I remember how it was -- JR
UK:Is this a Taliban-run school in Kabul? No, one of our top comprehensives: Death threats to staff for stopping Muslim pupils praying, a girl forced to quit the choir because 'her religion bars singing' and another pressured to wear a hijab
It was a suburban schoolyard like any other, a place where pupils could gossip excitedly with friends or have a kickabout with a football in the precious breaks between lessons.
But earlier this year, that normality was shattered and the playground became a place that the school's own headmistress described as 'dangerous' and 'intimidating' – 'where there is discrimination and harassment.
'Where I have to have police in… [where] I have had to hire security for staff whose lives are now endangered.'
It all started with a prayer. A prayer by a teenage girl that, by the school's account, became weaponised by an influential Muslim clique, fuelling a culture war that has split pupils along religious lines and provoked death threats and bomb scares.
Now the row is heading for the High Court, pitching the demands of a vocal subsection of one religious group against teachers' authority to run their non-religious school in the way they believe is best for all their pupils.
Papers lodged with the court – exclusively obtained by The Mail on Sunday – reveal in concerning detail how quickly and how aggressively events escalated following a confrontation between a teacher and the girl who wanted to pray in the playground.
The documents describe how a culture of coercion emerged among the Muslim pupils, led by a group of about 30 youngsters with strict ideas about what their faith entails. They intimidated those who chose not to fast during the holy month of Ramadan, pressured one girl into wearing the hijab and forced another to quit the choir by telling her it was forbidden – 'haram' – under Islamic doctrine.
A court order means neither the school nor anyone involved can be named, not least for fear of further inflaming tensions. But it is one of the best regarded state comprehensives in England, and if such religious hostility can erupt here, there are fears it could erupt anywhere. Or quite possibly already has.
The flashpoint came during Ramadan in late March this year. Before then, the school says no pupil had ever sought to conduct what it describes as 'prayer rituals' in the schoolyard.
But at that point a small number said they wanted to perform one of the five daily prayers required of devout followers of Islam. Known as the Duhr, it should be completed between 12.30pm and 2pm.
The school said it did not try to stop the prayers, as long as 'they did not involve a breach of policy' – believed to be a ban on prayer mats. Pupils got around this by using their school blazers instead. In the court papers, the school says it quickly became apparent that allowing the prayers 'had an increasingly negative impact', and fostered an 'intimidatory and aggressive atmosphere' within the grounds.
The numbers taking part in the prayers swelled from a few to about 30 within just a week.
'This resulted in a division in the playground between the Muslim and the non-Muslim children which had never happened before,' the school says.
The group also became a powerful coterie, accused of 'intimidation of Muslim pupils who chose not to pray' and aggressively staring at those who chose to eat lunch rather than fast. 'Muslim children not wishing to engage in prayer rituals had been intimidated when eating, intimidated into changing their dress, and intimidated into dropping out of the choir,' the school says.
The school banned all prayer as a result of the tensions building up. Things came to a head when a Year 9 girl – aged 13 or 14 – clashed with a teacher on March 23, the first day of Ramadan, when she produced a prayer mat in the playground.
The ground was wet and dirty as it had been raining, so she did not want to use her jacket. The teacher told her that the mat was banned, and harsh words were exchanged, which led to the girl being suspended for two days for 'extreme rudeness'. It is this pupil, along with her mother, who is bringing a case under human rights laws, claiming her right to practise her religion has been suppressed.
Her expulsion triggered complaints that the school was Islamophobic and led to 'the most appalling abuse and threats' to teachers.
The school was bombarded by threatening emails and phone calls, including one which read: 'If you carry on disrespecting our Muslim children you will be dealt with like the filthy dog that you are.'
One member of staff had a brick thrown through their window at home, others received death threats and, in the case of a black teacher, racist abuse.
Bottles were thrown into the playground from the street. Another member of staff suffered an attempted break-in.
The school also received a bomb threat via an email warning: 'We have planted several bombs in the building, many of which are hidden in toilets, hall rooms and classes on all floors. These are the consequences of your actions.'
Police were called and had to sweep the building for explosives, but found none.
The headmistress said she imposed the ban on prayer after weighing up all the options and she could see no other way, given they had become such a 'catalyst for abuse and threats'.
The pupil – known as TTT in the court papers – and her lawyers say those vile reactions were not the fault of any of the 'children who have sought to pray in school', but rather of the school's attitude to prayer and its ultimate ban.
This is not the first educational establishment to find itself in the firing line of the culture wars.
Activists have picketed schools whose sex education classes mention same-sex relationships; a teacher at Batley Grammar in West Yorkshire was forced into hiding after showing his pupils an image of the Prophet Mohammed; and in 2021 protesters gathered at Allerton Grange School in Leeds after its headteacher asked pupils not to bring Palestinian flags to school because it could be perceived as anti-Semitic.
The forthcoming case is further evidence of how some religious groups seek to influence secular schools. Pupil TTT – who has applied for legal aid to fund her case – is challenging the prayer ban as an infringement of her right to 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' under the European Convention of Human Rights, the same legislation used to stop the Government from implementing its plan of sending small-boat migrants to Rwanda.
However, the school argues that Muslims do not have to conduct the prayers at the specific times. Under a provision called Qadaa, followers can catch up with any prayer they miss for a good reason as soon as possible after the usual time.
Given the Duhr lunchtime prayer is the only ritual that falls in the school day, it could be completed at home later, the school says, as the 'disruption and inconvenience' it causes to other pupils is good enough reason to delay it.
They say their prayer ban does not break human rights laws as the pupil 'can simply do Qadaa', adding: 'The school's policy does not prevent her from manifesting what she perceives a requirement of her religion to be.'
However, the girl insists that being on a break in the playground is not good enough reason to justify Qadaa, although she accepts that being in a lesson would be.
She is also calling for the school to provide a prayer room and allow mats to fulfil the Islamic requirement for cleanliness while at prayer. However the headmistress says there is no suitable room on the premises, and it would be impractical to make one by moving desks to clear a space in classrooms and back again at the end.
Nor is there enough staff to supervise the prayer rooms.
The school said TTT's parents knew there was no prayer room when she applied to the school – an assertion the family reject – and that she could move to a different school that allows prayers if she wanted.
They argue that while freedom of religion is an absolute right, its practice is not, so followers can be restricted from praying in places such as schools.
The school also expressed frustration that the pupil brought her case to the High Court before its governing body had considered whether to approve the headteacher's temporary ban, though in the end they upheld it. It also stressed the point that it is banning rituals associated with prayers, not prayers themselves.
Its submission to the High Court concludes: '[TTT] may disagree with the policies and priorities of the school, but it is not for a pupil or – it is submitted – the court, to second-guess the carefully considered decisions of the school in this context.'
***********************************************
UMass Boston ditches ‘litmus test’ demand for new professors to back DEI
Want a job at the University of Massachusetts Boston? Well, until recently, you’d have to pledge your commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion first.
The worrying requirement came to light in a job ad, requiring would-be assistant professors in computer science to write a “diversity statement that reflects [their] commitment to diversity equity and inclusion” as part of their job application.
And applicants for a lecturer position in the department of health science were required to demonstrate a commitment “to support[ing] our goal of ensuring an inclusive, equitable, and diverse workplace and educational environment.”
That’s a political litmus test if I’ve ever seen one.
Thankfully, the school has quietly dropped the requirement, after being called out by First Amendment watchdog group the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Required DEI statements, according to FIRE, “encroach on faculty’s First Amendment right not to adopt prescribed views.”
“Their subjective criteria could easily also be abused to penalize applicants with minority, dissenting, or even simply nuanced views on DEI-related issues that may not dovetail perfectly with the university’s goals,” FIRE program officer Haley Gluhanich wrote in a letter to the university.
FIRE’s right. Requiring professors to profess allegiance to vague and highly-politicized concepts of “equity” and “inclusion” is undoubtedly an infringement upon their academic freedom.
Besides, what exactly does DEI have to do with computer science?
In my book “The Canceling of the American Mind,” my co-author Greg Lukianoff and I argue that it’s about time all colleges drop required DEI statements.
“To any sensible person, a statement requiring you to explain your commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is a political litmus test,” Lukianoff, who serves as president and CEO of FIRE, told The Post. “There is literally no way that’s not being abused as a way to evaluate someone’s politics.”
Although promoting “diversity” sounds like a laudable goal on face value, the DEI bureaucracy that’s taken over college campuses and corporations alike is divisive.
Champions of DEI can be hugely alienating, like “White Fragility” author Robin DiAngelo who advised people of color to “get away from white people” and diversity consultants who instructed Coca Cola employees on how to “be less white.”
I’ve seen this firsthand. When I was 14, my classmates and I were divided into “affinity groups” based on race and segregated into separate buildings to discuss our experiences — all in the name of “equity.”
Even as a young teen, I already felt alienated by DEI. No doubt professors seeking employment may feel the same — but they may also feel pressured to betray their conscience for the sake of securing a paycheck.
No college or university that purports to protect the free speech and free conscience of their faculty should require a commitment to any concept or philosophy — let alone one that’s so controversial.
https://nypost.com/2023/12/01/opinion/umass-boston-ditches-demand-for-new-professors-to-back-dei/
**************************************************Australia: Elite universities loathe us
The Australian Centre at the University of Melbourne identifies its purpose as considering how Australia’s founding as a settler colony informs our capacity to engage with the central challenges of our time.
The opening salvo of the Centre’s November conference declared, ‘Global failure to understand and engage with the colonial roots of the impending climate catastrophe both constrains our collective capacities to untangle this wicked problem and simultaneously works to secure settler futurity and white supremacy.’
The academics heading up the Centre have affirmed their desire to tear down the political, legal and social framework of our nation to make way for a new, vaguely defined utopia. It is important to remember that what is discussed by the elites on university campuses today has a strange way of becoming government policy, generated by the political ruling class, tomorrow.
The Voice to parliament was one such Trojan horse, celebrated by universities and pushed by government. It sought to dismantle the constitution – the ultimate expression of ‘settler futurity and white supremacy’ – and rebuild it by means of a provision which would have divided Australians permanently on the basis of race. This was a clear attack on equality and our egalitarian way of life.
Next on the agenda is the Bill currently before parliament to amend the Climate Change Act 2022. The Bill significantly undermines Australia’s energy security and economic competitiveness and is a clear attack on the free market.
The title of the conference, ‘A Profound Reorganising of Things’, encapsulates what those on the centre right are up against: a narrative positing that the liberal-democratic system of government is fundamentally broken due to its colonial roots and is the primary cause of most of the world’s problems. Replete with a ‘welcome to country’, ‘smoking ceremony’ and ‘dance performance’, the conference flaunted its woke credentials through classic virtue-signalling.
The program brochure links a myriad of inequities and injustices to colonialism. The incarceration of indigenous people, the divide between rich and poor, the alleged mistreatment of refugees, and poor health outcomes are all traced back to ‘corrupt’ colonial land relations. For the academics at the Australian Centre, this is a moral problem. This is made abundantly clear by the use of words like ‘wicked’, ‘violent’ and ‘unjust’. Elite institutions and their globalist allies are waging a holy war against an evil system. The Marxist trappings of this agenda are plainly evident.
This leads to perhaps the most radical claim in the program brochure, ‘The incarceration of Indigenous peoples in so-called Australia is deeply implicated in the warming of the planet, is deeply implicated in the offshore detention of asylum seekers, and so on.’ What the links are between these apparently disconnected issues remains a mystery. Perhaps the conference proceedings enlightened attendees as to the connection. However, the statement lacks the academic rigour you would expect from an institution of Melbourne University’s standing.
Tertiary discourse should raise the intellectual culture of the nation. Yet this latest chapter appears to be nothing more than sloganeering, paid for with the taxpayers’ credit card.
Universities exist to impart knowledge, hone young minds and produce research that benefits society. They should not make wild speculations, unsupported by coherent argument, about highly political and ideological issues.
The Australian Centre’s latest initiative demonstrates just how out of touch universities are with the very real problems faced by mainstream Australians today. Those facing cost-of-living pressures, interest rate rises, soaring utility bills and record rental and housing prices should not be subsidising the mindless activism of cosseted academics.
According to a forthcoming survey commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs, lowering the cost of living is twice as important to Australians aged 16 to 25 than any other issue. In contrast, fewer than one in ten young Australians think reducing emissions should be a government priority.
As Australians’ financial circumstances deteriorate, it appears that such elite issues as climate catastrophism and colonialism are resonating less and less with the broader population. This is despite the narrative being shaped and promoted by our universities for decades. And the problem is not limited to universities, although it may start there. This is a sector-wide issue, with schools enthusiastically promoting a radical green agenda.
Just like the national curriculum, university teaching degrees focus on activism around highly political issues, such as sustainability, at the expense of core literacy and numeracy skills.
Recently released IPA research found that nearly one third of all teaching subjects relate to ideological issues, while fewer than one in ten teaching subjects focus on the core skills of literacy and numeracy.
If you need further proof of the politicisation of schools, look no further than the recent climate rallies staged by students across Australia. Schoolchildren skipped class to protest alleged government inaction on climate change. Tens of thousands of students attended these events after being encouraged to use a ‘climate doctor’s certificate’ and take a sick day from school.
Highlighting the strong link between education and public policy, the Bill to amend the Climate Change Act 2022 would impose a statutory duty on decision-makers to consider the wellbeing of children when making ‘significant decisions’ in relation to the exploration and extraction of coal, oil and gas.
IPA research concludes such an amendment would provide clear grounds for activists to engage in green lawfare aimed at delaying and cancelling vital resources projects, further compromising energy security and undermining Australia’s economic competitiveness.
One might have been able to laugh off the wild and wacky ideas coming out of universities in the past, but there is nothing funny about such ideas being adopted and imposed as government policy. Such ideas then become costly and destructive. Taxpayers are entitled to expect governments to hold universities to account and to direct funding towards research that does not deliberately undermine Australian prosperity and our way of life.
The Australian Centre was right about one thing. A ‘profound reorganising of things’ is required. However, it is the universities – not our political system – that need a makeover.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/12/elite-universities-loathe-us/
******************************************************My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
******************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment