Showing posts with label Islamic schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic schools. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 07, 2020

India Supreme Court: State Commission Can Choose Teachers For Madrassas

In Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah,(India Sup. Ct., Jan. 6, 2020), a 2-judge panel of India's Supreme Court in a 151-page opinion upheld a law in the state of West Bengal under which a government appointed Commission selects teachers for Islamic Madrassas. The Court held that the Act does not infringe on the right of minority institutions to choose their own teachers, saying in part:
the composition of the Commission with special emphasis on persons having profound knowledge in Islamic Culture and Theology, would ensure that the special needs and requirements of minority educational institutions will always be taken care of...
Times of India reports on the decision.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Islamic School Consultant Files Religious Freedom Lawsuit Over Impediments To Its Purchase of Property

WFJM News reported yesterday on a federal court lawsuit filed last month by a consulting firm for Islamic schools over impediments placed in its way as it attempted to purchase a now-vacant 150 acre site in Shenango Township, Pennsylvania from the state.  The property, containing 13 building, was formerly used to provide rehabilitative services and housing for juvenile offenders.  Plaintiff intended to use the site in part for a youth intervention center and partly for an Islamic boarding school.  The complaint (full text) in HIRA Educational Services of North America v. Augustine, (WD PA, filed 4/13/2018), alleges that local residents were unhappy that the property was being sold to an Islamic institution.  At a community meeting, a representative of an advocacy organization opposing the sale falsely claimed that the property would be used as a center for thousands of refugees. State and local officials took a variety of elaborate steps to block the sale, making it impossible for the purchaser to obtain financing for the property. The lawsuit contends that actions by officials to prevent the purchase imposed a substantial burden on religous exercise in violation of RLUIPA, the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act and federal civil rights laws.

Monday, October 23, 2017

Britain's Court of Appeal Invalidates Sex-Segregated Classes In Co-Ed Faith Schools

In HM Chief Inspector of Education v. Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School, (EWCA, Oct. 13, 2017), the England and Wales Court of Appeal held that a Muslim school which admits both boys and girls, but for religious reasons separates them into sex-segregated classes, violates the Equality Act 2010.  The opinion of Etherton, MR (joined by Beatson, LJ) concluded that the separation operates to discriminate against both boys and girls, saying in part:
An individual girl pupil cannot socialise and intermix with a boy pupil because, and only because, of her sex; and an individual boy pupil cannot socialise and intermix with a girl pupil because, and only because, of his sex. Each is, therefore, treated less favourably than would be the case if their sex was different.
They also point out:
It is common ground that the School is not the only Islamic school which operates such a policy and that a number of Jewish schools with a particular Orthodox ethos and some Christian faith schools have similar practices. 
In a separate opinion, Lady Justice Gloster argued that on the facts of this case, it should be found that the school's practice also has a more detrimental effect on girls than on boys.  She said in part:
One does not need to be an educationalist, a sociologist or a psychiatrist to conclude that a mixed sex school: (i.) which, whether intentionally or otherwise, tolerates an environment where extreme and intolerant contemporary views about the role and physical subservience of women, and the entitlement of men physically to dominate and chastise them, are on display, or available to read, in the school library; (ii.) whose teachers approve the expression by the pupils of gender stereotyped views about the roles of women as homemakers and child minders and the role of men as the breadwinners; (iii.) where girls are always required to wait for an hour during the school day so that the boys can take a break first; and (iv.) where no, or no sufficient, consideration is given to promoting equal  opportunity, is a school where a strict sex segregation policy subjects girls to a greater risk of extreme and intolerant views and is likely to reinforce or create misogynist attitudes amongst the boy pupils towards them.
She also points out that the Equality Act contains an exception for single-sex schools, i.e. schools that only admit students of one sex.

The Court also issued a press summary of its decision.  Schools Week reports on the decision.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

British Court Says Sex Segregated Religious Schools OK Under Equality Act

In Interim Executive Board of X School v Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services And Skills, (EWHC (Admin), Nov. 8. 2016), a British trial court held that sex-segregated classes from the 5th grade on in an Islamic school do not violate the Equality Act 2010. In reaching its conclusion, the court distinguished U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education. The High Court judge said in part:
The essence of her case is that "making separate but equal provisions for boys and girls (or blacks and whites, or heterosexuals and lesbians and gay men etc.) cannot be divorced from the historic and current societal treatment of the less powerful group." Put another way, but to the same effect, segregation has the tendency to promote social and cultural stereotypes about the role of women in society....
Insofar as segregation on the ground of sex is practised in mixed schools in the UK, it is a practice carried out by a minority of schools with a Jewish, Christian and Islamic ethos, with the full participation of parents.
In short, segregation in mixed schools in this country is not the practice of government; it cannot be envisaged as any reflection of the mores and attitudes of wider society; it is only capable of being seen as a reflection of the mores, attitudes, cultures and practices of the faith groups who have been permitted to do it.
Law & Religion UK has more on the case.