A thought experiment for Ruairi Quinn

We are delighted to welcome another guest post from Dr Tom Hickey of the School of Law, NUI Galway. In this essay, Tom critiques the recently-published report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism.

The Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism: A Human Rights Critique

Consider the following thought experiment.

You and your partner are parents of three young children, the eldest of whom is due to start school in the coming months. You are both committed Catholics, and you fervently believe in raising your children in this value-system. Now let us suppose that you have a choice between two scenarios. We will consider Scenario I at this juncture, leaving Scenario II for those who persevere to the end.

In Scenario I, you will live in a state in which the primary schools fall into three categories: some are dedicated to the promotion of atheism, some to the promotion of Islam, and some to the promotion of Catholicism. Let us suppose that, because of factors such as Islamic or atheistic predominance, an uneven spread of schools, over-subscription, difficulties relating to transport/school commute etc., there is statistically an 20% chance that you will manage to get places for each of your children in a Catholic school.

How would you feel about Scenario I? The likelihood is that you would not fare so well. You would probably have to settle for a school dedicated to the promotion of either atheism or of Islam. You’d have to just grin and bear it. But if the cards fell for you, you’d have your ideal scenario. Are you an all-or-nothing kind of person? Would you risk it? Let’s call Scenario I “The Gambler’s Choice,” and abandon it for the time being.

Let’s move instead to one of the central proposals of the recently published Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism, chaired by Professor John Coolahan.

The Advisory Group considers a particular problem arising from the predominance of Catholic patrons. The problem pertains to catchment areas across Ireland where there is a stable population (and therefore no justification, particularly in view of the public finances, for the building of new schools) but where only one category of school patronage is available. The Report cites forty-seven areas, including the likes of Wicklow Town, Roscommon Town, Thurles, Malahide/Portmarnock and Cobh.

These are the kinds of areas, the Report suggests, where a transfer of patronage from one of the perhaps four or five local Catholic schools to a non-Catholic patron may be justified, should there be a sufficient level of demand amongst parents. The Report outlines how the views of parents may be identified and collated in the form of a “register of parental preferences,” with a view to “determining the ‘ideal’ range and distribution of patronage categories.” This register would then inform a Ministerial decision regarding transfer of patronage, with the decision to be made by September of 2013.

Surely only a crank could find fault with these recommendations? Is it not utterly irrefutable, in a democratic society, that the wishes of parents should determine the distribution of patronage categories?

There is, however, a grave human rights problem here. And, I would carefully suggest, there is a human rights solution, albeit that it would require a great deal of political courage.

Suppose, for the sake of argument (and please overlook the simplicity of it), that in Wicklow Town, the outcome of the preference register is something like as follows: 50% want a Catholic school; 20%, a non-denominational school; and 10% each for a school dedicated to the promotion of atheism, for an Islamic school, and a Church of Ireland school, respectively.

Suppose, on the other hand, that the outcome in Roscommon is closer to the following: 80% prefer a Catholic school, with the remaining 20% divided across the other categories, in roughly the same proportion.

Let us assume that the Catholic patrons in Wicklow Town (in this imaginary scenario, of course) would be happy to divest the patronage of one of its schools. The Catholic Church has, after all, repeatedly emphasized its willingness to divest in some circumstances. The Minister would presumably support the idea, and so the process would be in motion. Let us suppose that an Educate Together school would follow in Wicklow Town.

Although there may seem to be something of an imbalance remaining after such reform (i.e. it is as if the State is suggesting “Let the Catholics have their school, and the rest of you can share a school”), there is, I would suggest, no obvious human rights grievance. That is, non-Catholics will have the option of a school that does not promote a religious or non-religious doctrine that conflicts with their own, and so can enjoy their education in an environment that does not violate their religious freedom and their right to freedom of conscience.

(It is worth noting, parenthetically, that this belies the frequently-aired claim that the right to religious freedom requires the State to provide an educational environment promoting one’s particular religious beliefs. How on earth could such a burden be discharged by the State, given the diversity of religious beliefs in every catchment area all across the State? With this in mind, how can the extreme amongst the Catholic Right, amongst others, persist in making the argument in support of retaining the current arrangements? The right to religious freedom is indeed a most imperative moral claim. But it is a right to be enjoyed on an equal basis with all citizens of a republic. It is utterly incoherent to claim it in a way that actually causes religious discrimination).

Now compare the case of Roscommon, and the 80/20 outcome on the register of parental preferences? There would not seem to be, in the words of the Report, a “very significant demand for a new type of school,” certainly not by comparison with the overwhelming claim in Wicklow Town. The local Catholic patrons would likely resist any pressure to divest patronage of one of their schools, while the Minister would not seem, at least not on the rationale of the Report, to have grounds to force a transfer through.

So where does this leave non-Catholic parents in catchment areas such as Roscommon? These parents, whether they are atheist, or Islamic or whatever, are in the position that our committed Catholic parents would be in “The Gambler’s Choice” had those Catholic parents actually opted to gamble, and lost. Except, of course, the non-Catholic parents in places like Roscommon never had a choice, and they never gambled. They simply lost, in the happenstance of geographical location, political power and history.

And so, the Roscommon atheist parents must simply grin and bear it, by sending their child to the local Catholic school, while the Wicklow atheist parents can look forward to the Educate Together school opening in the coming years.

Now if this were a matter of ordinary political disagreement – if it were a dispute concerning whether to build a ring road around the town, for instance – we might say: “tough luck – political morality requires that the majority preference be respected.” But this is not an ordinary political disagreement of that kind. This concerns fundamental human rights. And if we, in this republic, are happy with an outcome that happens to vindicate the right to freedom of conscience of the atheist or the Islamic citizen who lives in Wicklow Town, but that tramples on the same right for such a citizen who happens to live in Roscommon Town, well then we must really concede that ours is indeed a bogus republic.

Cherish all the children equally? Right. Especially if they are Catholic, or if they happen to live in a town along with enough fellow non-Catholics.

I return, finally, to my original thought experiment, and to our committed Catholic couple with the three young children. I suggested that they had an option between “The Gambler’s Choice” and something else. So what is Scenario II?

In Scenario II, the backbone of the schooling system is “the common school.” It is a school that does not promote any particular religious or non-religious belief system, although it certainly exposes all children to rudimentary ethics, civic virtue, and an understanding of the various histories, traditions and cultures of the communities within their republic. It teaches children about world religions and about non-religious ethical views. And so on. (Incidentally, the argument that such a school is hostile to religion is absurd. It is analogous to arguing that Iran would be hostile to Islam if it stepped back from outrightly promoting it).

The State, in this Scenario II – just for fun, let’s call it “The-Every-Citizen-Counts-Equally-Option” – ensures that these common schools are available to every child in the country. This State certainly does not prohibit sectarian schools (atheist, Catholic etc.). Indeed, because there is no reason that sectarian schools cannot educate children to live in a diverse world, the State is happy to facilitate and even fund such schools. Let us suppose that our committed Catholic parents reckon that, for various reasons, the statistical possibility of a Catholic school being available for their children in Scenario II is 10%. That is, they have only half the chance of the ideal result as they would have in “The Gambler’s Choice”. The availability of the so-called “common school,” on the other hand, is 100%, as against 0% in “The Gambler’s Choice.”

If you were the committed Catholic parents, would you opt for Scenario I or Scenario II? Would you gamble if your right to religious freedom were at stake?

The Report of the Advisory Group, for all its sophistication and clarity, was doomed from the beginning. It was doomed because, as Eoin Daly in particular has argued, it was set up to “cater for diversity” when it should have been concerned with protecting the equal right to religious freedom of all citizens. It was set up to “respect parental preferences,” as if the State could ever provide whatever number of different primary schools would be required in each community to cater for the particular belief system of every set of parents within each community.

In a republic worthy of the name, the vindication of a citizen’s fundamental right to religious freedom has nothing to do with political power, or with the happenstance of geographical location. Until the “common school” is available to every child in the country, the State will continue to violate the human rights of its own citizens. The “common school” must form the backbone of our primary schooling system.

Come on Ruairi. When a structure is flawed in a foundational way, does it not call for a “big bang?”


A thought experiment for Ruairi Quinn

One thought on “A thought experiment for Ruairi Quinn

  1. Concerned Resident says:

    Both very interesting, if a little complex, scenarios but in my view, as Helen Lovejoy once said “Won’t somebody think of the children?”

    I have a vested interest in non-denominational schools as I have 3 children that I could only wish were/will be attending one – the eldest has been attending the local catholic school for the past 2 years now (there was no other alternative, apart from the local Church of Ireland school that we were rejected by), my second has just started the same school and the 3rd will start in 2 years time.

    Divestment of a proportion of existing schools is a nonsensical approach that could be incredibly disruptive and distressing for children currently attending school. Picture this scenario – there are 3 catholic schools in an example area, one of which has been chosen for divestment to become a Educate Together school.

    I would like my eldest to stop being taught religious fairy tales but how do I go about doing this? Take her out of the school where all her friends are and many of which will continue to attend? Perhaps, if there is a sufficient number of her friends who will move with her, although you can be almost guaranteed many will not move for their own reasons.

    If I move my eldest, I’d want to do the same with my second child as I don’t want her to receive a catholic education either, plus 2 drop-offs at the same time at different schools would be impossible. Again, do I take her out of her class where she’s established friends, hoping that some will also move? And if her friends don’t move, should I cause her major distress by moving her to essentially a new school?

    As to the 3rd child, the same scenario would occur if divestment doesn’t happen before she attends school. And if I don’t move the other 2 so they can remain with friends, I can’t have the 3rd attend the Educate Together school, because of school drop-offs and collections.

    So in a divestment scenario, I’m being forced to continue a catholic education for all 3 of my children to avoid causing at least 2 of them distress that would be caused by moving them to another school, distress that could very likely impair school performance (how many of those adults who were forced to change schools when they were children have fond memories of it).

    Furthermore, what of the children who are at the school that has now become an Educate Together school? Presumably there will be parents who wish their children to continue to be taught christian fairy tales and will consider taking them out of the ET school and into one of the 2 remaining catholic schools, thereby causing major distress by removing them from some or many of their school friends. You would certainly hope that they would look to remove them if there are to be enough places for parents willing to move their children to the ET school.

    Although specific to my own circumstances, this would affect any parent who has at least one child currently in the school system and will continue for any younger children they have.

    Would it not be far simpler, from a legislative and planning point of view anyway, and cause zero distress and upheaval to those children currently in school to remove all religious teaching from all state funded schools? Thereby, no child has to be moved to another school and not experience the upheaval and distress caused, except for those whose parents are determined to provide a catholic education even at their own expense.

    Divestment appears to be yet another “Irish solution to an Irish problem” when there are many other countries who have successfully separated church and state, some centuries ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *