School Uniforms and Religion
Religion June 23rd, 2008A schoolgirl may have to wait until next month for the outcome of her legal bid to topple a school’s decision to exclude her for wearing a Sikh bangle. BBC
I have been interested in case of Sarika Watkins-Singh and her exclusion from school for wearing a ceremonial braclet which is apparently a requirement in Sikhism. The UK high court will rule on this in a few weeks. This case really cuts to the heart of the issue of uniforms and freedom of belief – unlike the Lydia Playfoot case (the Silver Ring Thing) which is entirely optional within Christianity. The high court ruled against Lydia Playfoot back in July 2007 saying her human rights were not violated.
My main reservation with Sarika Watkins-Singh’s case is that if a major religion’s dress code takes precidence over a school uniform, why not a minor religion? And if a minor religion, why not a religion of a few or even one person? Any why then can’t atheists have a choice? It makes school uniforms uninforcable…
And even though I think Sikhism is more likely false than true, I actually support this case as it maintains free speech and free expression. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Anti Citizen One
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I don’t think the issue of the majority/minority, truth or falsity (by which standards can we judge?) of any given religion or worldview should be the exclusive focus of this case – although this is how the media perceives and presents it and it is a key factor.
My opinion would focus solely on the notion of freedom of expression – an ideal that seems somewhat incompatible with rigidly determined dress codes.
As all such codes are in truth wholly arbitrary I tend to object to school uniforms.
But inherent in my opinion is a paradox – this item of religious jewellery is as much a part of a “dress code” in the same way that a school uniform is (thus it is also arbitrary).
So really what we have here is not so much a problem to do with freedom of belief, or freedom of expression (though these are important facets) but a conflict between two competing “demands” or “authorities” on one person. And arbitrary authorities at that!
There is a famous proverb of scriptural origin “no man can serve two masters” that comes to mind in this case. The authority of the school to legislate on uniform policy is in direct conflict with the authority of God (or the Sikh religion) to legislate on religious jewellery. And it is a decision that nobody ideally should be forced to make.
It is not altogether difficult to imagine a scenario wherein a child wishes to wear an accessory of this sort but also accepts in principle the egalitarian and disciplinary notions behind school uniforms. Thus what really is being sought is either an exemption or particular exception to a general rule (such as a dress code).
But of course as AC-1 suggests such exceptions should be extended ad nauseum and this rather negates the entire principle of school uniforms.
So for me the crux of the issue is rather simple – to which “authority” does the child or person feel they have a greater responsibilty towards?
The school or the religion?
The answer to this question must be personal and existential. And any attempt to make an objective and general rule – that one always ought to prefer one over the other – will always be met with counter-points and valid exceptions.
For example, I may argue that for the religious believer the authority of God makes greater demands of the persons allegiance/adherence than does the authority of the school. But an atheist may argue for the non-existence or intangibility of divine authority compared to the very real authority of the education board. Or similarly a secularist sceptic may argue that greater deprivations may occur due to the girls exclusion from school (loss of education, future earnings etc.) than any metaphysical presumed rewards/punishments in the afterlife.
Both sides of the argument – both “authorities” make valid claims. So long as one accepts their claims to be authoritative – and there is a multiplicity of belief in this regard.
For me the solution must be personal and situational. The “good” of the individual must be subjectively evaluated every time. In other words which “master” does the person feel they owe greater responsibility to?
Finally there is a small argument for the libertarian qualities of a metaphysical worldview here.
One may claim that religious rules imposed by a divine authority are an enslavement of the freedom of the individual.
But in this case (i.e. religious belief vs school system) the choice to follow religious rules is far more freer than that of obeying the rules of the education system.
If the girl ceases to wear the bangle (say it breaks or needs to be removed during surgery, or she simply takes it off) will she be struck down by a divine bolt of lightning?
I suspect not.
Yet for rejecting the authority of the school to enforce uniform regulations (a conscious choice) – in order to compel her to comply, to obey and to submit to their authority they have excluded her. A very real punishment.
And an absolute final note. Consider the “authority” of God and the School in terms of language games, forms of life or spheres of activity.
The claims being made by the divinity somewhat outweigh those of the school (understatement of the year).
For someone who genuinely believes in a divinity, and its claims to authority, and then for a smaller and more localised authority to seek to enforce its will above and beyond that of the divinity – seems to me to be an act of terror.
And that terror is more substantially real and tangibly felt and experienced than philosophical notions of God are.
The proof of His/Her/Its/Their existence is peripheral to the fact that belief is a psychological state of affairs and not an epistemic one.
Thus forcing someone to act contrary to their beliefs (whether those beliefs be rational, provable or not) is ultimately an attack on the very Being of the individual.
The human aspect of this story is for me the saddest part. Clearly the girl, her family and her community have strong beliefs which are being challenged by a material authority as dogmatic as the Inquisition of old were, and as jealous of its authority as the Old Testament God.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
‘A 14-year-old Sikh girl has won her High Court discrimination claim against her school after it excluded her for breaking its “no jewellery” rule.’ BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7529694.stm
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
As an Indian and as a Sikh, I am disappointed with the behavior of this Sikh girl. ( Actually her parents – as she is just a kid ) I request you NOT to give in to these religious demands made from time to time by certain people. Perhaps you can use some defense from what I write to support your cause.
Immigration to the UK by Sikhs – There are Sikhs lined up and waiting desperately to immigrate to your country. A young Sikh man who is wasting his life in his farm in Punjab without money, job, future or real happiness will be willing to cut off his entire left arm in return to get an opportunity to immigrate to a White Country. But once they get a second life, some of these same Sikhs who were ready to cut their left arm don’t want to cut their religious symbols in Public places.
My main point is not support for Whites, or to criticize my religion, my main point is that selfish bastards in my community do not realize that this behavior is only spoiling the prospects of other needy Sikhs the opportunity to immigrate to the UK .
Desire to keep the 5 k’s. – Almost every Sikh breaks these religious laws. Of the 5 K’s the Kesh ( hair and beard, eyebrows, body hair ) is shorn by a massive ( maybe 99 %, yes 99 % ) majority of the young Sikhs, weather they are in the UK or the fields of Punjab . Even the Sikhs who keep the hair will reject 3 other physical symbols. For convenience sake – without batting an eyelid. Ask a typically foolish and religious Sikh, – if you take so much trouble over maintaining your hair at the right length, do you keep ‘the Kacha’ ( large undergarment / drawers ) or do you wear a Calvein Klein brand of underwear. Do you keep ‘the Kanga’ ( comb ) of the right length or only a miniature Kanga – for convenience sake ? The ‘Kara’ is convenient so almost everyone ( including I ) wear it.
Desire to maintain identity – Strictly my viewpoint, and it can be rejected but I have seen in India that those Sikhs who have very little achievements to their credit, try to attract attention to themselves and pump up their fragile egos by this display of religious identity ( again – only Kesh and Kara ) by saying – “look I am a true blue Sikh, I am better than you. You cannot achieve this.
Refusal to reciprocate to decency. – Sikhs refuse to understand that they have a very good life in the UK . The British are basically good hosts. Do the Sikhs realize how their fellowmen are treated in the Gulf, were treated in Uganda , or would be treated if they made demands in say – China ?
A rule is a rule. If the Sikh cannot obey the rule, buy him a one way ticket. See how quickly the swine will come to his / her senses. The problem is also in British society, by being politically correct to the point of being apologetic, and by giving in to a few fanatics. It is the British only who are creating a situation where they will have to continuously satisfy the demands of fools and ingrates.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
In response to Satpal Ahuja,
Thanks for your comments. I always appreciate hearing other viewpoints. Your point on short cuts for “convenience sake” is interesting. The choices of which religious laws to follow is very much personal and therefore very subjective. Of course that choice is necessary for each person to take.
I do think people should be able to exercise their rights (on believe, expression or whatever) because the pressure not to use rights is basically the same as pressure to lose personal freedom. (In my humble opinion.)
“Only the man who says no is free.” Herman Melville
AC1