School patronage

katydid

expectationlost wrote: »

it easy to argue against when there is on choice provided by the state who funds them

I presume you mean NO choice? Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, they will always claim there is a choice. Of course in most cases there isn't, but they can pretend.

Delirium

Schools and hospitals to lose right to sack gay staff

Religious-run schools and hospitals will be stripped of the ability to sack staff for being gay, divorced, or unmarried parents by Easter, Equality Minister Aodhán Ó Ríordáin says.

The move will see Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act changed, as the minister says it puts a “chill” into workers who fear being fired for private lives that go against the ethos of church-run institutions.

“They can be sacked, technically, if a board manager felt that someone was actively undermining the ethos of their school by their private life,” Mr Ó Ríordáin told the Irish Examiner.

“It has a chilling effect when people feel they can’t be themselves. In the staff room they have to hide their private lives; they have to hide the fact that they’re gay, or that they are divorced, or in a second relationship, or that they’re an unmarried parent.”

Mr Ó Ríordáin, who said he aims to have the changes through by Easter, said people had the right to be open about themselves at work.

Hopefully he'll manage to get it done.

robindch

SW wrote: »

Hopefully he'll manage to get it done.

Cue shouts of "You're Restricting my Freedom of Religion!"

Delirium

robindch wrote: »

Cue shouts of "You're Restricting my Freedom of Religion!"

between that and the marriage referendum, RTE will soon be IonaTV >.<

RainyDay

SW wrote: »

Schools and hospitals to lose right to sack gay staff



Hopefully he'll manage to get it done.

Sr B will be irked
http://www.thejournal.ie/equality-tribunal-ruling-1889466-Jan2015/

expectationlost

SW wrote: »

Schools and hospitals to lose right to sack gay staff



Hopefully he'll manage to get it done.

what about atheist staff

expectationlost

Department of Education and Skills on
School Patronage https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-01-27a.937&s=%22School+Patronage%22 lots to read there, from a glance it seems, they say they are working on it

which doesnt' recognise the long term problem with lack of choice

recedite

Jan O Sullivan wrote:

The draft Bill does not propose changes to the existing equality legislation. However, the draft Bill will provide for schools to explicitly state in the school's admission policy that it will not discriminate against an applicant for admission on the grounds of disability, special educational needs, sexual orientation, family status, membership of the traveller community, race, civil status, gender or religion.

If schools were forbidden to discriminate on grounds of religion, it would immediately put an end to the requirement for baptismal certs etc..
I doubt that it is actually in the draft bill. I think its more likely she has got this wrong in her statement. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

If schools were forbidden to discriminate on grounds of religion, it would immediately put an end to the requirement for baptismal certs etc..
I doubt that it is actually in the draft bill. I think its more likely she has got this wrong in her statement. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

here it is
https://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Legislation/Draft-General-Scheme-of-an-Education-Admission-to-Schools-Bill-2013.PDF

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

If schools were forbidden to discriminate on grounds of religion, it would immediately put an end to the requirement for baptismal certs etc.. I doubt that it is actually in the draft bill. I think its more likely she has got this wrong in her statement. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

Hmm. The statement "the draft Bill will provide for schools to explicitly state" does seem a little incorrect; reading the draft Bill it seems to be it would be more correct to say "the draft Bill will require schools to explicitly state " which is a much better thing. Though I noticed Head 3 also includes "publish, in such manner as the Board with the agreement of the patron considers appropriate, the policy of the school concerning admission to and participation in the school,<...>having regard to the characteristic spirit of the school and the constitutional rights of all persons concerned, are complied with"
I think the term 'having regard to the characteristic spirit of the school' seems a little tricky; how much regard, and what is the actual effect of having this regard?

expectationlost

‘Catholic first’ school admissions policies may be illegal http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/catholic-first-school-admissions-policies-may-be-illegal-1.2053401#.VMrEO_Md8XE.twitter via @IrishTimes which report is this

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

If schools were forbidden to discriminate on grounds of religion, it would immediately put an end to the requirement for baptismal certs etc..
I doubt that it is actually in the draft bill. I think its more likely she has got this wrong in her statement. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

And if they were required to state that they would not discriminate on the grounds of gender, it would put an end to single-sex schools.

The draft Bill proposes that schools should be obliged to publish an admission policy which, yes, must affirm that the school does not discriminate on the grounds of disablity, sexual orientation, race, gender, religion or the lack of it, ect. But this is subect to two carve-outs; single-sex schools are not required to affirm that they will not discriminate on the grounds of gender, and religious schools can continue to prefer candidates of a particular religious deminination where this is "essential to maintain the ethos of the school". These are the same two carve-outs as already exist in the Equal Status Act 2000. Schools are being asked to affirm that their admission policies will respect the existing requirements of the Equal Status Act 2000, as far as I can see.

So, as you were, then.

SpaceTime

Headline should be : Weak Labour Party Fails Yet Again to Tackle Vested Interests.

Getting a bit sick of their promises.

Same nonsense with the referendum on removing blasphemy law being pushed put off until after 2015.

Same useless pandering to powerful lobbyists as always.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

But this is subect to two carve-outs; single-sex schools are not required to affirm that they will not discriminate on the grounds of gender, and religious schools can continue to prefer candidates of a particular religious deminination where this is "essential to maintain the ethos of the school". These are the same two carve-outs as already exist in the Equal Status Act 2000. Schools are being asked to affirm that their admission policies will respect the existing requirements of the Equal Status Act 2000, as far as I can see.

But requiring these policies to be formally stated may perhaps be a step towards having their provisions tested as to their "necessity" for the exempted purpose. If a "nice" culturally Catholic family says, as the people on RTE this evening, that they want their child to make decisions on religion according to their own conscience, but are delighted with a "Catholic ethos" in the school per se, will sign undertakings to that effect, etc, can their exclusion on "no bapt cert" grounds be lawful?

Peregrinus

Well, we won't know until it's tested in the courts, but I think there's at least a plausible argument which says that yes, it can.

The argument would run basically like this; it's not enough to maintain the ethos of a school or other institution that people don't object to it. It isn't the ethos of the institution unless a critical mass of participants in the institution actively support and participate in the realisation of that ethos. One aspect of the Catholic ethos is that Catholicism is a relationship in which (as a child) you are reared and which (as a parent) you share with your children as part of their inheritance from you, and the family you mention clearly do not support or participate in that aspect of Catholic ethos. Hence, the school will argue, we are entitled to prefer the applicant who does.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

One aspect of the Catholic ethos is that Catholicism is a relationship in which (as a child) you are reared and which (as a parent) you share with your children as part of their inheritance from you, and the family you mention clearly do not support or participate in that aspect of Catholic ethos. Hence, the school will argue, we are entitled to prefer the applicant who does.

Certainly they -- or some of them? -- will argue that way. But don't you think the tightening up on formality of the admission policy is potentially significant in that it requires that argument to be made more explicitly than has happened to date? As opposed to "ethos" being axiomatically taken to be the universal solvent, with no requirement to ever specify what it is.

Peregrinus

Hmm.

I don't think the draft new law will "tighten up the formality of the admission policy". The existing law gives religious schools an out on their admission policy and allows them to refuse people not of the chosen denomination if "it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school". So the requirement for proof is already there; someone aggreived by a refusal can challenge the refusal and the existing law clearly puts the onus of proof on the school.

What the draft new law does is to require as follows:

(i) A school must publish its admission policy (which I think most already do anyway).

(ii) A school must "ensure, subject to subsection (iii), that the admission policy of the school includes a statement affirming that the school will not discriminate" on, among other grounds, religious belief or the lack of it.

(iii) In the case of a religious school, the non-discrimination statement required by subsection (ii) "shall also state that the school . . . does not discriminate where it admits a person of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or where it refuses to admit a person who is not of that denomination, where it is proved that refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school".

In other words, they have to state that they won't discriminate in a way forbidden by the Equal Status Act, but they also have to highlight the things they can do which might look to you and me like discrimination but which the Equal Status Act permits.

You're right to say that this puts the requirement for proof that discrmination is necessary to maintain the ethos front and centre, and perhaps this will stimulate more challenges by the aggreived parents of rejected children. On the other hand, the requirement for proof is not exactly a secret; the interest groups and the advocacy groups are well aware of it. It's been possible since at least 2000 to mount a test case challenge when the right facts present themselves, and I imagine it has been considered. Even now, any parent sufficiently pissed off about the rejection of their child to contemplate taking the matter further would have found out about the requirement for necessity and the onus of proof about five minutes into their first Google search. So I'm not sure that requiring published admission policies to set out what the Equal Status Act permits will change very much.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

As opposed to "ethos" being axiomatically taken to be the universal solvent, with no requirement to ever specify what it is.

I don't think Catholic schools have been particularly reticent about specifying what their ethos is so far though, have they?
For instance:
St Josephs Ethos
Gonzaga ethos
Blackrock College ethos
Laurel Hill FJC ethos
Mount Anville ethos
Clongowes ethos
Or even the general Christian Brothers school ethos
Quite a few of those fairly distinctly delineate what their ethos requires; it's obviously not that difficult. A cursory google shows many schools specify their ethos in their enrollment process, so the argument is being quite explicitly made already, before any tightening up on formality of the admission policy.

recedite

Just had a read of the draft bill. It says in in subsection (ii);

(ii) Ensure, subject to subsection (iii), that the admission policy of the school includes a statement affirming that the school will not discriminate against an applicant for admission on the grounds of -
(I) the student having a disability or special educational need;
(II) the student’s sexual orientation;
(III) the student’s family status;
(IV) the student being a member of the Traveller community;
(V) the student’s race;
(VI) the student’s civil status;
(VII) the student’s gender;
(VIII) the student’s faith or religious tradition or;
(IX) the student having no faith.

Which would all be very laudable, if it wasn't "subject to subsection iii" which contains the same old nonsensical loopholes...

(iii) In the case of -
(I) a school to which the provisions of Section 7(3) (a) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 apply, the statement referred to in (ii) shall not be required to affirm that it will not discriminate against an applicant for admission on the grounds of the student’s gender
(II) a school to which the provisions of Section 7(3) (c) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 apply, the statement referred to in (ii) shall also state that the school, in accordance with Section 7(3) (c) of the Equal Status Act, 2000, does not discriminate where it admits a person of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or where it refuses to admit a person who is not of that denomination, where it is proved that refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school.
(iv) In this section, “discriminate” has the meaning assigned to it in the Equal Status Act, 2000.”

My reading of it is that a faith school will still have the same loopholes in the equality legislation available to it as before. They will still be able to give priority admission to active parishioners and those with baptismal certs, even where that is not "essential to maintain the ethos of the school". So this makes a nonsense of everything listed in subsection (ii).
And if they really don't like the cut of someone, they can refuse admission totally or ask them to leave, even when the school has vacant spaces. If it affects their ethos. This has happened in the past when a secondary schoolgirl got pregnant. Or it could happen, theoretically, if someone was an "outspoken" atheist or member of the wrong religion and deemed to be a bad influence.

Its bull$hit. Whats the point of bringing in another law to say schools cannot discriminate, except when they are discriminating?
By putting in the phrase "does not discriminate where".... followed by the usual discriminatory practices, they are just giving us more of the same old bull$hit that we already have.

PopePalpatine

Was anyone listening to that CoI bishop on Pat Kenny this morning?

alaimacerc

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Was anyone listening to that CoI bishop on Pat Kenny this morning?

I have a severe Plank allergy. Did Pat actually let him say anything in between his own "well-researched" burblings-on before, during, and afterwards; and if so, can you synopsise?

PopePalpatine

To be honest, I wasn't paying much attention, but the CoI bishop was talking about how school staff are much more equipped to deal with diversity of students than the Department of Education (surprise, surprise).

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

They will still be able to give priority admission to active parishioners and those with baptismal certs, even where that is not "essential to maintain the ethos of the school".

But that's not what it's saying. (It's probably what it means in practice, but that's another matter!)

The case-by-case exclusion of "vocal atheists" outside the admissions policy criteria actually makes more sense, in this context. (Still a terrible and shocking way to run an educational system, but makes more sense on that premise.)

alaimacerc

PopePalpatine wrote: »

To be honest, I wasn't paying much attention, but the CoI bishop was talking about how school staff are much more equipped to deal with diversity of students than the Department of Education (surprise, surprise).

"Nothing to see here, move it along, please. But do continue to give us a bunch of money, of course."

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

But that's not what it's saying. (It's probably what it means in practice, but that's another matter!)

It is. Its the same as before.
A faith school "...does not discriminate where it admits a person of a particular religious denomination in preference to others.."

Its a great piece of legislation for politicians who like to speak with forked tongue. When Claire Daly asked the Dail question from an anti-discrimination standpoint, the Minister just quoted subsection (ii) containing the list of types of discrimination that are already banned in the Equal Status Act. Which apparently succeeded in fobbing off Daly.

If some other politician asks a question next week worrying about the schools continuing ability to "protect their ethos" by using discriminatory admissions policies, the Minister can quote subsection (iii) which nullifies the previous subsection. Which was also already in the Equal Status Act.

Schools will be asked to publish the details of their ethos and their discriminatory practices, but they are not usually shy about that anyway. So no change at all.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

It is. Its the same as before.
A faith school "...does not discriminate where it admits a person of a particular religious denomination in preference to others.."

"... where it refuses to admit a person who is not of that denomination, where it is proved that refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school."

My bold. Any natural reading of this would be that it's providing for exceptions to an admissions policy, not to an admissions policy that discriminates in the first instance. And that the burden of evidence is on the school to show necessity.

I agree that nothing much will change in the short term, but this is an epic legal pileup just waiting to happen. Wouldn't be in the least surprised if it ends up in the SC, with them ruling that "sure, it says that, but clearly they were only having a laugh". Which might itself be the stimulus for further legislative change, depending on who is in power at the time, and whether they have a sense of shame that's connected to any other part of their actual or political body.

alaimacerc

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Was anyone listening to that CoI bishop on Pat Kenny this morning?

Same prelate as in this article, by any chance?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/department-passing-the-buck-on-school-patronage-says-bishop-1.2085684

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

‘Catholic first’ school admissions policies may be illegal http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/catholic-first-school-admissions-policies-may-be-illegal-1.2053401#.VMrEO_Md8XE.twitter via @IrishTimes which report is this

"Religious preference clauses in school administration policies": a legal analysis by Dr Fergus Ryan for the Equality Authority now the http://www.ihrec.ie

expectationlost

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Was anyone listening to that CoI bishop on Pat Kenny this morning?

he's a pretty liberal guy but I had an arugment with that guy twitter, he was asserting that the two COI schools he's directly involved with, which are both former bording schools with large campuses and extra facilities were just like every other secondary school in the country, I told him he was delusional, he blocked me, not for that, but for not having a photograph of myself as my twitter avatar, which is apparently a requirement for debate online, that nobody told me about.

I welcome his remarks, but he also partially suggesting that with a secular system the COI will be marginalised.

i think that the point he was trying to make.

its the same tactics that Catholics use imagine some future non-existant domination of them by secularism (if that can be sid to happen) to justify their current position

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

"... where it refuses to admit a person who is not of that denomination, where it is proved that refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school."

My bold. Any natural reading of this would be that it's providing for exceptions to an admissions policy, not to an admissions policy that discriminates in the first instance. And that the burden of evidence is on the school to show necessity.

That was already in the Equal Status Act, 2000. Here is the relevant extract; 7(c)

An educational establishment does not discriminate.....where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, 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 and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school.

Note that the proof of "ethos damage" is only necessary in the case of an outright refusal to give a place, even when spare places are available, or when kicking a pupil out.
When giving priority admission to religious parishioners, no explanation is necessary. In most urban areas this is the main mechanism for the religious discrimination, because the schools are oversubscribed.
So no change then.