The veil issue

[Vlad!]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6382247.stm

For those too lazy to read the entire article, a summary is that a UK schoolgirl, a Muslim, wishes to wear a veil in classes taught by a male teacher, as the religion suggests. The school said that she cannot do so, for a variety of reasons. She claims that this is an infringement on her religious freedom, and that she should be allowed to wear the veil, while the school claims it is a violation of student dress code, and lists a number of points as to why they don't want her to wear it.

So this frustrates me, because I'm not sure which side I'm on. On one hand, I disapprove of religious edicts that say women should be veiled in the presence of men. Additionally, the school makes some valid points about why the veil should not be worn. However, the victory of the school over the girl's family in a court of law suggests that (in the UK, at least, and assuming this is a public school) that the government supports freedom of religion...so long as it doesn't get in the way of progress (or society, or education, or however you want to interpret this).

The issue is, who is to know when a fundamental belief of Christianity is going to be considered in the same light? Thankfully I cannot, off the top of my head, think of an equivalent tenet of Christian doctrine that the government might find fault with, but such a scenario is not out of the question (examples are recorded during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, for instance).

I am a practical person. My inclination is to agree with the school, as it's administrators list several seemingly valid points as to why the veil is a bad idea. The veil also embodies a view of women which I don't particularly agree with. But does this mean I would choose practical concerns over my own religion? I should hope not. So I'm not sure where I stand on this.

What do you think?

[Josh Powell]

For these kind of issues I usually take a libertarian POV.. as long as whatever it is (in this case, the veil) doesn't encroach on anybody else or their property I don't have a problem with it. In this case, I'm not really which side I'd agree with. I do think they had a couple good points.. and if it was really a security risk then I'd say she shouldn't be allowed to wear it, as that would encroach on the safety on the other students?

Sort of off-topic, but did you hear about the Pakistani minister that was shot dead for not wearing a veil?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1414137.ece

[enemy anemone]

blah, this has been annoying me on and off all day. dress codes in general annoy me, but so does the belief that females have to be veiled, especially completely veiled.
I don't think I'm on either side. if the school had indeed allowed this student's sisters to wear the full face veil and hadn't changed the dress code to reflect that such a veil is not allowed anymore for safety/practical reasons, they were wrong (or at least asking for this to become an issue) to disallow her to wear it. on the other hand, I would have thought that folks who are so conservative/restrictive in their religious beliefs would have their own schools. that way they can be sure to train up their children in the way they should go.
also, the school allows the non-face veil, which is apparently good enough for the other girls; why isn't it good enough for this one? on the other hand, it sounds like she would only wear it in the classes taught by men, not all the time. I highly doubt that letting one girl completely swath herself in fabric will cause peer pressure upon the others to do the same, or that the school will suddenly have problems with unidentifiable, unwelcome visitors swathed in fabric running around. (the unwelcome visitors running around, not the fabric.) couldn't they just say it's okay for her to put on the veil in class, but not wear it in the halls and such?  I guess I think the whole thing is stupid.

I'm under the impression that "public schools" in the UK are actually what we call private schools. either way, a related article I read mentioned that this school is a "high-performing girls' grammar school", which gives me the impression that it's a private school. 

[Vlad!]

If it's a private school then most of my objections disappear, as it's simply a private body making these rules rather than the government.

[murlough23]

Dress codes are a bunch of bullfunky. The student should be able to wear whatever she wants so long as she's not indecently exposing herself (which isn't an issue in this case) or otherwise creating distractions. If she wants to do this as an observance of her religious beliefs, it should be allowed.

But then the private school issue does give me some pause. Other kids can't wear jeans and backwards hats or whatever because they'd have uniforms.You don't like it, go to a public school.

[Vlad!]

The student should be able to wear whatever she wants so long as she's not indecently exposing herself (which isn't an issue in this case) or otherwise creating distractions

I believe the school would claim in this case that it was creating a distraction. The distraction comes from the fact that the student's face is not visible. It can be argued about whether this is enough of a distraction to warrant an injunction, but since we have at least theorized that this is a private school, then the point really becomes moot.

[murlough23]

but since we have at least theorized that this is a private school, then the point really becomes moot.

Yeah. That being the case, they could probably refuse to admit Muslims (or anyone outside of their particular religious persuasion) outright if they really wanted to.