The Daily Mail’s claim falls apart the moment you read the actual guidance
A post popped up on the Facebook feed of one of my lovely subscribers over the Easter weekend, and she asked me to take a look, for obvious reasons:
“It’s grim when your child is banned from bringing home a picture of Jesus to plaster across the fridge door”
Wow, if children were banned from doing that, it would indeed be pretty grim.
But of course, that’s not what is happening at all; this is just the headline of a paywalled Daily Mail column written by Sarah Vine.
Now I often criticise the headlines of paywalled articles, as you can usually find the details debunking the headline in the article itself, which requires payment to access. But in this case, the article is just as misleading as the headline and the Facebook post!
The Background
Most local authorities publish guidance for schools on how to sensitively accommodate children with different cultural beliefs, including Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., covering food, uniform, religious symbols and religious holidays, as well as some potential areas of the curriculum that might conflict with certain religious beliefs.
Kirklees, Calderdale and Leeds councils worked together to produce their version of this guidance in 2022, called “Sharing the Journey”, and it has been adopted by other councils in the area.
Sarah Vine’s column
Vine begins by explaining that she is on her way to a literary festival, which, she tells us, is
“a reminder of how fundamentally intellectually omnivorous and generally curious the Brits are as a nation”.
This is an ironic way to begin a column that highlights just how uncurious she is as a columnist, given that she doesn’t appear to have read the guidance she is discussing herself.
She goes on to say
“But they [literary festivals] all have one thing in common: A love of words, ideas, exploration and freedom of expression.
“The latter is at the heart of who and what we are as a nation, which is why, despite the blue skies and the not-entirely-inedible Avanti West Coast breakfast, a shadow crosses my heart when I read that Labour-run councils across the north of England have reissued guidance to schools that runs directly counter to that fundamental notion.”
This “Labour-run council” line was a big part of the reporting when the story first made the news a few days before this opinion piece was written. And while the exact document they refer to is indeed issued by various Labour-run councils in the North, similar guidance covering all the same topics is also issued by other councils, including Essex County Council’s Responding Appropriately to Pupils’ Religious Obligations, or Hampshire County Council’s SCARE Advice for Schools, both published in or before 2017, and both Conservative-led councils.
None of this is new, and none of this is a Labour initiative. It is standard guidance for all schools across the UK.
And it is important to note that these documents all highlight that they are guidance only. The Oldham document says:
The guidance is not universal and is advice, rather than instruction. A head teacher, together with the governing body, will be best placed to understand the specific circumstances and personal context of a situation in school.
Vine claims that the guidance “runs directly counter to the fundamental notion of freedom of expression”. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The guidance helps schools to accommodate the freedom of religious expression of children from multiple faiths.
Vine continues:
“As part of a document called ‘Sharing The Journey’, head teachers have been told that they must restrict what pupils can draw or paint, explaining that ‘figurative imagery of humans is considered idolatrous by some Muslims’.
They must be careful not to allow students to ‘reproduce images of Jesus, Prophet Muhammad or other figures considered to be prophets in Islam.”
This claim is simply not true.
Teachers have NOT been told that “they must restrict what pupils can draw or paint.” Firstly, the document is explicit about being guidance only, so it is not telling teachers that they must or must not do anything, and secondly, there is no restriction on what pupils choose to draw.
Guidance on art
‘Sharing the Journey’ is a 32-page document, and there is just one section on page 20 that discusses art lessons under the curriculum guidance. Here it is in full:
Islamic culture and civilisation include a rich artistic tradition, particularly in relation to order and pattern, geometry, calligraphy and the natural world.
However, three-dimensional figurative imagery of humans is considered idolatrous by some Muslims.
It is very important that the school understands this and is also careful not to ask its students to reproduce images of Jesus, Prophet Mohammed or other figures considered to be prophets in Islam. Some Muslim pupils may not wish to draw the human figure.
It highlights that some Muslims consider 3D imagery of humans to be idolatrous and therefore some Muslim pupils may not be comfortable drawing the human figure, particularly images of Jesus, the Prophet Muhammad, or other prophets in Islam.
It says that teachers should not ask students to draw these figures in an art lesson. It does not say that students are not allowed to draw these images.
Basically, if you’ve got Muslim students in your art class, asking the whole class to draw images of Jesus may make them uncomfortable, as their faith does not allow them to take part. But non-Muslim students are still perfectly entitled to draw images of Jesus if they choose.
There is nothing in any of these guidance documents – contrary to popular social media claims – that says that schools can’t have images of Jesus in the classroom! Anyone with a child or grandchild in school will know this to be true if they’ve visited school in the run-up to Christmas or Easter, or they’ve opened up an RE textbook!
Vine continues:
“Staff are also warned against holding dance classes that ‘needlessly conflict with religious beliefs, for example by expecting students to play parts that may seem to compromise their faith’.
The document adds that Muslim parents ‘may have reservations regarding participation involving physical contact between males and females’ and ‘may object’ if boys and girls take part in mixed sports.”
Guidance on dance and drama
Here is the paragraph from ‘Sharing the Journey’ on dance and drama in full:
Dance and drama play a valuable part in many religious practices and are encouraged for educational purposes. As with other areas of the curriculum, it is important that the school is careful to ensure that activities do not needlessly conflict with religious beliefs, for example by expecting students to play parts that may seem to compromise their faith. Parents may have reservations regarding participation involving physical contact between males and females or performing in a manner that might encourage immodesty or sexual feelings. Schools are advised to consult with parents and seek positive, workable solutions.
Compare the way Vine describes what is being said with what is actually written, which appears to me to be fairly sensible advice for accommodating some Muslims who, especially as they reach puberty, will not be comfortable being in close physical contact with members of the opposite sex. Similar guidelines for Orthodox Jews are covered in the Essex County Council document, which states:
“Some Orthodox male Jews, particularly the Ultra-Orthodox, will not have any physical contact with members of the opposite sex in case the woman may be menstruating. This extends to shaking hands. Secondary schools may need to take this into account when grouping students for certain activities in subjects such as PE and drama.“
This is just useful information for teachers to be aware of when they have Muslim or Orthodox Jewish pupils in their dance or drama classes
The ‘Sharing the Journey’ document is very clear at the start of the Expressive Arts section, that schools ARE required to provide a full curriculum for every child, and Muslim (or any other faith) children cannot be excused from these subjects:
Although none of the expressive arts are proscribed by any faith, there are aspects that will need to be considered. As in other areas of school life, it is important to promote communication, nurture goodwill and encourage understanding on all parts. There is no right of withdrawal from the expressive arts within the school curriculum and sensitivity to religious beliefs does not remove the duty on schools to provide a full curriculum for every pupil.
So it is entirely appropriate that schools receive guidance on how to accommodate different religious beliefs while still ensuring children of all faiths receive a full curriculum.
This is not a “Muslims are demanding XYZ” situation (if you have been reading my work for a while, you will know that it never is!). Nor does any of this apply to children who do not follow that particular faith. If a Christian or non-religious child wants to draw a picture of Jesus, there is nothing in these guidelines that stops them.
And yet, Sarah Vine goes on to say:
“What strikes me first is the utter joylessness of it all. No wonky pictures of baby Jesus on fridges, no dancing, no having the whole class over for a rowdy birthday party so everyone can get to know each other. It’s a pretty grim vision of childhood.”
That’s quite a leap she takes, as none of the guidance prevents any of that!
She has taken guidance on dance clearly meant for teenagers – “…physical contact between males and females, or performing in a manner that might encourage immodesty or sexual feelings” – and projected that onto primary school children, suggesting NO dancing or even birthday parties (Since when did “rowdy birthday parties” happen during school time?)
Other religions
Vine does admit that the guidance isn’t only about Muslims, despite that getting the overwhelming bulk of the media coverage:
“To be fair, it’s not just the sensitivities of Muslims that are mentioned here. I’ve read the whole thing, and there are instructions as to the dietary requirements of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Rastafarians. There are long explanations about the differences between the various religious calendars, accepted forms of dress and types of religious symbolism permitted in jewellery.
“There are protocols for fasting pupils and provisions for alternative exam arrangements during religious festivals. On and on it goes, requirement after requirement. For a document entitled ‘Sharing The Journey’, all it seems to do is emphasise difference.
“It’s also madness. No head teacher could possibly fulfil all these requirements without going quite loopy.”
Again, she misses the point entirely. It is not “requirement after requirement”. It is simply – here are things to be aware of if you have a Jewish/Mormon/Catholic child in your school. If you have no Rastafarians, then don’t worry about that section!
The guidance isn’t trying to “emphasise difference”, but to educate and include.
“And of course a head teacher can work with all those guidelines. They have been for years now.
Of course, pupils’ religious sensitivities should be respected wherever possible. But all this makes me think is whether it’s time to consider removing religion altogether from state schools, and make them all strictly secular, as they have done in France.
After all, shouldn’t schools be primarily places of learning, where children get to explore a variety of new horizons, not remain trapped and hamstrung by old beliefs and traditions?”
Throwing in a line saying “Of course, pupils’ religious sensitivity should be respected”, when the whole piece is her complaining about the guidelines for how to go about that, doesn’t lead me to believe that’s what she actually believes.
For many, religion is not something you do at certain times of day or in certain places; it is a way of life. You can’t tell a Jewish child they have to eat pork at school because “religion shouldn’t happen in school”. You can’t tell a Sikh that they have to remove their turban at school because you want to “keep religion out of school”.
You can educate, expand horizons, and accommodate people’s own faith and beliefs. And in doing so, you teach the other children about tolerance and acceptance of those who are different from them.
Christianity
Vine writes:
“The other problem is bias. There is very little mention throughout of the cultural sensitivities of Christian pupils – which after all, still represent the largest religious group in Britain.”
There is less need to include Christianity in the guidelines, as it is the ‘default’ religion in UK schools. The entire school calendar is built around Christian holidays, and the 1988 Education Reform Act requires that “all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship. And that that collective worship shall be ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’.
Christian faiths and beliefs are largely baked into British schooling.
However, the guidance does include reference to ensuring that Christian pupils “be allowed to wear a cross or crucifix”, and to be aware that “some Christian pupils may fast at a number of times during a year other than ritual times.”
It doesn’t ignore Christians, and it is not biased against Christians.
Conclusion
I’m going to spare you the rest of her opinion piece; her discussion on the “violent Trans-lobby” (yeah, I don’t know either!) and a ‘funny’ story about her forgetting that some Jews don’t watch TV on a Saturday…
She draws to an end by saying:
“If you want a tolerant society, you must treat all groups with equal care and respect. The problem with initiatives such as this is that not only do they antagonise people but they also appear to be part of a pattern of events where the sensibilities of one group are being allowed to slowly but systematically elbow out others”
These guidelines only “antagonise people” when the right-wing media decide to misrepresent them, as she has done.
No one’s “sensibilities” are being “systematically elbowed out” by any group. Tolerance of one child’s religious needs does not negate the different religious needs of another child.
‘The piece concludes:
“But what is really sinister is that there may come a day, in the not-too-distant future, where questioning the fairness or wisdom of these cultural dictates, or even engaging in a debate about them, could be considered as a crime.
“The Government is at pains to point out that its new ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ guidelines will not harm freedom of expression, but you can easily see how objecting to the imposition of strict Islamic rules of conduct such as the ones listed above in schools might easily be interpreted as such. If you silence legitimate criticism, those concerns don’t simply dissipate. They turn inwards and grow into something far more toxic.
“A tolerant society can only exist successfully when everyone is tolerated equally. And yet we are seemingly advancing towards an Orwellian situation in Britain where all cultures are equal – but some are more equal than others.”
She continues to call these guidelines “cultural dictates” and “strict Islamic rules of conduct”. They are none of those things.
Legitimate criticism has to start from a position of being honest about what you’re criticising.
You cannot just fabricate a claim like “your child is banned from bringing home a picture of Jesus” and then say you’re only expressing “legitimate criticism” in an opinion piece full of thinly veiled assertions about Muslims “elbowing out others” and being treated “more equal that others”.
The anti-Muslim hostility she refers to is very real, and ironically, she is playing an active role in the media’s contribution to that.
I keep finding myself covering these sorts of stories because the media just keeps running with them!
Whether it’s: The Trocadero being turned into a ‘mega’ mosque (it’s not):
How the Trocadero became the latest ‘Muslim takeover’ scare story:
Muslims banning dogs (they’re not)
Outrage on Demand
No, Kids Weren’t told “They’d All Be Muslim by Year 6”
It feels relentless at the moment!
These stories don’t spread because they’re true.
They spread because they’re framed to provoke.
And unless you check what’s actually being said, it’s very easy to end up angry about something that was never happening in the first place.
This article first appeared on Emma’s excellent blog, Monk Debunks, and is reproduced here by kind permission.
