When religion and school uniform collide

[Deckard]

These stories seem to be getting more frequent. Here's one from today...

A Sikh teenager has won her High Court discrimination claim against her school which excluded her for breaking its "no jewellery" rule.

Sarika Singh, 14, from Cwmbach, south Wales was excluded in November 2007 from Aberdare Girls School for refusing to take off a religious bangle. The school claimed its no jewellery policy was fair to all.

Sarika says the Kara bangle - a slim steel bracelet - is important to her as it is a symbol of her Sikh faith.

As a result of the judgment, Sarika is allowed to return to Aberdare Girls School in September, wearing the Kara. The judge declared the school was guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

Any thoughts on this?

Should schools be able to insist that rules on visible uniform and jewellery apply across the board, with no exemptions for religious pupils/students?

Or should there be exemptions, but with a line drawn somewhere? If so, where?

I guess it would have to be drawn in two areas:

(a) what we choose to class as a legitimate religion or matter of faith that warrants an exemption.

(b) what we permit in the exemption (a small cross? a bangle? a headscarf? a burqa? a full Jedi outfit?)

We've had a number of these stories over the last few years. I'm left wondering if they've always occurred but not been reported, or if something has changed in society. I know at the school I attended (20-25 years ago) the Sikh boys wore turbans, and the Exclusive Brethren girls wore headscarves. No-one seemed to have a problem with it, and I don't recall it ever being viewed as a matter of them receiving special treatment.

Chuck, if you're still filling time, I'd be interested to know what you think about this too.

[Sean]

To me, it largely depends on the goals of these school policies, and the nature of the item in question. Typically, policies such as this are aimed at things like helping keep student's focus on education rather than fashion, social standing, etc. Nothing about these typical goals is served by forcing a student to break their religious traditions.

In this particular case though, it's an issue of a piece of jewelry that little Sarika says is simply "important to her". It's not a piece of traditional garb that's required by her religion or anything like that. To me, that doesn't necessarily warrant changing the policy to suit her. If it being "important to her" is enough to justify it, then why can't another student wear jewelry that their father gave them as a gift because it's "important" to them, or that they inherited from a dead Grandmother because it's "important" to them, or a "lucky" ring or something because it's "important" to them?

That's my personal opinion on it.

[dubman]

stupid rules beget stupid problems

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

It's not a piece of traditional garb that's required by her religion or anything like that.

In this case, it is. Sikhism requires adherence to the five k's (articles of faith), one of which is wearing this iron bracelet, the kara. In that sense, it's more tied up with her [parentally-imposed] religion than, say, a Christian using their faith to justify why they should wear a small crucifix, or a Muslim wearing a hijab, neither of which are required in the Bible/Quran. That's how I understand it anyway.

For me, the silliness of it all is exposed by the fact that the other four k's of Sikhism require the carrying of a strapped blade, uncut hair tied back with a kanga (wooden comb), and "special underpants". Well we can only speculate about that one, but the first three clearly haven't been adhered to. I think that kind of calls into question the argument about this bracelet being that important, and really we're left with the argument of freedom of expression and of the rights and wrongs of school uniform in general.

Because in all honesty, I can't help but wonder if she would have been quite so eager to fight for her right to wear a religious symbol if that symbol happened to be, shall we say, less 'cool' (e.g. a 1950's beige cardigan, thick-rimmed spectacles, a red comedy nose.... )

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

a red comedy nose.... )

Or a brown one if you're with the right party.

ba-dumb-bump, pisssSS.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

In this case, it is. Sikhism requires adherence to the five k's (articles of faith), one of which is wearing this iron bracelet, the kara. In that sense, it's more tied up with her [parentally-imposed] religion than, say, a Christian using their faith to justify why they should wear a small crucifix, or a Muslim wearing a hijab, neither of which are required in the Bible/Quran. That's how I understand it anyway.

For me, the silliness of it all is exposed by the fact that the other four k's of Sikhism require the carrying of a strapped blade, uncut hair tied back with a kanga (wooden comb), and "special underpants". Well we can only speculate about that one, but the first three clearly haven't been adhered to. I think that kind of calls into question the argument about this bracelet being that important, and really we're left with the argument of freedom of expression and of the rights and wrongs of school uniform in general.

Because in all honesty, I can't help but wonder if she would have been quite so eager to fight for her right to wear a religious symbol if that symbol happened to be, shall we say, less 'cool' (e.g. a 1950's beige cardigan, thick-rimmed spectacles, a red comedy nose.... )

Yeah, you know this one's tough for me to nail down exactly where I stand on it. Normally, I'm all for supporting people's right to wear the traditional garb that comes along with their religion, but given the details of the article and what you just outlined as the other of the "four k" elements, this seems somewhere on the fence between religious tradition and fashion to me. I lean towards saying it shouldn't be allowed in fairness to all the other students who aren't allowed to wear jewelry, but I don't know.

But she is a girl, so maybe we can just all agree that this was clearly a misogynistic policy from the school and move on.

[Deckard]

Yes I've got several conflicting views about this too, that's why I was interested to hear what people here thought.

Originally Posted by Sean

But she is a girl, so maybe we can just all agree that this was clearly a misogynistic policy from the school and move on.

Haha, I can't believe you just said that!

[dubman]

Originally Posted by Sean

But she is a girl, so maybe we can just all agree that this was clearly a misogynistic policy from the school and move on.

I WILL SLAY YOU

no but in all seriousness the problem lies with the school that made the restrictions in the first place. i used to go to a private school with uniforms and all. if you needed to wear a religious item that was just fine. the emphasis was that you have an identity with the school and that if there was a distinction, it lay within yourself (and also they anted you to learn how to look/feel 'proper'). and yeah, it was all bullcrap kinda, but jewelry wasnt banned, because that wasnt the spirit of the rule. they've gotten too specific about garb and it's needlessly stepping on toes for the sake of equality, which isnt equal at all.

which is why i also thought it was a dumb idea when france decided to enact that nation-wide. complete crap.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by Deckard

These stories seem to be getting more frequent. Here's one from today...



Any thoughts on this?

Should schools be able to insist that rules on visible uniform and jewellery apply across the board, with no exemptions for religious pupils/students?

Or should there be exemptions, but with a line drawn somewhere? If so, where?

Chuck, if you're still filling time, I'd be interested to know what you think about this too.

Filling time!! What do you think we teachers do with our days!? Let me just get my feet off the staffroom table, put away my paper, brush these crumbs of biscotti off my hand knitted jersey, and put down my double-shot latte!

My first reaction to this is two-fold.

a. What is the purpose for the school having a "no jewelery" policy?

Is it a health and safety issue? ie. Students will be taking part in technology - around moving equipment - so no jewelery.
Is it an agreed upon policy - by the school board that basically says - "If you want to be a student here - you agree to these rules."

If it's there - just because it's always been there - and if it has no learning reason behind it - then I think you review the policy.

What would happen if the policy was removed - would all chaos ensue - as bangles, shoulder pads, storm trooper outfits and all manner of religious ensemble appear on compliant teenagers?

Or would a dozen or so wear some obtuse or fashionable or morally absolute bangle or hair-tie - leaving the majority of students and teachers to get on with it?

b. What's the point of the parents taking this to court?

That is - now they've got their child back into this school - how secure/comfortable will she be? Has her learning been improved because she's at this specific school - is this the place that will give her the best chance of success?

As mentioned - why does she not wear the rest of the mandated Sikh articles? If it's that important to her - can she not wear it under the rest of the uniform in some manner?

-----
Big picture ramble...

Uniforms and uniform policies are usually about schools culture - they rarely prevent or ensure better or worse behaviour management. They can be useful for parents - who can budget for particular clothes for students - they can be worn with honour and allow a student to feel a part of something. They can also be worn shabbily and make a school look/feel like shit.

People make judgement calls based on perception - and schools reputations are no different. Boards and principals often make decisions about uniforms accordingly.

I've taught at schools with uniforms and without. I've studied at schools with uniforms and without. Neither really affect the learning that takes place - that's more a combination of teacher-student relationships, feedback, resources, direct teaching and other pedagogical thingamajigs.

Bottom line - I'm not sure what this student and her parents have achieved by pursuing this case.

As a teacher I'm just not sure what advantage this bracelet will give this young person in becoming a confident learner, able to behave in a multi-cultural society and capable of communicating effectively. I also don't know how it will help her succeed at her exams. Which is unfortunately the major measure of success in our school system.

Then again - I'm not Sikh - or particularly religious.

Now if you'll excuse me - I've an important staff meeting that thankfully has a very large tea and cakes component.

[Deckard]

Ahhh, finally he decides to waltz through the doors and join us!

Only 72 hours late.

Ok, let's go through your essay....

Lots to think about there Chuck. My natural (probably kneejerk) reaction was one of cynicism about more concessions being afforded to faith. Who's to say an atheist might consider an A for Atheist bracelet "important", for instance? That sort of thing. Well ok, atheism isn't a faith, but ultimately when you strip away the reverence, it's about what the student (or their parents) consider to be important, not about whether there's a deity or deities looking down on them.

But I can also see there are other aspects that come into this, not least the issue of school uniform and jewellery policy in general. My schools seemed to manage a compomise quite well - there were rules about extravagant hair styles and length of skirt (that one was a killer for me) but small religious adornments were permitted, and if they looked like they might present a health and safety risk, then they were either removed by the student, or the student sat out that particular aspect of the curriculum. There also seemed to be an unspoken understanding that there would be a big difference between, say, a Hindu gemstone on the forehead, and a head-to-toe burqa. I'm not sure how a bracelet of this size would have been treated - I suspect that health and safety might have required its removal in certain subjects and activities, but I'm not sure.

It's tempting to shrug our shoulders and say "Whatever happened to common sense?" but I think cases like this bracelet clearly do highlight those very lines we have to draw that I mentioned earlier, and that's why I agree that we need to enquire about the underlying reasons; what's served by disallowing this bracelet or any jewellery? What's served by the uniform policy?

And as you say, what was really served by taking this particular case all the way to court? Victim status, attention and a spot of David v Goliath rebellion?

Ok, back to cake.