion. The right to equal treatment despite religious conviction principally presents a challenge to the prohibition of religious symbols in public schools (Plesner, 2004: 150-160). The application of laicite reveals that there are deep ambiguities in relation to the multilayered meaning of this concept. For some laicite is understood as a commitment of passive neutrality and non-intervention within the private religious realm, while upholding the principle of non-discrimination in public sphere. For others laicite can be understood to mean an overriding obligation to protect secularism, a fundamental assurance of the nation's sovereign independence from religious authorities. …

The return of political theology

Increasingly in today’s world we are experiencing intensifying antagonisms around religious and ethno-cultural differences. The confrontation between political Islam and the so-called ‘West’ has replaced the rhetoric of the Cold War against communism. This new constellation has not only challenged the hypothesis that ‘secularization’ inevitably accompanied modernity but has also placed on the agenda political theology as a potent force in many societies. This article analyzes the contemporary revival of political theology by focusing on the headscarf debate in comparative constitutional perspective. It compares the well-known decision of the French Parliament banning the wearing of the headscarf in public schools (2004) with the decision of the German Constitutional Court concerning whether Fereshta Ludin, an Afghani-German teacher wearing the hijab, could teach in German schools (2003) and with the more recent judgment of the Turkish Constitutional Court (summer 2008) upholding the ban on the wearing of the scarf or the turban in institutions of higher learning. At stake in these debates is not only the meaning of fundamental human rights but also why women and their bodies become the object of disciplinary conflicts in culture, law and religion.

Reconfiguring freedom: Muslim piety and the limits of secular law and public discourse in France

ABSTRACTThrough an analysis of the practice of veiling, I first examine how pious Muslim French women reconcile the dominant secular oppositions between personal autonomy and religious authority, and between the “true” self and religious norms, as they constitute themselves as religious subjects. I then turn to the 2004 law banning headscarves in public schools, and to the attendant public debates, exploring how this Muslim French religiosity was rendered incommensurable in secular law and unintelligible in public discourse. In so doing, I bring into focus both the underlying assumptions and exigencies of French secularity as well as some of its aporias.

Secularism, State Policies, and Muslims in Europe<BR> Analyzing French Exceptionalism

Islam has increasingly become an internal affair in several western European countries, where the population has grown to ten to fifteen million. In recent years, the European public has intensely discussed Muslims and Islam on several occasions, from terrorist attacks in London and Madrid to the debates on Danish cartoons. In short, there is today a Muslim question in the minds of many European politicians when it comes to the issues of immigration, integration, and security. European states have pursued diverse policies to regulate their populations. The most controversial of these policies is France's recent ban on wearing headscarves in public schools, which has been discussed in France and abroad since 1989. Other European countries, however, have taken students' headscarves as a part of their individual freedom and have not prohibited them. A survey of twelve major French and British newspapers between 1989 and 1999 shows how controversial the issue was in France, in comparison to Britain. According to the survey, the number of articles on the headscarf issue in French newspapers reached 1,174, whereas the British newspapers carried only eighteen.) As a result of this debate, a bill was passed in the French assembly and the senate and signed into the law by President Jacques Chirac in March 2004. The first article of the new law

Passive and Assertive Secularism: Historical Conditions, Ideological Struggles, and State Policies toward Religion

Why do secular states pursue substantially different policies toward religion? The United States, France, and Turkey are secular states that lack any official religion and have legal systems free from religious control. The French and Turkish states have banned students' headscarves in public schools, whereas the U.S. has allowed students to wear religious symbols and attire. Using the method of process tracing, the author argues that state policies toward religion are the result of ideological struggles. In France and Turkey the dominant ideology is “assertive secularism,” which aims to exclude religion from the public sphere, while in the U.S., it is “passive secularism,” which tolerates public visibility of religion. Whether assertive or passive secularism became dominant in a particular case was the result of the particular historical conditions during the secular state-building period, especially the presence or absence of an ancien regime based on a marriage of monarchy and hegemonic religion.

Introduction

The hundredth anniversary of the 1905 law in France on the separation of church and state has led to a rich harvest of new scholarly work on laïcité and religion in public life. Centenaries often inspire conferences and publishing projects, especially in France. In the case of the 1905 law the temptation became irresistible in the wake of the creation of the Conseil français du culte musulman in 2002 (see the special spring 2005 issue of FPCS on the CFCM) and years of controversy over the wearing of Muslim headscarves in public schools. The Stasi Commission’s 2004 recommendation to ban the wearing of ostentatious religious signs in public schools, and a 2005 act of Parliament that made that view law, inspired sharp debate in France and beyond, adding further impetus to scholarly discussion of religion, politics, and the government’s regulation of matters religious.

Laïcité Unveiled: A case study in human rights, religion, and culture in France

This paper examines the debate around the headscarf in France with the view to critically examining two central arguments put forward by the Stasi Commission for the restriction of the headscarf in French public schools—that the headscarf imperiled public order and that it jeopardized neutrality in the public sphere. In the case of the first argument, this paper argues that France did not meet the threshold requirement necessary to curtail religious rights in public schools. In the case of the second argument, this paper insists that neutrality in the pulic sphere has always involved some accommodation of religious groups in society and should include the headscarf in public schools. The paper argues that the decision to ban the headscarf is ultimately a controversy about French identity and the values on which the French community is built.

Canada's Addiction to American Security: The Illusion of Choice in the War on Terrorism

1. America's Addiction to Security and Public Safety Despite the absence of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, American officials are becoming increasingly addicted to achieving perfect security and absolute safety in the midst of an unwinnable war on terrorism. Success will remain elusive because, over time, more groups and individuals with expanding lists of grievances will acquire the power to inflict levels of damage considered by political leaders to be unacceptable. In essence war is becoming privatized (Nye 2004) (3) through the democratization of technology and knowledge (Friedman, 2001), (4) miniaturization of weaponry and lethality, increasing accessibility and transferability of weapons of mass destruction, and a rising number of competing terrorist groups with religious, political and financial motivations to terrorize. Even more disturbing are trends towards the privatization of political power. The Madrid train bombings in March 2004 revealed that a relatively straightforward attack by a small group of terrorists could have a significant impact on the outcome of a democratic election and play a major role in the immediate withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. The Philippine government withdrew their troops in July 2004 in response to the kidnapping of a single truck driver in Baghdad. These successes reveal that terrorists have acquired a measure of political power that far exceeds the influence of hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters in Spain and the Philippines who were demanding the same outcome (an early withdrawal from Iraq), but failed. Mass protests in Katmandu after the murder of twelve Nepalese workers in Baghdad provoked both an apology from the government in Nepal for failing to secure their release, and an explanation from officials that they received no offer from the kidnappers--the implication being that had such an offer been made the government would almost certainly have negotiated with the terrorists. The Kuwaiti government paid a $500,000 ransom for the release of seven Indian and Kenyan employees of a Kuwaiti company involved in post-war reconstruction in Iraq. (5) Several Egyptian, Jordanian, and Turkish companies agreed to cut short their constructions operations in Iraq in exchange for the release of kidnapped employees. (6) In August 2004, terrorists threatened to kill two French journalists as a protest against legislation in France banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves in public schools. The kidnappings provoked a flurry of French diplomatic activity resulting in the release of the hostages in December, 2004. (7) Apparently even the strongest critics of the U.S.-UK led war in Iraq are not immune from kidnapping and extortion. More recently, the Italian government was forced to address accusations that $1 million was paid for the release of two aid workers in October 2004, and significantly more to obtain the release of Italian reporter, Giuliana Sgrena, after a controversial rescue operation in March 2005. (8) Negotiating with terrorists is standard operating procedure for governments eager to avoid a public backlash against policies that are too closely associated with an unpopular war, and an even less popular American president. But these concessions (and others to follow) will guarantee that more kidnappings, bombings and killings will occur as coalitions of insurgents and terrorists cooperate to build on political victories and financial windfalls. (9) Consider the following illustration of the privatization of political power in Iraq today--the overwhelming consensus across the international community is that success in Iraq requires an end to the insurgency and a credible and sustained effort by a broad-based, coalition of states supporting an unwavering commitment to post-conflict reconstruction, counter-insurgency, liberalization, and democratization. Yet despite this multilateral consensus, supported by unanimously endorsed UN Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1511, unilateral self-interests motivated by domestic political imperatives to protect their own citizens and troops remain the most powerful determinants of whether states join (or remain in) the U. …

The Ombudsman for Children: an analysis of the Irish model as it relates to recognized schools

The recent law passed in the French National Assembly,1 in the name of liberty and tolerance, to prohibit young female Muslim students from wearing headscarves in public schools in France, has re‐o...

Integrating Different Pasts, Avoiding Different Futures?

In several European countries there have been judicial decisions relating to the religious practice of Muslim immigrants: Law suits about headscarves in public schools and ritual slaughter are prominent examples. When issues of religious difference are being treated at the Supreme Court level, this indicates a problem of social integration in a growingly multicultural society. In this article such decisions are interpreted as an effort to integrate references to a foreign religious past while avoiding references to a future that might arise from it. Through this, the unstructured and conflicting simultaneity of different religious pasts and presents is shaped into a structured ‘simultaneity of the non-simultaneous’.

Pluralism in Education: The display of Islamic affiliation in French and British schools

The expression of Islamic affiliation by Muslim students in French and British schools has been perceived as particularly problematic to the extent that it has become a focal point for public and media attention. The controversies over the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in French and British public schools and the state funding of Islamic schools in Britain are case studies representing a range of issues raised by religious pluralism in education, particularly the display of religious affiliation in public schools. In France the prohibition of the Islamic headscarf in public schools provoked a national controversy in 1989. In Britain the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in public schools resulted in a localized and minor debate but the question of state funding of Islamic schools became a major controversial issue in 1990. The press coverage of the case studies is used as an analytical tool with which to examine the exchange of public information and opinion in the press on this type of religious expression. Over 1,500 press articles on the two case studies were published from 1989 to 1998 by selected French and British national daily newspapers, religious papers and education papers. A quantitative analysis of the articles measures the magnitude of each controversy and its prominence in the press. A qualitative content analysis of the articles examines actual press content and compares the primary issues, prevalent opinions and supporting arguments defining the debates in each case study.