AN INVOLUNTARY EDUCATION
Ray Honeyford on why a
High Court ruling could destroy a national institution
BISHOP Challoner School in Stepney is a Roman Catholic girls' school. It has volun- tary status. This means that, in return for public money, it allows the state, via the local authority, to exercise control over the secular aspects of its curriculum, whilst retaining control over the religious dimen- sion, and, crucially, over its admissions policy. The right of such a.school to insist that prospective pupils should be of a prescribed religion has never been chal- lenged. However, recently the school turned down two pupils on the grounds that neither they, nor their parents, were Roman Catholics, nor even Christians. The children were of Bangladeshi parents, one a Muslim, the other a Hindu. And a High Court judge has ruled that the school was not entitled to reject them, and was guilty of religious discrimination.
This is a puzzling and deeply disturbing decision. They key objective of all volun- tary, church schools is jealously to preserve their right to maintain their own unique character and ethos. Restricting entry to the children of parents who support this aim is crucial to the school's continued existence in a form approved by its found- ers. That is, the right to discriminate on grounds of religion is intrinsic to the whole idea of a voluntary school. The High Court decision appears to overturn this principle, and may well bring the future of all voluntary schools, as we know them, into question. This raises a number of issues.
For instance, can Muslim or Hindu parents claim to support a school dedicated to upholding and practising Roman Catho- lic doctrine? Would such parents allow their children to perform the sign of the cross? Could they, in all conscience, assent to the doctrine of transubstantiation? Or the power of the priest to forgive sins with God's help? Could they, indeed, support the very idea of a Roman Catholic priest- hood? Yet it is precisely to maintain these beliefs, and to transmit them to future generations, that Roman Catholic volun- tary schools exist. One wonders if a Mus- lim school would be happy about admitting children whose parents denied that Mohammed was a great prophet, and that the Koran was the ordained word of Allah. Would not such a stance give deep offence to a devout Muslim, who might even regard it as blasphemy? Yet this latest judgment implies that such a fundamental issue is irrelevant to the school's admission policy. Bishop Challoner School serves an area — Tower Hamlets — where a very high proportion of the citizens is from Bang- ladesh, and where a number of non- Christian religions flourish. The school may, as a privilege, when there are places available and in return for certain parental undertakings, admit non-R.C. children. Many such schools do so. But the High Court decision appears to have converted this privilege into a right. That being so, for how much longer can our voluntary schools survive, whilst retaining their own unique character? How can a Roman Catholic, or, indeed, C. of E. or Jewish voluntary school pretend it is fulfilling its own self-imposed duty if an increasing proportion of its pupils come from homes where a very different religious philosophy prevails?
This case also has unfortunate race relations overtones. By all accounts the school is a very good one. It is always oversubscribed. It has to make choices amongst prospective pupils. Yet it is now being told that it may not reject Muslims and Hindus — yet, in the nature of things, it must have turned down Protestant pa- rents in the past, simply because of the sheer level of demand for places from R.C. parents. Protestants, I suspect, would have accepted this with good grace. But Muslim One potato, one potato, one potato . . and Hindu parents, backed by a powerful race relations lobby, have rejected this established British institution with some- thing approaching contempt.
One of the parents concerned is reported to have charged the school with racism 'They don't want a black face there' displaying a complete incomprehension of the voluntary school principle, and of the attitude of the Roman Catholic church to racial bigotry.
This case illustrates well the need for all immigrants, whatever their background, to make the effort to understand our history and unique traditions. The voluntary school is the lineal descendant of that great Christian concern which supplied the chil- dren of the poor with education centuries before the state became involved. It was not established without difficulty or con- flict. The 1902 Education Act — the cornerstone of the present state system came to the aid of impoverished church schools with the promise of state funding. Many people fiercely objected to this. The rising star of the Liberal cause, David Lloyd George, thundered against what he called 'Rome on the rates'. The non- conformist minister, John Clifford, urged his followers to refuse to pay the rates. But the fuss eventually died down. Thanks to a typical combination of British compromise and sense of fair play, the 'religious diffi- culty', as contemporaries called it, the dual system of state and church schools, was accepted.
It has served this country well. Some of our finest schools were created or sus- tained by it. Though there is a case for not allowing any more to be established, those that already exist deserve not only to survive but to flourish. They can only do so, if they are permitted to respect the principles on which they were founded. That means that everyone, including perhaps especially — immigrants under- stands and respects them, and what they stand for. It may be that the present judgment arises from a technicality. The judge did speak of the arrangements be- tween the school and its local authority being flawed. The paperwork required under Section 55 of the controlling legisla- tion was not, it seems, strictly correct. If so, the matter can be put right by sounder legal arrangements.
My fear is that underlying this move by two disaffected parents is the ploy, often used by race relations professionals, to link religion and race by arguing the dubious principle of 'disparate impact'. This means that if a disproportionate number of people adversely affected by a ruling about reli- gion belong to a minority group, then indirect, and therefore illegal, racial discri- mination can be said to have occurred.
This sort of casuistry violates the basis of the voluntary school's very existence. If it is accepted as a legal precedent, then one of our most valued and successful national institutions could be destroyed.
Previous page
