School patronage

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

That must be one of your shortest ever posts
Its almost as if you thought about it for a while, and then realised you had no answer.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who had no answer for the fairly simple question why. It's almost as if you want to avoid reason and stick with polemic...

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Can you give the name of a school in the UK which the state built/owns, and subsequently allowed a private "patron" type entity to manage with their own discriminatory admissions policies.
Of course there are privately owned religious schools which have traditionally been in receipt of various amounts of public funding, but that is not what I asked about.

Well, I have to point out that most of the national schools in Ireland, although built at public expense, are owned (and have always been owned) by diocesan trusts, and not by the state, and of course they operate under religious patronage, and operate selectie enrolment policies. Which is pretty much the same state of affairs for voluntary-aided/grant-maintained schools in England and Wales.

recedite

So, in fact, there is no state owned school in England or Wales that discriminates on the basis of religion.
Odd isn't it, considering we are supposed to be a republic, and they have a monarch who is the head of their state-founded Anglican church.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

So, in fact, there is no state owned school in England or Wales that discriminates on the basis of religion.
Odd isn't it, considering we are supposed to be a republic, and they have a monarch who is the head of their state-founded Anglican church.

Well, in fairness, it's probably only odd to those who have odd ideas about what it is to be a normal civilised society. Still, it has to be said that the UK has plenty of State funded schools which discriminate on the basis of religion. Rather like Ireland. So is ownership of all of the means to provide the sphere of public services going to be a further criteria for your notion of normal civilised societies? If so, I suspect you're well on your way to excluding every society...

recedite

There is a difference between a private facility in receipt of state subsidies discriminating, and a state facility discriminating.

Its a qualitative difference. A "Rubicon" if you like, between what is barely acceptable, and what is totally unacceptable.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

There is a difference between a private facility in receipt of state subsidies discriminating, and a state facility discriminating. Its a qualitative difference. A "Rubicon" if you like, between what is barely acceptable, and what is totally unacceptable.

I imagine you think so, yes, but it's not like it's actually any sort of recognised standard for 'what is a normal civilised society' is it? Much more like your own personal line drawn in order to back up your opposition to the existing school system... a sort of random rubicon if you like. And we do see so very many state facilities discriminating all the time, as I said, that it seems not at all unacceptable to pretty much everyone apart from yourself.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

And we do see so very many state facilities discriminating all the time...

Yes as I said the state prisons try to discriminate between the innocent and the guilty.
Do you not get tired of throwing the same old bananaskin down in front of me all the time?

Peregrinus

I have to say, rec, that I hadn't appreciated up to now that you attaches such importance to the ownership of the school premises. I thought your objection was to the state support of denominational schools, but it seems that what you really object to is the state supporting them by providing premises, a form of support which is inconsistent with "normal civilised society". But if the state support them by providing money and forms of support other than premises, that's not inconsistent with "normal civilised society".

I'm not entirely sure of the basis for this distinction - you assert it without explaining it - but at least we can both take comfort in the thought that it makes the problem a relatively small one. Only a handful of national schools in Ireland are state-owned - about twenty, I think - and most of those don't have admission policies which take account of denomination. So your problem could be relatively easily solved.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only a handful of national schools in Ireland are state-owned - about twenty, I think - and most of those don't have admission policies which take account of denomination. So your problem could be relatively easily solved.

The reasons I attach such importance to this are twofold;

1. The vast majority of new schools coming on stream are built by the state, whereas the majority of older schools are privately owned. In general, IMO, one should attach more importance to the direction one is going in, than in where one finds oneself. Or as the old saying goes "When stuck in a hole, first priority is to stop digging".

2. The separation of church and state is of fundamental importance. While the state may aid certain charities, including religious and educational ones, it should never hand over control of a state facility to a religion.
A grey area is grey. This is in no way a grey area.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The reasons I attach such importance to this are twofold;

1. The vast majority of new schools coming on stream are built by the state . . .

You're shifting your ground here. I thought your preoccupation was who owned the school, not who built it. A large majority of the existing schools were built by the state too, but they aren't owed by the state. And I have no figures for what proportion of recently-built schools are owned by the state. Do you?

recedite wrote: »

In general, IMO, one should attach more importance to the direction one is going in, than in where one finds oneself. Or as the old saying goes "When stuck in a hole, first priority is to stop digging".

Well, possibly. But if your concern is with the direction in which we are going, I suggest the change of direction we need is not, first and foremost, an end to state-owned schools being permitted to adopt religiously-selective admission policies. A much more important change of direction, surely, wouild be to stop handing new schools over to religious patronage, or to ban new schools from adopting religiously-selective admission policies? That would do a lot more to solve the problem (or start solving the problem) of access to school than any focus on the basically irrelevant question of who owns the land on which the school stands.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Yes as I said the state prisons try to discriminate between the innocent and the guilty. Do you not get tired of throwing the same old bananaskin down in front of me all the time?

When you seem so very intent on pratfalling all the time, who am I to stop you?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're shifting your ground here. I thought your preoccupation was who owned the school, not who built it. A large majority of the existing schools were built by the state too, but they aren't owed by the state.

If the state has a piece of land and builds a school on it, then the state owns that school. That is typically how a new school comes on stream. The so-called "patron" is only a manager that takes a lease on the school, and then gets to impose its own "ethos" on that school.

I agree the situation gets more complicated where a the state built a school on church owned site (a policy which regrettably has not been officially abandoned yet). Or where the state paid building grants to extend very modest church owned schools into much larger church owned facilities. These are examples of why the separation of church and state is important. The sooner it starts, the better.

expectationlost

gov's school (state your) admissions (policy) bill begins in Seanad this week, don't think there any language in it about locals first, lets see if FF can get some of school district stuff in there, not sure I agreed with everything they suggested but Im in favour of school districts, I think there is already language in the bill to allow it but only at the minister discretion, so I suspect it will be rarely used.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=33318&&CatID=59

see gov amendment to postponed labour bill https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2016-06-28a.301#g305

previous posts on ff plan http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100199200&postcount=3705 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98424205&postcount=3308

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

but only at the minister discretion, so I suspect it will be rarely used...

I agree, they would need to insert a list of the actual grounds for discrimination into the bill, for it to be effective.

Houses of the Oireactas wrote:

Bill entitled an Act to make provision, in the interests of the common good, that a school recognised in accordance with section 10 of the Education Act 1998 shall prepare and publish an admission policy and that such policy shall include a statement that the school shall not discriminate in its admission of a student to the school on specified grounds

You may as well order the schools to publish admissions policies "containing miscellaneous provisions".

Peregrinus

Well, no. The long title of the bill does speak of not allowing discrimination "on specified grounds", but if you take the trouble to read the operative provisions you'll find the grounds on which discrimination is not permitted are in fact specified in the Bill.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

if you take the trouble to read the operative provisions you'll find the grounds on which discrimination is not permitted are in fact specified in the Bill.

Ok thanks. I haven't much patience for reading these bills any more. The last few have all been much the same. Basically a waste of time and effort.

The Ministerial powers of discretion seem to have been removed, as compared to the last bill. As far as I remember, the AG said that such a thing would be legally problematic or unconstitutional. So far so good.

Then I notice one or two good things which might be new; they specify "the student and the applicant" each time, so the parent/guardian is specifically protected from discrimination as well.

Also I see another good one;

(h) provide details of the school’s policy in relation to its arrangements for any students who do not wish to attend religious instruction

Currently, the usual policy is to tell parents that there is no policy.


But then I see the usual oxymoron has been inserted;

...the school does not discriminate in relation to the admission of students where it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination

Which oxymoron renders the whole thing pretty pointless as this is the principal type of discrimination being applied in schools today.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

But then I see the usual oxymoron has been inserted;Which oxymoron renders the whole thing pretty pointless as this is the principal type of discrimination being applied in schools today.

Hardly an oxymoron, unless you ignore the preceding part of the sentence "a school to which section 7(3)(c) of the Act of 2000 applies, whose objective is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, the admission statement of the school shall include a statement that " (which you did), since that makes clear the context the term discrimination is being used in; not the sense you consider a bananaskin, but rather in the context of the Equal Status Act. So perhaps, if it appears to you that the terms are contradictory, the fault lies in your reading rather than the statement?

recedite

Religious discrimination is religious discrimination.
Its an oxymoron to say it is not, regardless of the context.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Religious discrimination is religious discrimination.
Its an oxymoron to say it is not, regardless of the context.

But religious discrimination (like gender discrimination) is not illegal, or prohibited, religious (or gender) discrimination when not prohibited by law... just like your own example of discrimination between the innocent and the guilty; so saying that discrimination on the basis of religion in a particular context is not religious discrimination as prohibited by law is not an oxymoron; claiming it is is just deliberately choosing to ignore what is being said.

recedite

Gender discrimination is gender discrimination. Its an oxymoron to say its not.

Gender discrimination was abandoned in most CoI schools in the 1960s and a lot of RC schools in the 1990's. The only new schools coming on stream with gender discrimination are Muslim schools.

The honest thing to do here is to remove gender and religion from the list of specified discriminatory grounds that are banned. Or else include them. One or the other.

Instead they have done a sort of "double entry". They have listed them as banned grounds for discrimination in the first part of the bill (as a virtue signalling exercise) and then announced later that they are not discriminatory grounds if the school in fact wishes to discriminate (thus creating the oxymoron)

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Gender discrimination is gender discrimination. Its an oxymoron to say its not.

Though not an oxymoron to say it's not gender discrimination for the purposes of the Equal Status Act in specific circumstances... as was done here.

recedite wrote: »

Gender discrimination was abandoned in most CoI schools in the 1960s and a lot of RC schools in the 1990's. The only new schools coming on stream with gender discrimination are Muslim schools.

That doesn't seem terribly relevant to your misapplication of the term oxymoron, but it does appear you at least acknowledge there's no reason to think that single sex schools fall foul of any legal discrimination requirements, so I suppose that's good

recedite wrote: »

The honest thing to do here is to remove gender and religion from the list of specified discriminatory grounds that are banned. Or else include them. One or the other.

Ah now... do you mean honest, or just the thing you want? Because there's nothing dishonest about not requiring everyone to use gender neutral bathrooms, or about saying that not all kinds of discrimination are illegal... though it's dishonest to pretend that acknowledging the distinction is an oxymoron.

recedite wrote: »

Instead they have done a sort of "double entry". They have listed them as banned grounds for discrimination in the first part of the bill (as a virtue signalling exercise) and then announced later that they are not discriminatory grounds if the school in fact wishes to discriminate (thus creating the oxymoron)

Or... they've said these are grounds where in specific circumstances it is illegal to discriminate, and where in specific other circumstances it is not. See... no oxymorons, just specificity.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Or... they've said these are grounds where in specific circumstances it is illegal to discriminate, and where in specific other circumstances it is not. See... no oxymorons, just specificity.

Ok, but its the same as saying that race discrimination is banned in schools, except in the specific circumstances of schools established to cater for specific racial types.
I'm still calling it an oxymoron

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Ok, but its the same as saying that race discrimination is banned in schools, except in the specific circumstances of schools established to cater for specific racial types.
I'm still calling it an oxymoron

Well, not it's obviously not the same thing since there's no mention of race (though I accept comparing a discrimination they don't like to racial discrimination is a well worn tactic of those who can't make their argument and want to borrow another instead), but it is reasonably similar to saying that discimination based on racial characteristics can be made illegal, and the law can allow exceptions where considered necessary. Hence it is not illegal racial discrimination to prefer American Indian employees in employment on or near reservations in the US, despite such discrimination being entirely based on race.

You may well still call it an oxymoron, but you'll still be wrong to do so

RobbieTheRobber

96% of primary schools in this country are religious.
90% are run by one particular branch of the Christian cult.

Absolam do you think that allowing those state funded schools to refuse entry to children simply on the basis of their religion or lack thereof is something that the state should allow?

Do you believe that allowing discrimination on religious grounds would be positive for the state. Namely should the equal status act be amended to remove references to religious discrimination so people can prioritise adults on religious belief in areas such as employment or the provision of services?

Hotblack Desiato

It's already the case that teachers and prospective teachers must kowtow to religion to secure a job.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

discrimination to prefer American Indian employees in employment on or near reservations in the US, despite such discrimination being entirely based on race.

That's called "positive discrimination". It is a type of racial discrimination. Some people think its justified in order to give a leg up to disadvantaged minorities.
I'm not a fan of it myself.
In any case the RCC hardly qualifies as either disadvantaged or a minority.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Religious discrimination is religious discrimination.
Its an oxymoron to say it is not, regardless of the context.

recedite wrote: »

Gender discrimination is gender discrimination. Its an oxymoron to say its not.

Age discrimination is age discrimination. It's an oxymoron to say that it's not. Yet every school in the country practices age discrimination.

Simply identifying a particular practice as "discrmination" does not establish that it is wrong. Putting a tick beside the correct answer and an 'x' beside the incorrect answer requires a teacher to discriminate between the correct and incorrect answer; should the practice be banned?

The interesting question is never whether a particular practice is an instance of discrimination; it's whether it represents a form of discrimination that, as a society, we regard as unacceptable, and propose to outlaw. As a society, we haven't chosen to outlaw schools that select pupils on the basis of religion, or gender, or age. You might feel that we should outlaw any or all of these forms of discrimination, but simply pointing out that they are all instances of discrimination does nothing to advance the case. A tautology is no improvement on an oxymoron.

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

96% of primary schools in this country are religious. 90% are run by one particular branch of the Christian cult. Absolam do you think that allowing those state funded schools to refuse entry to children simply on the basis of their religion or lack thereof is something that the state should allow?

I think that allowing schools which teach an ethos desired by parents should be allowed to prefer students who are being brought up in that ethos, yes. And so long as that it the educational format that parents demonstrate a preference for, the State is obliged both legally and ethically to provide for it.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Do you believe that allowing discrimination on religious grounds would be positive for the state. Namely should the equal status act be amended to remove references to religious discrimination so people can prioritise adults on religious belief in areas such as employment or the provision of services?

I certainly believe that it is positive for the people that the State should make wrongful discrimination unlawful, and that the State should be cogniscant of the need to ensure that such laws are not applied blindly, but allow such derogations as may be reasonable for the functioning of a fair society. That may be a bit more reasonable than what you seem to want to hear, but I think a moderate, thoughtful, and sensible approach should be the methodology in such things, rather than simply trying to stamp others into our own mould.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

That's called "positive discrimination". It is a type of racial discrimination. Some people think its justified in order to give a leg up to disadvantaged minorities. I'm not a fan of it myself. In any case the RCC hardly qualifies as either disadvantaged or a minority.

So, it is racial discrimination, and it's legally sanctioned. We see then, that racial, gender, religious, or any other discrimination on the nine grounds isn't necessarily wrong, or illegal, or 'discrimination' per the Act; context appears to be quite relevant.

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

I think that allowing schools which teach an ethos desired by parents should be allowed to prefer students who are being brought up in that ethos, yes. And so long as that it the educational format that parents demonstrate a preference for, the State is obliged both legally and ethically to provide for it.

The state is legally obliged to provide education from a constitutional point of view.
From my reading there is no obligation on the state to have a preferred brand of religion and there is no legal obstacle to the state removing religion as means of prioritisation on school places.

As for from an ethical angle that word is so vague as to be useless in this discussion. Where are these ethics codified that the government must adhere to?

Absolam wrote: »

I certainly believe that it is positive for the people that the State should make wrongful discrimination unlawful, and that the State should be cogniscant of the need to ensure that such laws are not applied blindly, but allow such derogations as may be reasonable for the functioning of a fair society. That may be a bit more reasonable than what you seem to want to hear, but I think a moderate, thoughtful, and sensible approach should be the methodology in such things, rather than simply trying to stamp others into our own mould.

Agreeing that wrongful discrimination is wrong is wonderful. What does it mean though. Wrong to whom, to me or you or legally as defined by the state?
In order to actually answer my question I need to you to specifically address the area I raised.
I asked you specifically about the provisions for discrimination on religious grounds which are contained in the equal status act.
I was asking whether in your opinion society in Ireland by removing said provisions would be better served. You didn't answer that question so let me try again.

Would Irish society be in a better position in your opinion if prioritisation based on Religious belief was allowed in such areas for example as employment and provision of services?