Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[inva]

Course kids opt out of stuff. The Plymouth Bretherin kids at my school eat their lunch separately and didn't go to the nominally C of E assemblies. The frog dissection.

The goal posts on this are sliding all over the place.

First he ordered them out.
Then he made them identify themselves.
Now it's well maybe he shouldn't have asked at all
FFS have a word with yourselves.

Think we're down to maybe his lesson plan wasn't up to scratch (but he must be guilty).

 

[Spymaster]

I'm not interested in the lesson planning shit.

Well maybe this isn't the thread for you then. You should feel free to opt out if you're offended.

It's obvious there are different ways to teach the same subject. You can deal with a subject sensitively or offensively and clumsily.

There's no evidence of the latter.

The fact that he felt the need to show what many believe to be racist cartoons and allow students to opt out is evidence, in the eyes of many.

 

[brogdale]

Think we're down to maybe his lesson plan wasn't up to scratch (but he must be guilty).

Genuinely think this is more about an exploration of the educational merits/effectiveness of the French laïcité.

 

[Spymaster]

I like how you now, two days later have a question mark after self.

People's opinions may alter in the light of new information. Who have thought it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ideally yes, but what do you do if (like there were at my school) theres a bunch of plymouth brethren kids, you can't force them to attend sex ed and you don't just take it off the curriculum either.
"Content should be accessible to all pupils' sounds right but in effect would mean less content, everything narrowed down.
Coming from a 'minority culture' or whatever you'd call it and attending a normal state school does come with a bit of awkwardness, like at a minimum having to ask what the school dinner mush is made of, thats just how it is, doesn't mean everyone at the school has to eat kosher does it, schools aren't some perfect community separate from everything else.

And tbh I brought up the frog dissection initially because I thought it wouldn't be too controversial an idea that kids would be given the option of not taking part. Content should absolutely be accessible to all students, but should all students necessarily be forced to access all content?

Wrt religious beliefs, the word 'can't' is often used instead of 'won't'. The non-religious don't have an equivalent trump card to play. How should that be handled?

 

[butchersapron]

People's opinions may alter in the light of new information. Who have thought it?

But no lesson learnt.

 

[Athos]

It was accessible. Some chose not to access it. Which is fine. What's not fine is the idea that their choice not to see it should mean that nobody can. That's accepting the legitimacy of applying religious rules to non-believers.

 

[brogdale]

People's opinions may alter in the light of new information. Who have thought it?

In all honesty I was using the ? as a marker of my unease at not knowing the truth of the matter and knowing that the matter had been a disputed point over much of the thread, but accept butchersapron point completely that it was a clumsy expression that could be/was interpreted as me casting doubt over Paty's motivations/actions. That wasn't my intent, but the point was valid.
Let's move on?

 

[Spymaster]

Ideally yes, but what do you do if (like there were at my school) theres a bunch of plymouth brethren kids, you can't force them to attend sex ed and you don't just take it off the curriculum either.

Did these PB kids enter a classroom and get hear "are you Plymouth Brethren? If so we're doing sex education today and you should leave if you think you'll be offended", or were their parents given the option of whether or not they should attend well in advance of the lesson?

 

[inva]

Genuinely think this is more about an exploration of the educational merits/effectiveness of the French laïcité.

I think it's about looking for reasons why he's guilty.

 

[danny la rouge]

That one DLR posted I don’t understand. It looks racist to me. It looks like a human-animal chasing a white woman. But I can’t read it. And I don’t know enough politics or about French society to disagree when other people on this thread who know more tell me it’s a satire on the hypocrisy about immigrants and therefore not racist.

That wasn’t the one I posted. I agree that it isn’t racist. It’s saying the opposite of what people read it to say.

The one I posted is Muhammad saying: “How difficult it is to be loved by idiots” (meaning extremists).

The final word - cons - was translated on here by someone as “cunts”. That’s a bad translation. It isn’t considered that rude in France. It’s closer to “fannies”. (There are mainstream comedy films with “cons” in the title, eg le Dîner de Cons. It’s a PG).

 

[belboid]

Should a teacher in a state school in a secular country plan his lessons around the beliefs of a minority of religious pupils?

The idea that the french state or school system are really secular is bullshit. They’re very much based around and make exceptions for Christianity. And if a system is to be truly secular it must ensure it doesn’t discriminate against religions just as much as it must avoid promoting them.

Were the opposition to showing pictures of Mohammed limited to the Islamist loons then it would be fine to go ‘fuck them’ but it isn’t, it is an absolutely mainstream belief. By pushing children out of the class, making them excluded, I fear you risk pushing them further toward the islamists, that you reinforce a belief that those state ignores us and hates us’ and that makes further atrocities more likely.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

In the olden days when I was at school, we used to have a daily assembly with a prayer and a hymn. After the daily general talk, the headmaster would say if anyone wishes to leave before the christian content of our assembly, please do so now. About 20 or so kids got up and trooped out.

It was never a problem. Was that wrong?

 

[belboid]

In the olden days when I was at school, we used to have a daily assembly with a prayer and a hymn. After the daily general talk, the headmaster would say if anyone wishes to leave before the christian content of our assembly, please do so now. About 20 or so kids got up and trooped out.

It was never a problem. Was that wrong?

Shouldn’t have the religious component at all, then no one has to leave.

 

[Athos]

The idea that the french state or school system are really secular is bullshit. They’re very much based around and make exceptions for Christianity. And if a system is to be truly secular it must ensure it doesn’t discriminate against religions just as much as it must avoid promoting them.

Were the opposition to showing pictures of Mohammed limited to the Islamist loons then it would be fine to go ‘fuck them’ but it isn’t, it is an absolutely mainstream belief. By pushing children out of the class, making them excluded, I fear you risk pushing them further toward the islamists, that you reinforce a belief that those state ignores us and hates us’ and that makes further atrocities more likely.

They weren't pushed out. They were given the opportunity to leave should they so wish i.e. their religious sensibilities were respected, rather than ignored or hated.

 

[brogdale]

It was accessible. Some chose not to access it. Which is fine.

Sorry to bang on about this but, no...that's not fine.
I really don't think it's right to place students in a position where (unwarned) they'd be placed in a position where they'd be expected to reveal the faith background of their family and then decide whether or not they should then remove themselves from the class. Added to which, there are the practical, duty of care implications of what the students do during that lesson, where they go and what level of supervision was maintained. All of which seems particularly odd under an educational system founded on laïcité.

If a school is determined to use teaching resources that it feels will necessitate such differentiation based on faith, it really should place the decision making in the hands of parents with fair warning of what will take place in the classroom.

 

[belboid]

They weren't pushed out. They were given the opportunity to leave should they so wish i.e. their religious sensibilities were respected, rather than ignored or hated.

Disingenuous

 

[brogdale]

I think it's about looking for reasons why he's guilty.

Who's doing that?

 

[Spymaster]

I really don't think it's right to place students in a position where (unwarned) they'd be placed in a position where they'd be expected to reveal the faith background of their family and then decide whether or not they should then remove themselves from the class.

... In front of the rest of the class.

I don't get why anyone thinks this is ok.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

.

The idea that the french state or school system are really secular is bullshit. They’re very much based around and make exceptions for Christianity. And if a system is to be truly secular it must ensure it doesn’t discriminate against religions just as much as it must avoid promoting them.

Were the opposition to showing pictures of Mohammed limited to the Islamist loons then it would be fine to go ‘fuck them’ but it isn’t, it is an absolutely mainstream belief. By pushing children out of the class, making them excluded, I fear you risk pushing them further toward the islamists, that you reinforce a belief that those state ignores us and hates us’ and that makes further atrocities more likely.

This atrocity was carried out by a Chechen, a people with a long history of violent abuse at the hands of the Russian state. His actions should be looked at with that in mind, rather than the nature of one particular classroom lesson.

 

[chilango]

In the olden days when I was at school, we used to have a daily assembly with a prayer and a hymn. After the daily general talk, the headmaster would say if anyone wishes to leave before the christian content of our assembly, please do so now. About 20 or so kids got up and trooped out.

It was never a problem. Was that wrong?

yes.

in my view.

In my first teaching practise The Head held a Christian assembly. I went and sat with the JW kids in another room. He shouldn't have held that assembly. The DfE shouldn't pressure schools to have them and the JW kids shouldn't be sat in a different room to their peers during a collective activity.

 

[Edie]

That wasn’t the one I posted. I agree that it isn’t racist. It’s saying the opposite of what people read it to say.

The one I posted is Muhammad saying: “How difficult it is to be loved by idiots” (meaning extremists).

The final word - cons - was translated on here by someone as “cunts”. That’s a bad translation. It isn’t considered that rude in France. It’s closer to “fannies”. (There are mainstream comedy films with “cons” in the title, eg le Dîner de Cons. It’s a PG).

In your view Danny could it be seen as racist? Regardless if certain people ‘get it’ and it’s not ‘meant’ to be racist. Could it reasonably be seen as racist? (Cos it looks like crude racial stereotypes to me).

 

[xenon]

Well maybe this isn't the thread for you then. You should feel free to opt out if you're offended.


The fact that he felt the need to show what many believe to be racist cartoons and allow students to opt out is evidence, in the eyes of many.

Again, the implication is that he presented them context free, with out nuance and some sort of rationale for showing them.

Otherwise you're left with, these sort of things should never be shown in the classroom regardless of handling. If that's what you think, just say so and have done with it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

yes.

in my view.

In my first teaching practise The Head held a Christian assembly. I went and sat with the JW kids in another room. He shouldn't have held that assembly. The DfE should pressure schools to have them and the JW kids shouldn't be sat in a different room to their peers during a collective activity.

tbf I think most of us here would agree that the British system with its enforced prayers is stupid.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Sorry to bang on about this but, no...that's not fine.
I really don't think it's right to place students in a position where (unwarned) they'd be placed in a position where they'd be expected to reveal the faith background of their family and then decide whether or not they should then remove themselves from the class. Added to which, there are the practical, duty of care implications of what the students do during that lesson, where they go and what level of supervision was maintained. All of which seems particularly odd under an educational system founded on laïcité.

If a school is determined to use teaching resources that it feels will necessitate such differentiation based on faith, it really should place the decision making in the hands of parents with fair warning of what will take place in the classroom.

Kids in school will all know who is from a minority race, religion, class, regional minority or whatever. They won't be 'revealing' it to an amazed classroom.

 

[Athos]

Sorry to bang on about this but, no...that's not fine.
I really don't think it's right to place students in a position where (unwarned) they'd be placed in a position where they'd be expected to reveal the faith background of their family and then decide whether or not they should then remove themselves from the class. Added to which, there are the practical, duty of care implications of what the students do during that lesson, where they go and what level of supervision was maintained. All of which seems particularly odd under an educational system founded on laïcité.

If a school is determined to use teaching resources that it feels will necessitate such differentiation based on faith, it really should place the decision making in the hands of parents with fair warning of what will take place in the classroom.

We don't know whether or not they were warned. And you're speculating about the arrangements for care of any kids who chose to step out for what needn't have been more than 10 seconds!

And the idea that kids don't know which of their peers are Muslims and which aren't is ridiculous.

Fourteen year olds are capable of deciding where our not to conform with religious rules, and old enough to understand that such choices have consequences. They didn't ought to be encouraged to think the world will comply with the rules of their religion.

 

[Athos]

Disingenuous

Not at all. That's literally what happened.

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry to bang on about this but, no...that's not fine.
I really don't think it's right to place students in a position where (unwarned) they'd be placed in a position where they'd be expected to reveal the faith background of their family and then decide whether or not they should then remove themselves from the class. Added to which, there are the practical, duty of care implications of what the students do during that lesson, where they go and what level of supervision was maintained. All of which seems particularly odd under an educational system founded on laïcité.

If a school is determined to use teaching resources that it feels will necessitate such differentiation based on faith, it really should place the decision making in the hands of parents with fair warning of what will take place in the classroom.

You're doing it again. Again. And again.

 

[belboid]

.

This atrocity was carried out by a Chechen, a people with a long history of violent abuse at the hands of the Russian state. His actions should be looked at with that in mind, rather than the nature of one particular classroom lesson.

They should, I quite agree. He was looking for any excuse to carry out an atrocity.

 

[brogdale]

... In front of the rest of the class.

I don't get why anyone thinks this is ok.

It's not and I'd be surprised if any teacher thought it was.
For me, this shows the dilemma facing teachers directed by the state to deliver this component of the curriculum. Knowing that it may cause problems for some of his class to look at the cartoon images, Paty apparently did the caring and compassionate thing but, in doing so, differentiated the subset of students offered the chance to remove themselves via self-identification.