Canada’s special envoy on antisemitism says Ontario school boards need to take seriously incidents of anti-Jewish bigotry targeted at students in public schools.
Deborah Lyons commissioned a survey of nearly 600 Jewish parents in the province, and found hundreds of children were subjected to incidents including antisemitic bullying and blame for the carnage of Israel’s military conduct in the Gaza Strip.
The survey logged 781 incidents between October 2023 and January 2025 that Jewish families reported as antisemitic, such as children chanting Nazi slogans and giving salutes, and teachers telling students that Israel does not exist.
Of the reported incidents, 60 per cent involved what the survey deemed “extreme anti-Israel sentiments,” such as describing Israel as “fundamentally a racist state, that it is committing genocide in Gaza.”
The other 40 per cent involved anti-Jewish attitudes writ large, such as denying the Holocaust, or describing Jews as cheap or having control over the media.
Lyons’ office approached various Jewish groups to promote the survey to their members and ask them to complete it.
Some parents reported moving their children to different schools, or having their children remove things that identified them as Jewish while attending school.
The report marks a rare move of federal rapporteurs singling out issues outside of Ottawa’s jurisdiction.
The Ontario government said antisemitism is unacceptable in its schools.
“We expect school boards across the province to focus on student achievement and creating supportive classrooms,” wrote Emma Testani, press secretary for provincial education minister Paul Calandra.
“We will continue working with our education partners to keep politics out of the classroom and ensure schools remain focused on helping students succeed.”
Michael Levitt, a former Liberal MP who runs a Jewish advocacy group, called the survey “a searing indictment” of how the education system treats Jewish students.
“While the Ontario government and some school boards are making an effort to bring antisemitism training and Holocaust education to staff and students, our education system must do more to root out antisemitism and hold perpetrators accountable,” wrote Levitt, head of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Canada has endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which has attracted controversy among academics and free-speech advocates.
The IHRA definition says it is anti-Jewish to single out Israel for criticism not levelled at other countries, to deem the creation of Israel “a racist endeavour” or to compare Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Pro-Palestinian groups have said the definition could be used against those who accuse Israel of implementing an apartheid system and intentionally starving people in Gaza.
Always interesting to read Bouchard, with his sensible analysis and recommendations:
Je suis fermement opposé aux pratiques qui viennent d’être exposées dans nos écoles. Elles sont nettement contraires aux valeurs de notre société et il faut y mettre fin. Mais de quelle façon ?
Parti en guerre contre l’islamisme (« On va se battre ») comme si une vague déferlait sur le Québec, M. Legault veut immédiatement sortir l’artillerie lourde : durcir la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État, l’enchâsser dans une constitution, utiliser la disposition de dérogation, « sortir » la religion des écoles et des lieux publics. Il y a certes un problème, mais une intervention précipitée, mal calibrée, pourrait l’aggraver plutôt que de le régler. Nous connaissons mal la situation, des enquêtes viennent tout juste de commencer. Voici quelques questions à considérer.
1) Quelle est l’ampleur du problème ? Gardons-nous de généraliser hâtivement. Nous savons actuellement que moins de vingt écoles sont concernées. Est-ce la pointe de l’iceberg ? Ou l’iceberg lui-même ? Qu’en est-il des 2757 établissements primaires et secondaires recensés au Québec ? Et qu’en est-il des universités et des cégeps ? Nous l’ignorons.
En passant, ce que nous savons des dérapages provient du travail des médias. Sinon, quand le public en aurait-il été informé ?
2) Quelle est la source du problème ? Les situations dénoncées peuvent être imputables à diverses causes : a) les responsables, à tous les niveaux décisionnels, en étaient informés, mais ont choisi de les cacher ; b) les responsables immédiats le savaient et ont fait leur devoir, mais leurs messages se sont « perdus » plus haut ; c) des responsables, à un niveau quelconque, ont jugé que les pratiques concernées ne méritaient pas qu’on s’y attarde ; d) des acteurs, victimes d’intimidation, se sont tus. Encore là, nous ne savons pas.
Il s’agissait peut-être de peu de choses au départ. Le problème a pu s’accentuer à la faveur de l’inaction prolongée des gestionnaires. Dans le cas de l’école Bedford, on sait que les transgressions avaient cours depuis sept ans. Il est troublant que le ministère de l’Éducation n’ait pas été saisi de ces écarts ou que, l’ayant été, il n’ait rien fait.
3) Un problème d’intégration culturelle ? Il paraît clair que des éléments très localisés (jusqu’à preuve du contraire) d’un fondamentalisme islamique s’activent dans les écoles. Fondamentalisme ? J’entends par là le fait de a) reconnaître une priorité absolue à des valeurs religieuses ; b) se fermer à tout assouplissement ; c) s’adonner à l’endoctrinement.
Ce semble être un phénomène neuf ici. Aucune mention n’en a été faite au cours des nombreuses consultations conduites auprès de la communauté scientifique et auprès du grand public par la commission que j’ai coprésidée avec Charles Taylor.
Nous faisons face à un choc culturel. Qu’il soit ou non le fait d’une nouvelle génération, il témoigne d’un rejet de valeurs primordiales promues par notre société. Nous devons mieux connaître les conditions dans lesquelles des catégories de croyants en viennent à se comporter d’une manière inacceptable dans des institutions aussi névralgiques que le système scolaire.
4) Interdire les prières en public ? Qu’entend-on exactement par là ? On parle des attroupements de fidèles accomplissant un rituel religieux sur un trottoir ou une place. Qu’est-ce qu’un attroupement : deux personnes ? Cinq ? Dix ? Visera-t-on aussi le dévot qui, devant l’oratoire Saint-Joseph, s’arrête pour faire une génuflexion et le signe de la croix ? Qu’entend-on par « lieux publics » ? Par « prières » ? Comment démêler le religieux et le spirituel ? Et qu’advient-il des droits fondamentaux ? Enfin, toutes les religions seront-elles visées ? On aura noté que le premier ministre ne parle que des « islamistes ».
Bonne chance aux spécialistes qui rédigeront les nouvelles directives. Et bonne chance à ceux et celles qui devront les appliquer.
5) « Sortir » le religieux des écoles ? Comment procédera-t-on ? Il faudra distinguer l’endoctrinement et l’enseignement des religions, statuer sur les anciens séminaires laïcisés subventionnés par l’État et qui abritent une chapelle encore active. Et si notre premier ministre est cohérent, il devra fermer les écoles religieuses. Osera-t-il le faire ? Sinon, qui le prendra au sérieux ?
Selon un texte de Radio-Canada (avril 2022), notre gouvernement subventionnerait cinquante établissements privés ayant « une vocation religieuse explicite ».
6) Quoi faire ? Comment ? Comment contrer les expressions répréhensibles de convictions profondément enracinées dans le religieux ? Cette tâche appelle de la prudence et du doigté dictés par une approche réfléchie, expérimentée. Possédons-nous les outils psychologiques et sociologiques requis ?
Nous avons un centre de prévention de la radicalisation créé par la Ville de Montréal depuis une dizaine d’années. Il a fait ses preuves, surtout à l’échelle des individus, sauf erreur. Disposons-nous d’une expertise spécifique sur le plan collectif ? Saurons-nous traiter correctement des réalités aussi complexes, potentiellement explosives ?
7) Une déchirure sociétale à la française ? Des interventions à l’emporte-pièce pourraient donner à court terme l’illusion d’un succès, mais elles pourraient aussi activer le feu qu’on voulait éteindre. Évitons, si possible, de reproduire ici la situation de la France : un clivage profond, terreau de violences, devenu ingérable.
Au premier ministre de jouer…
Quel parti va prendre M. Legault ? Cédant à l’émoi du moment et en quête d’un gain électoral facile, va-t-il choisir d’en découdre et risquer de provoquer un durcissement, d’ériger un mur ? Ou optera-t-il pour la prudence afin d’y voir plus clair avant d’agir ?
Ce texte n’est pas une invitation à la complaisance ou à la mollesse. C’est une invitation à donner une chance à la prévention (sensibilisation, mises en garde, négociations, mises au pas, sanctions au besoin) avant de recourir à l’artillerie lourde. C’est une invitation à bien baliser le parcours avant de s’y engager. Et n’excluons pas que le cadre juridique actuel, appliqué rigoureusement, puisse offrir les moyens de ramener les choses à l’ordre. C’est ce que croient plusieurs juristes.
I strongly oppose the practices that have just been exposed in our schools. They are clearly contrary to the values of our society and must be put to an end. But in what way?
Gone to war against Islamism (“On va se battre”) as if a wave was sweeping over Quebec, Mr. Legault immediately wants to take out the heavy artillery: toughen the Law on the Secularism of the State, enshrine it in a constitution, use the exemption provision, “take” religion out of schools and public places. There is certainly a problem, but a hasty, poorly calibrated intervention could aggravate it rather than solve it. We do not know much about the situation, investigations have just begun. Here are some questions to consider.
1) What is the extent of the problem? Let us be careful not to generalize hastily. We currently know that less than twenty schools are affected. Is this the tip of the iceberg? Or the iceberg itself? What about the 2757 primary and secondary schools identified in Quebec? And what about universities and CEGEPs? We do not know it.
By the way, what we know about skids comes from the work of the media. Otherwise, when would the public have been informed?
2) What is the source of the problem? The situations denounced can be attributed to various causes: a) those responsible, at all decision-making levels, were informed, but chose to hide them; b) the immediate officials knew it and did their duty, but their messages were “lost” above; c) those responsible, at some level, judged that the practices concerned did not deserve to be dwelling on; d) actors, victims of intimidation, fell silent. Again, we don’t know.
It may have been a few things at the beginning. The problem may have been exacerbated by the prolonged inaction of managers. In the case of the Bedford School, we know that the transgressions had been taking place for seven years. It is disturbing that the Ministry of Education has not been seized of these discrepancies or that, having been, it has done nothing.
3) A problem of cultural integration? It seems clear that very localized elements (until proven otherwise) of Islamic fundamentalism are being activated in schools. Fundamentalism? I mean a) recognizing absolute priority to religious values; b) closing to any relaxation; c) indocting indoctrination.
It seems to be a new phenomenon here. No mention of this was made during the many consultations conducted with the scientific community and with the general public by the commission that I co-chaired with Charles Taylor.
We are facing a cultural shock. Whether or not it is the fact of a new generation, it testifies to a rejection of primordial values promoted by our society. We need to better understand the conditions under which categories of believers come to behave in an unacceptable way in institutions as neuralgic as the school system.
4) Prohibit prayers in public? What exactly do we mean by that? There is talk of crowds of worshippers performing a religious ritual on a sidewalk or square. What is a crowd: two people? Five? Ten? Will we also aim at the devotee who, in front of the Saint-Joseph oratory, stops to make a genuflection and the sign of the cross? What is meant by “public places”? By “prayers”? How to disentangle the religious and the spiritual? And what happens to fundamental rights? Finally, will all religions be targeted? It will have been noted that the Prime Minister only speaks of “Islamists”.
Good luck to the specialists who will write the new guidelines. And good luck to those who will have to apply them.
5) “Take out” the religious from schools? How will we proceed? It will be necessary to distinguish the indoctrination and the teaching of religions, to rule on the old secularized seminars subsidized by the State and which house a chapel that is still active. And if our prime minister is consistent, he will have to close religious schools. Will he dare to do it? Otherwise, who will take it seriously?
According to a text from Radio-Canada (April 2022), our government would subsidize fifty private institutions with “an explicit religious vocation”.
6) What to do? How? How to counter the reprehensible expressions of convictions deeply rooted in the religious? This task calls for prudence and tact dictated by a thoughtful, experienced approach. Do we have the necessary psychological and sociological tools?
We have a radicalization prevention center created by the City of Montreal for about ten years. It has proven itself, especially at the level of individuals, unless I am mistaken. Do we have specific expertise at the collective level? Will we be able to properly deal with such complex, potentially explosive realities?
7) A French societal tear? Cookie-cutter interventions could give the illusion of success in the short term, but they could also activate the fire we wanted to put out. Let’s avoid, if possible, reproducing here the situation of France: a deep cleavage, a breeding ground for violence, which has become unmanageable.
It’s up to the Prime Minister to play…
Which side will Mr. Legault? Giving in to the emotion of the moment and in search of an easy electoral gain, will he choose to fight and risk causing a hardening, erecting a wall? Or will he opt for caution in order to see more clearly before acting?
This text is not an invitation to complacency or softness. It is an invitation to give prevention a chance (awareness, warnings, negotiations, steps, sanctions if necessary) before resorting to heavy artillery. It is an invitation to mark the course before committing to it. And let’s not rule out that the current legal framework, rigorously applied, can offer the means to bring things back to order. This is what many lawyers believe.
À la suite de l’épouvantable scandale de l’école primaire Bedford, dans Côte-des-Neiges, affublée de tous les maux, le débat sur la laïcité est reparti de plus belle à l’Assemblée nationale. Avant de conclure qu’un renforcement de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État s’impose, les élus seraient avisés de prendre un pas de recul et de poser un diagnostic lucide sur les dérives qui ont compromis tant le projet pédagogique de cette école que le bien-être des enfants et du personnel.
Les problèmes de l’école Bedford, une école publique, offrent un condensé des dérives du réseau scolaire québécois. Ils envoient aussi un strident signal d’alarme que nous ne pouvons ignorer, puisque quatre autres écoles de la région montréalaise font maintenant l’objet de vérifications de la part du ministère de l’Éducation pour des dérives analogues.
En somme, un clan dominant d’enseignants d’origine maghrébine — opposé à un autre groupe de la même appartenance — a pris sur lui d’adapter ou d’ignorer des pans du programme pédagogique pour lui insuffler des valeurs à mi-chemin entre le conservatisme culturel et le prosélytisme religieux au nom de l’islam. Le rapport ne va pas aussi loin, mais il est compris et analysé comme tel dans l’espace public.
Tout y est : le harcèlement, l’intimidation, la violation de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État, le déni d’assistance et l’humiliation des élèves éprouvant des difficultés d’apprentissage, le refus du français comme langue d’usage, l’iniquité de traitement entre les hommes et les femmes, la démission des enseignants qui ne voulaient pas manger de ce pain-là, l’incurie administrative grâce à laquelle le climat a pourri pendant sept ans, l’incapacité de la direction ou du Centre de services scolaire de Montréal (CSSDM) de venir à bout du problème, les limites de la Loi sur l’instruction publique, la mollesse crasse des instances syndicales, qui n’ont pas su agir dans l’intérêt des enfants, l’incompétence abyssale des enseignants embauchés dans un contexte de pénurie de main-d’oeuvre en éducation qui ne disparaîtra pas de sitôt…
Est-ce vraiment une affaire de laïcité ? La réponse est… complexe. Il y a là en même temps l’expression d’un refus et d’une acceptation du vivre-ensemble : n’oublions pas que le litige oppose des enseignants issus du même creuset. L’école Bedford, c’est plutôt la symbiose parfaite du déni de la laïcité, de la faiblesse dans la gouvernance scolaire et de l’incompétence pédagogique.
Si l’État n’agit pas sur ces trois fronts en simultané, il risque d’instrumentaliser la laïcité pour faire des gains politiques à court terme, en balayant sous le tapis l’impérieuse nécessité d’assainir la gouvernance scolaire et de se doter d’une Loi sur l’instruction publique permettant d’agir sur l’incompétence des enseignants avec plus de célérité. Le rapport d’enquête du ministère de l’Éducation sur l’école Bedford, qui a mené à la suspension du droit d’enseigner de 11 professeurs, est on ne peut plus clair à ce sujet : « aucune conséquence n’est prévue à la [Loi sur l’instruction publique] pour l’enseignant qui ne respecte pas ses obligations ».
Aujourd’hui, le conservatisme musulman est montré du doigt à l’école Bedford. Demain, ce sera le messianisme judaïque ou même le conspirationnisme fantaisiste, pourquoi pas ?
Nous ne pouvons prédire ce que la pénurie de professeurs et les difficultés de recrutement en éducation produiront comme canards boiteux devant la classe. Il y a pour ainsi dire urgence de passer outre la rigidité syndicale et la sacralisation de l’autonomie professionnelle pour faire en sorte que les enseignants ne puissent pas prendre de liberté avec le programme pédagogique, le principe de l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes et l’épanouissement des enfants. Il y a aussi des comptes à demander aux directions d’école et aux centres de services scolaires pour s’assurer du respect de leurs obligations dans des délais acceptables.
C’est à ces conditions que nous pourrons aborder l’enjeu de la laïcité, un élément parmi d’autres de cette poudrière. La cohérence entre l’action et le discours sera la bienvenue. Dans la foulée de cette histoire, le Parti libéral du Québec a révisé sa position historique et se dit maintenant opposé au financement public des écoles à vocation religieuse, au nom de l’équité entre les hommes et les femmes. Selon une analyse faite par La Presse, 11 de ces écoles sont lourdement avantagées par l’État, recevant des subventions de 38 millions de dollars et bénéficiant d’avantages fiscaux directs et indirects totalisant 53 millions.
Le premier ministre François Legault a d’abord rejeté une motion à l’Assemblée nationale sur l’abolition du financement public des écoles privées religieuses. Le lendemain, il s’est dit prêt à en débattre de manière réfléchie. C’est la voie à suivre. La patience, le recul et la contribution de la société civile seront nécessaires pour faire en sorte que la neutralité religieuse et l’imputabilité trouvent leur pleine expression dans le système scolaire québécois.
Following the terrible scandal of the Bedford primary school, in Côte-des-Neiges, adorned with all evils, the debate on secularism has started again in the National Assembly. Before concluding that a strengthening of the Law on the Secularism of the State is necessary, elected officials would be advised to take a step back and make a lucid diagnosis of the excesses that have compromised both the pedagogical project of this school and the well-being of children and staff.
The problems of Bedford School, a public school, offer a summary of the excesses of the Quebec school network. They are also sending a shrill alarm that we cannot ignore, since four other schools in the Montreal region are now being checked by the Ministry of Education for similar drifts.
In short, a dominant clan of teachers of North African origin – opposed to another group of the same membership – has taken it upon himself to adapt or ignore parts of the pedagogical program to instill values halfway between cultural conservatism and religious proselytism in the name of Islam. The report does not go that far, but it is understood and analyzed as such in public space.
Everything is there: harassment, intimidation, the violation of the Law on the secularism of the State, the denial of assistance and the humiliation of students experiencing learning difficulties, the refusal of French as a language of use, the inequality of treatment between men and women, the resignation of teachers who did not want to eat this bread, the administrative negligence thanks to which the climate has rotten for seven years, the inability of the management or the Montreal School Service Center (CSSDM) to overcome the problem, the limits of the Public Education Act, the gross softness of the union bodies, who did not know how to act in the interests of children, abysmal incompetence Of teachers hired in a context of labor shortage in education that will not disappear anytime soon…
Is it really a matter of secularism? The answer is… complex. At the same time, there is the expression of a refusal and acceptance of living together: let’s not forget that the dispute opposes teachers from the same crucible. The Bedford school is rather the perfect symbiosis of the denial of secularism, weakness in school governance and pedagogical incompetence.
If the State does not act on these three fronts simultaneously, it risks instrumentalizing secularism to make short-term political gains, by sweeping under the carpet the imperative need to clean up school governance and to have a law on public education to act on the incompetence of teachers more quickly. The investigation report of the Ministry of Education into the Bedford School, which led to the suspension of the right to teach of 11 teachers, could not be clear on this subject: “no consequences are foreseen in the [Public Education Act] for the teacher who does not respect his obligations”.
Today, Muslim conservatism is pointed out at the Bedford School. Tomorrow, it will be Jewish messianism or even fanciful conspiracy, why not?
We cannot predict what the shortage of teachers and the difficulties in recruiting in education will produce like lame ducks in front of the classroom. It is, so to speak, urgent to go beyond union rigidity and the sacralization of professional autonomy to ensure that teachers cannot take freedom with the pedagogical program, the principle of equality between men and women and the development of children. There are also accountability for school principals and school service centres to ensure that their obligations are met within an acceptable time frame.
It is under these conditions that we will be able to address the issue of secularism, one element among others of this powder keg. Consistency between action and speech will be welcome. In the wake of this story, the Quebec Liberal Party has revised its historical position and is now opposed to public funding for religious schools, in the name of equity between men and women. According to an analysis made by La Presse, 11 of these schools are heavily advantaged by the state, receiving subsidies of 38 million dollars and benefiting from direct and indirect tax benefits totaling 53 million.
Prime Minister François Legault first rejected a motion in the National Assembly on the abolition of public funding for private religious schools. The next day, he said he was ready to discuss it thoughtfully. This is the way to go. Patience, hindsight and the contribution of civil society will be necessary to ensure that religious neutrality and accountability find their full expression in the Quebec school system.
And for background on the controversies, see Yakabuski below:
…Not surprisingly, Mr. Legault and PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon have been one-upping each other in recent days in their defence of Quebec’s secularist values. After all, l’affaire Bedford also feeds into concerns, stoked by both leaders, that immigration is threatening Quebec’s identity.
“There is a specific problem in our schools, and it involves religious and ideological infiltration. And in the case of École Bedford, it has to do with Islamist infiltration,” Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon declared. “The number of schools where 75 per cent of students were not born in Quebec is quite high in Montreal. We should study how to achieve more mixing of students to avoid the formation of microcosms.”
Mr. Drainville, a former PQ cabinet minister best known for tabling a charter of Quebec values in 2013, is now on the receiving end of PQ attacks as he seeks to come up with a political response to the École Bedford controversy. Mr. Drainville’s charter served as the inspiration for the CAQ’s Bill 21.
Mr. Plamondon is now calling for an end to Quebec’s long-standing system of subsidizing religious private schools, and is promising a four-year moratorium on “economic” immigration if the PQ wins the next election, set for 2026.
For Mr. Legault, the temptation to seize on the École Bedford case to rebuild his own political capital may be too great to resist. Another battle over religion in public schools might suit him just fine.
Interesting discussion on activism, education, freedom of conscience in the context of LGBTQ in schools:
Parmi les mille raisons qui me rendent fier d’être Québécois figure notre tolérance précoce, puis notre défense résolue, des homosexuels. Ne dit-on pas que, sans nous, le Canada aurait été beaucoup plus lent à légaliser le mariage pour tous ?
Cette particularité québécoise ressortait d’un monologue prononcé lors d’un gala Just For Laughs par l’humoriste américaine Sarah Silverman. Je cite de mémoire : « Aux États-Unis, on utilise des codes pour désigner nos quartiers gais. Le “District Castro” [San Francisco] ou “Greenwich” [New York]. Pourquoi ? Pour que les rednecks, qui sont des imbéciles, ne sachent pas où les trouver. Mais vous, votre village gai s’appelle “le village gai” ! Vous faites exprès ou quoi ? »
L’adhésion des Québécois à la cause gaie fut progressive, dans la société, la culture, les familles. Un processus d’acclimatation, d’adhésion, de normalisation. Mais il nous vient désormais de notre environnement nord-américain des signaux dont il faut se préoccuper. Il s’agit de l’injonction de solidarité. Il ne suffit pas d’accepter, mais d’afficher obligatoirement son appui à la cause. Parfois sous peine de sanctions.
On célèbre à Montréal la fierté gaie en août, mais cette année, aux États-Unis et au Canada, la tradition de faire de juin le Mois de la fierté gaie a pris de l’ampleur, notamment dans les écoles. En Ontario, le ministre (conservateur) de l’Éducation a produit une directive affirmant qu’il « incombe à tous les conseils scolaires de veiller à ce que tous les élèves — plus particulièrement les élèves 2SLGBTQ+ — se sentent soutenus, reflétés dans leurs écoles », ce qui est admirable. Mais il a ajouté : « Cela inclut la célébration du Mois de la fierté. »
La nuance est cruciale entre l’acceptation et la promotion, entre l’éducation et le prosélytisme. Nos chartes protègent la « liberté de conscience », ce qui inclut le droit de ne pas être d’accord avec la norme, pour peu qu’on ne commette aucun geste illégal. Sur les bancs d’école, on est certes tenus d’apprendre la norme et de la respecter. Mais est-on obligé de la célébrer ? Si la fête nationale du Québec tombait le premier juin, obligerait-on tous les enfants à porter des macarons fleurdelisés et de marcher dans les rues, drapeau en mains ? C’est ce qu’on a demandé à des enfants du primaire de Vancouver, l’an dernier, pour le Mois de la fierté.
On a assisté cette année, en Ontario, à un refus massif de parents musulmans de laisser leurs enfants participer à ces célébrations. Ce qui a notamment valu à ceux d’Ottawa une directive stricte des autorités scolaires interdisant le droit de retrait aux enfants. « Les droits de la personne ne sont pas ouverts au débat ou à la participation sélective » est-il écrit. En Nouvelle-Écosse, l’enregistrement d’une enseignante sermonnant un étudiant musulman qui refusait de participer aux activités de la Pride a fait grand bruit. Elle y affirme que « nous croyons que les gens peuvent épouser qui ils veulent, c’est dans la loi, et si tu ne penses pas que ça devrait être la loi, tu ne peux pas être Canadien. Tu n’as pas ta place ici, et je suis sérieuse ».
L’imam Sikander Hashmi rapporte dans le National Post que « les élèves d’une école secondaire d’Ottawa ont déclaré que le personnel gardait les portes lors d’une assemblée du Mois de la fierté pour s’assurer que personne ne partait, tandis que d’autres patrouillaient dans les couloirs et qu’un autre vérifiait même le stationnement pour trouver les élèves qui refusaient d’y assister. Un parent a rapporté que son enfant de 3e année dans une autre école s’était fait dire qu’il ne pouvait pas aller en récréation à moins qu’il ne dessine un arc-en-ciel. Des parents m’ont dit que d’autres élèves avaient été menacés d’expulsion s’ils ne participaient pas aux activités du Mois de la fierté ».
L’imam est particulièrement remonté contre un livret conçu spécialement pour ses jeunes ouailles intitulé « Je suis musulman mais je ne suis peut-être pas hétéro ». Pas moins du tiers des élèves du primaire de la ville de London, à forte concentration musulmane, se sont absentés durant une journée consacrée à la dénonciation de l’homophobie en mai. Puis, on a vu un petit groupe de mères musulmanes encourager leurs enfants à piétiner de petits drapeaux arc-en-ciel. Une scène qu’on peut résumer en deux mots : haine et obscurantisme.
Chers lecteurs, vous me savez très critique des religions, notamment pour leur misogynie et leur homophobie. Je suis à la fois favorable à l’arrêt des subventions pour les écoles à vocation religieuse et je tiens, pour le bien des enfants, à ce qu’aucun ne soit exempté de l’enseignement commun. Cependant, on ne peut vivre ensemble sans respect de la liberté de conscience. Je récuse donc l’embrigadement dans des causes, fussent-elles les miennes. Comme la religion, le militantisme doit s’afficher et se pratiquer à ses heures, pas à l’école ou dans l’État. Le refus d’appliquer ce principe nourrit puissamment le ressac conservateur dont nous sommes témoins et qui arrivera sous peu dans une école près de chez vous.
En fait, cela y est déjà. Au Québec, des comités formés d’élèves et soutenus par des profs et des administrateurs volontaires se donnent le mandat de faire appliquer la théorie du genre, dont je parlais dans une précédente chronique, dans l’école en entier. Les demandes pour des toilettes non binaires au primaire et au secondaire sont courantes et il arrive que des surveillantes plus pointilleuses sur le respect de l’intimité des unes et des autres se fassent « traiter de transphobes par des enfants de 12 ans », me rapporte un enseignant.
Il existe dans plusieurs de nos écoles des AGIS, pour Alliance genres, identités, sexualités. Leur création est recommandée par le gouvernement canadien. Elles ont pour but de transformer l’école entière en un « lieu sûr ». Les trousses pédagogiques mises à la disposition par l’organisme AGIS reprennent les thèmes et le vocabulaire d’usage sur la théorie du genre. C’est chouette : les étudiants intéressés à mettre un comité sur pied peuvent facilement recevoir une subvention de 500 $. Desjardins fait d’ailleurs partie des commanditaires de l’initiative.
J’ai sous les yeux une lettre envoyée ce printemps aux parents par un directeur d’école secondaire de Laval. Il les invite à soutenir l’initiative visant à « susciter la solidarité et mobiliser les élèves et le personnel scolaire à devenir des personnes alliées ». La Fédération autonome de l’enseignement organise un « défi des personnes alliées » pour ses syndicats enseignants qui déploieront dans leurs écoles le drapeau arc-en-ciel, des macarons, des kiosques de promotion. Dans les deux cas, nous ne sommes pas en présence du langage de l’éducation, mais de celui du militantisme.
Of note. Teacher went to far with her “you don’t belong (in Canada)!” but most other points were valid. And it is equally valid to point out the lack of consistency in reasonable accommodation arguments:
Administrators were thrust into full damage control mode on Tuesday when an audio recording of an in-class scolding of a Muslim pupil, attributed to a teacher at North Edmonton’s Londonderry Junior High, was leaked to social media.
In the recording, shared on Twitter by the London (U.K.)-based 5Pillars news, the teacher could be heard berating a student, identified as “Mansour”, for allegedly skipping class to avoid ‘Pride Month’ activities:
“You are out to lunch if you think it’s acceptable to not show up because (of) Pride activities going on at school,” the speaker admonished. “But meanwhile, (your LGBT+ classmates), they’re here when we did Ramadan… and they’re showing respect for in the class for your religion…”
“It goes two ways! If you want to be respected for you are… then you better give it back to people who are different from you.”
The speaker then references new anti-gay legislation in Uganda, a country where over eight-in-10 citizens identify as Christian: “In Uganda, literally, if they think you’re gay, they will execute you.” (Uganda’s just-passed Anti-Homosexuality Bill imposes the death penalty for so-called “aggravated” homosexual acts, such as gay sex with an underage partner or infecting a partner with HIV).
“If you believe that kind of thing, then you don’t belong (in Canada)!”
She went on to suggest that those who don’t agree with certain laws in Canada don’t belong in this country.
“We believe that people can marry whomever they want. That is in law. And if you don’t think that should be the law, you can’t be Canadian. You don’t belong here.”
(As of Wednesday morning, the recording had garnered over 100,000 views on Twitter).
5Pillars also shared a letter, dated (Saturday,) June 3, 2023, purportedly written by the school’s principal Ed Charpentier: “Many of you may have heard an audio recording of a teacher at Londonderry School circulating on social media channels,” reads the letter. “I want to emphasize that the views expressed by the teacher do not reflect the values of acceptance, inclusion and belonging that are so strong at Londonderry School.” (a phone number given at the bottom of the letter leads to the school’s central directory). The letter’s date suggests that the incident took place sometime last week.
Edmonton Public Schools added the following on Tuesday in an email to members of the media: “(We are) aware of the audio recording of a teacher at Londonderry School circulating on social media channels. The school and Division are taking steps to address the situation. Due to the Division’s legislated privacy obligations, we are not able to provide any further information.”
While the teacher was clearly out of line, the recording nevertheless reflects a religious tension that’s playing out across Canada over increasingly elaborate in-school Pride celebrations. Evidence is starting to mount that Muslim students are “opting-out” en masse from Pride-related activities — going so far as to skip school on designated Pride days.
London, Ont. (a city where nearly 10 per cent of residents identify as Muslim) has been hit by a wave of absences on school days dedicated to LGBT visibility. Just last month, nearly one-third of students enrolled at London’s largest elementary school stayed home as the district commemorated the International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. (As the National Post’s Tristin Hopper reported, a majority of students absent that day appeared to be from Muslim families). At least six other schools in the London-area reported higher than usual absences that day. A similar mass absence broke out three months earlier, when the elementary school marked “Rainbow Day”.
A subsequent public statement from the London Council of Imams (LCI) read, “When it comes to activities related to ‘Pride Month’… parents play an integral role in the education of their children and are critical to empowering them to remain steadfast on their faith and beliefs. For this reason, the LCI is not in the position to direct parents on whether to choose to have your child(ren) to attend or be absent from school.” The statement advised parents to “use their discretion” to determine whether to send their children to school on days that included Pride-related activities and programming.
While Pride-related absenteeism among Muslim students has been documented most extensively in London-area schools, the leaked recording from Edmonton indicates that this issue is beginning to crop up in other Canadian cities with large Muslim populations (Edmonton is home to nearly 100,000 Muslims).
Interestingly, the brewing tensions over Muslim students declining to partake in in-class Pride activities recall the “reasonable accommodation” debates of yesteryear — only with the ideological roles reversed. The same progressives who once breathlessly defended the right of Muslim women to don Niqabs in voting booths (and, famously, at citizenship ceremonies) are now claiming that celebrating Pride Month is a sine qua non of being Canadian: “If you don’t believe that, then you don’t belong here!”
Even as they publicly condemned the teacher’s words, it would be unsurprising if many leaders in Edmonton’s ultra-progressive public school system were quietly nodding their heads in agreement with this statement.
Once again, Canada’s Muslim community finds itself at the centre of an ideologically charged debate over Canadian values. This time around, the absolutists are wearing rainbow-coloured clothing.
A study on children’s attitudes toward their classmates resulted in some surprising, and other not so surprising, findings.
Based on surveys of ninth-grade children (aged 14 to 15) in Germany, research led by Zsófia Boda at the University of Essex and Georg Lorenz from Leipzig University has found that classes that are ethnically diverse are more welcoming of refugee students.
That’s the unsurprising part.
What it also revealed, however, was that students who were born in Germany to German-born parents were the most likely to reject their refugee classmates, and the least likely to refer to them as friends.
Would you sit next to a refugee?
The study is based on the results of a national survey of 6,390 children in Germany in 2018, which asked the students who their friends were and who they would not want to sit next to in class. Most of the refugee students involved in the survey came from Syria and Afghanistan — the two main countries of origin of people seeking protection in Germany.
The results, published this week in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, showed that the refugee children had fewer friends and experienced more rejection than their non-refugee peers.
But in a more mixed or ‘high-diversity’ classroom, it was much less likely for a child to say they would not want to share a desk with a refugee or asylum seeker, and more likely that they would name a refugee student as a friend.
The research found that there are two processes at work here: In a classroom with a high proportion of ‘non-German’ children, you are more likely to get people who are accepting of other non-Germans, the researchers explained. But also, ethnic majority (i.e. second-generation German) students are less inclined to reject refugee peers if they are surrounded by diversity.
The study suggests that this finding – that more diversity does not lead to greater rejection by the ethnic majority group – is an important one, because it challenges critical views of multiculturalism.
A large proportion – about half – of refugees and migrants in Germany are under the age of 18.
These young people need more than just access to education. Having positive and supportive relationships with others their own age in turn leads to them achieving better grades at school and results in overall better health and wellbeing for minority students.
The study suggests that if you take these away, the educational success and psychological adjustment of refugee adolescents will likely be put at risk.
Barriers to acceptance
So what is it that is stopping students from accepting their refugee peers?
There are several possible reasons, the researchers behind the study say. One is language, which is often said to be a major barrier to integration. Traumatic experiences can also make it hard for young refugees to adjust.
Other explanations for refugees having lower levels of social integration or acceptance in the classroom include the fact that they are likely to have joined the class later when friendships between other students have already formed. There is also the dynamics of friendship groups, which often grow and develop between people of the same ethnic group.
Moreover, the study also points out that social integration is not a one-sided process: “[T]he attitudes and behaviors of peers [is] crucial,” it notes.
What should policy makers do with these findings which, taken at face value, seem to suggest that refugee students should attend schools that are already ethnically diverse?
If they were to take this approach, it might jeopardize refugee students’ language development, which usually benefits from having a high proportion of majority-ethnic children in the classroom.
Steering refugee children into diverse schools could also lead to segregation instead of integration, and that would not help in promoting positive attitudes between German and non-German students, the study suggests.
There are some concrete steps that could “mitigate the negative consequences of prejudice,” according to the researchers. They recommend that teachers and principals are made aware of the challenges and that they support integration by, among other things, encouraging cooperation and showing support for mixing ethnic groups.
With global forced migration having become a ‘megatrend,’ Boda and Lorenz argue promoting the social integration of refugees, including adolescents, will remain crucially important for the refugees themselves. According to them, it will also reduce negative attitudes and prejudice towards immigrants — a problem which is widespread in Western societies.
Just when you thought things couldn’t get any weirder or more depressing on the U.S. book-ban front comes this plot twist from Manatee County, Fla. The school board near Sarasota recently issued an edict that prompted teachers to remove all books from classrooms in response to new rules from the Florida Department of Education.
That policy states that all books in schools must be approved by a librarian (called a “certified media specialist”), or staff risk third-degree felony charges. With some classroom libraries too large to dispose of quickly, teachers have had to physically cover them up, with construction paper in some cases – or risk possible jail time. Teachers are not allowed to choose books for their classrooms. And only vetted books are allowed, to ensure they are free of pornographic material, age-appropriate, and don’t contain “unsolicited theories that may lead to student indoctrination.” It’s effectively leading to negative-option reading, and that’s led to the removal of such dangerous books as Sneezy the Snowman and Dragons Love Tacos.
Imagine a classroom without books. This is a scene cooked up by fools – who are somehow in charge of education – trying to create a nation of more fools. And Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who signed the bill into law, has presidential aspirations. Imagine edicts like this being issued nationally.
Is the Sunshine State also the most ignorant? There’s stiff competition for the title – led by Texas, according to a report released in November by PEN America.
And if it’s sex these censorious anti-intellectuals are worried about, they may want to have a seat while we break the news to them: Kids don’t need to learn this stuff from banned-book queen Judy Blume, or from Robie Harris’s It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health, another frequently censored volume. They can learn it from the internet, from sources far less trustworthy and much more graphic.
Canadian Margaret Atwood is another targeted author; The Handmaid’s Tale is among the most frequently banned books in the U.S. This month, it was among 21 titles banned by the school board in Madison County, Va. Four books by Toni Morrison also made the list, along with three by Stephen King.
Mr. King, a vocal opponent of censorship, tweeted this month: “Hey, kids! It’s your old buddy Steve King telling you that if they ban a book in your school, haul your ass to the nearest bookstore or library ASAP and find out what they don’t want you to read.”
In the new documentary Judy Blume Forever, which just had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, the Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret author calls the resurgence of book bans – which often target her novels – shocking. It’s “as if time stood still and we’re back in the eighties.”
We’ve had a few book censorship controversies in Canada, too. Last year, the removal of three books from libraries in the Durham District School Board just east of Toronto, including David A. Robertson’s The Great Bear, was reversed after public outcry.
But book bans in the United States are becoming so rampant that they are now likelier to elicit heavy sighs rather than shock. Still, seeing the statistics in black and white is alarming. According to that PEN report, from July, 2021, to June, 2022, there were 2,532 instances of individual books being banned, affecting 1,648 individual titles. The two categories most frequently banned in schools were books with LGBTQ themes or prominent LGBTQ characters, and books with protagonists or prominent secondary characters of colour.
Students aren’t going to stop being gay – not that any right-thinking person would want them to – because a book that reflects their experience is no longer available in their classroom. Racialized children aren’t going to stop noticing they are racialized.While books are powerful, they are not so powerful that they can change a child’s identity. Their magic isn’t quite that literal. But they can help kids feel better, less alone.
This is not just about misguided parents. Book banning is a strategic political act, and well-connected advocacy organizations have been pushing it. PEN America has identified at least 50 such groups that are actively seeking these bans. And it is certainly a political choice to devote effort to protecting children from books, rather than guns.
Where does an anti-book culture lead? A recent essay in The Atlantic pointed to two prominent figures who have denounced books: Ye, the former Kanye West, who has called himself “a proud non-reader of books,” and Sam Bankman-Fried, who has said he would “never read a book.” A proud antisemite and a fallen tech bro facing multiple fraud charges, respectively.
I get asked a lot these days about misinformation, by people worried that youth are buying into lies about important issues and historical events. My answer always revolves around making sure young people have access to reliable information – the kind most easily found in books. The library over YouTube, always.
Kids, keep reading. Especially the books you’re being told not to read by villainous higher-ups. You’re the protagonist of your own story – and information is power.
The security at the New Synagogue, located in Berlin’s city center, is regrettably familiar in Germany.
The approach is well protected: A chain-link barrier keeps vehicles at a distance, two guards flank the main entrance, and a metal detector arcs over visitors’ heads. It takes about five minutes to get through.
“In the U.S. you can go into a synagogue without any kind of controls,” says Sigmount Königsberg, the commissioner against anti-Semitism for the Jewish community in Berlin. His office is housed within the synagogue. “In Germany, we hardly remember a time like this. Even when I was 10, growing up in the 1970s, there was always a police officer standing in front of the synagogue.”
Such security remains critically necessary, as anti-Semitic incidents in Germany are on the upswing. A shooting outside a synagogue in Halle captured global attention in October, but the gunman couldn’t foil security measures to enter. Metal detectors also stand at the entrance to Jewish kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, and homes for senior citizens.
Christian Mang/Reuters
Security like these police officers outside the New Synagogue in Berlin has long been used at Jewish institutions in Germany to protect from anti-Semitic incidents.
But Mr. Königsberg and other activists warn that though such measures are still needed, to root out anti-Semitism it must be fought someplace where it cannot be physically blocked: in schoolyards and classrooms. To stop an anti-Semitic hate that seems at once more aggressive and also more subtle, they say, it needs to be addressed at an early age. And that means ground zero must be schools.
“Nine of 10 children are in public schools,” Mr. Königsberg says. “You can start there.” Yet efforts to date are underfunded and a bit random; more systemic action is needed, he says.
Anti-Semitism in the schoolyard
Society-wide, the numbers around anti-Semitism are stark. Six of 10 Jews in Germany have experienced anti-Semitic “hidden insinuations,” while 9 of 10 Jews in Germany feel “strongly burdened” by anti-Semitism directed at their family, according to a 2017 qualitative study out of Bielefeld University titled “Jewish Perspectives on Antisemitism in Germany.”
Schools in Berlin have seen an uptick in incidents, reporting 41 incidents in 2018, up one-third from the previous year, according to RIAS, a monitoring agency that tracks anti-Semitic incidents.
Recently, at one Berlin public school, Mr. Königsberg says, a teacher was instructing a unit on religion. One boy offered up that he was Jewish, only to hear a classmate mutter in response, “I’ve got to kill you.” The teacher heard the remark, but did nothing to intervene, says Mr. Königsberg.
Other school situations can be understated or offhand, and even perpetrated by teachers, he adds. Take the time a Berlin public school took a field trip to the city’s Holocaust memorial. A 14-year-old Jewish girl, emotional over what she was seeing, began to sob. Her German teacher told her, “Why are you crying? It was so long ago.”
“There is no typical story, no typical solution,” says Mr. Königsberg. “Sometimes I need a lawyer, and other times I need a psychologist.”
Other times, one might need the police. A Jewish woman whose child attends an elite Berlin public school says she volunteered to run the Israel booth at the school’s international fair. She says she immediately felt uncomfortable. First, a child of about 5 years passed by and told her, “Israel is bad.” Later, as students assessed the falafel offered at the booth, several offered that the food had “nothing to do with Israel.”
Toward the end of the fair, a teenager leaned over the table to get in her face, snarling, “I wish the falafel were grenades, and that they would explode in your face.” Another parent intervened and moved the teen away from the table.
The woman visited with police over the verbal assault, but ultimately decided not to file a report. “I didn’t feel a 15-year-old should have a criminal record,” she says.
When she reported the incident to the school principal, she came away disappointed. “The issue was never raised with the community,” says the woman, who wished to remain anonymous since her child is still enrolled in the school. “Eventually the principal left. Nothing was done.”
That incident brings up the question: Where is the anti-Semitism coming from? Reporting around incidents doesn’t often include the background of the perpetrator, so good data is unavailable, says Mr. Königsberg. Yet, while it’s clear that some problems stem from increasing immigration from the Middle East, a greater hostility originates inside Germany’s increasingly vocal far-right, exemplified by the Halle shooting. The far-right is hostile to both Muslims and Jews, says Mr. Königsberg, and it’s important to tackle both. “People need to learn to accept minorities.”
Teaching teachers how to respond
Doing nothing is easiest in the face of an issue that’s “massively complex,” says Levi Salomon, lead spokesman for a lobbying group called Jewish Forum for Democracy and Against Anti-Semitism. “Anti-Semitism is the oldest form of group-targeted hatred, and 2,000-year-old stereotypes are archived in European memory. Teachers are hesitant and unclear how to deal with that history.”
On top of that, teachers are overwhelmed and overworked in the face of a massive educator shortage, says Heinz-Peter Meidinger, president of Deutscher Lehrerverband, Germany’s largest teachers association. In other words, even if there were a nationalized curriculum for addressing the issue of prejudice, there’s little time to implement it.
There are also institutional problems: Reporting an anti-Semitic incident is not universally required. “Teachers should be required to report,” Mr. Meidinger says. “I also wish that every German state appointed an independent contact person in the school ministry to take reports.”
Administrators’ instincts also might be to keep the issues quiet. “For example, if a student does the Hitler greeting, school management is often afraid of reporting because they think, ‘If this reaches the outside world, we’re ruined,’” says Mr. Meidinger.
Other times, educators who are sensitive to the issue feel isolated or alone, found a 2017 survey of anti-Semitism in schools out of Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences.
The German government has implemented a number of measures against anti-Semitism broadly in society. For example, denial that Jews were murdered during the Holocaust is a crime, as is the display of a swastika. Golden Stolpersteine, concrete cubes with inscribed brass plates, are displayed at thresholds to commemorate victims of the Holocaust.
Regarding schools specifically, anti-Semitism has been introduced as a category of discrimination in the emergency response plans for schools in Berlin and two other states. This requires administrators to report any incidents to a government office starting the 2019-20 academic year. Politicians in other German states are considering following suit.
Yet the people working on this issue feel that much more awareness around anti-Semitism and structural change inside the education system is needed. “We’re hoping for a continuous conversation, rather than one-off approaches around single incidents,” says Marina Chernivsky, head of the Competence Center for Prevention and Empowerment. Her organization is focused on bringing change via outreach and providing educational workshops to teachers, families, and the public. “We can help educate and teach, but there needs to be a shift and systemic change.”
She’s working toward a time when a Jewish child won’t be asked to draw a family tree in class, without the teacher first thinking about the context and possible repercussions of such a request.
In that recent case, says Ms. Chernivsky’s colleague Romina Wiegemann, a child given such an assignment suddenly came home asking questions of a mother who wasn’t prepared to field questions about relatives lost to the Holocaust. When the mother raised the question with administrators, she found little support.
“We must think about the effect this has on children, and make sure schools engage with topics,” says Ms. Wiegemann.
Mr. Königsberg at the New Synagogue thinks that there’s reason to hope. “When I call the schools now, I get an appointment,” he says. “Last year, they ignored me.” But he sees the fight against anti-Semitism as a fight for democracy. “A true democracy doesn’t work with discrimination.”
More on increased radicalization in Indonesia and the influence of Islamic schools, with a useful breakdown of the different types:
A series of terrorist acts has rocked Indonesia in the past week. Starting from a clash in a detention centre at the Police Mobile Brigade headquarters in Depok, West Java, last week, attackers then bombed three churches in Surabaya, East Java, last Sunday, followed by another terrorist bombing at Surabaya Police Headquarters. Dozens were killed and wounded.
In response, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has reiterated the government’s commitment to exterminate terrorism down to its roots.
We must appreciate Jokowi’s statement. However, terrorism is a complex issue because there is no single factor that can explain why a person becomes a terrorist.
The importance of schools to prevent radicalism
One of the strategies that the government can use to stop terrorism in Indonesia is to take preventive steps using educational institutions to promote tolerance, which can eventually stop the spread of radical thoughts.
But what is happening in Indonesia is the opposite. Many schools in Indonesia have become fertile ground for radicalism.
The latest surveys from the Wahid Institute, Pusat Pengkajian Islam Masyarakat and the Centre for Study of Islam and Society (PPIM) and Setara Institute have indicated the spread of intolerance and radical values in educational institutions in Indonesia.
A student tolerance survey from Setara Institute in 2016 revealed that 35.7% of the students showed a tendency to intolerance in their minds, 2.4% were involved in acts of intolerance, and 0.3% had the potential to become terrorists. The survey was based on 760 respondents who enrolled in public high schools in Jakarta and Bandung, West Java.
Surveys from the Wahid Institute and PPIM have shown the same worrying trend.
The characteristics of schools prone to radicalism
In 2017, I was involved in research on efforts to respond to radicalism at 20 private Islamic schools in Central Java. The research involved academics from Monash University in Australia, Walisongo State Islamic University in Semarang, Central Java, and Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta with funding support from the Australia-Indonesia Centre.
We managed to identify three types of schools that are prone to radicalism. In accordance with confidentiality principles, we will not publish the schools’ names in this article.
These three types of schools are:
1. Closed schools
Instead of embracing changes, this type of school offers students a narrow perspective and tends to shut them off from foreign ideas.
We interviewed one of the headmasters from these schools. He explained the importance of Islamic civilisation to protect students against Western values.
Aside from see Islam and the West as being in conflict, closed schools also stress the importance of practising their version of Islamic teachings and reject the moderate Islam that most Muslims adhere to in Indonesia.
2. Separated schools
These schools can be identified from their teacher recruitment system and their limited participation in social activities.
The teacher recruitment process in these schools is very strict, especially the recruitment of religion teachers. In addition, these schools do not want to participate in social activities that they deem to be against their values.
This type of school is very different from other Islamic schools that are affiliated with the country’s more traditional Muslim organisations such as Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) or Muhammadiyah. Whereas separated schools recruit religion teachers from their own groups only and will use their networks to recruit alumni who share the same Islamic values, NU and Muhammadiyah schools will not consider differences in their teachings as an issue. For example, one of the headmasters from a NU-affiliated school stated that his school also recruited teachers from Muhammadiyah.
NU and Muhammadiyah schools are also active in social activities, including interfaith activities. Separated schools are not.
3. Schools with pure Islamic identity
The third type can be identified by the way they create students’ Islamic identity. The schools that are prone to radicalism tend to build in a student a single Islamic identity, refusing other identities.
This understanding is different from other Islamic schools, which tend to consider that a person’s identity as a Muslim is not against his/her other identity. Moderate Islamic schools do not see a conflict between their students’ identity as Muslims and as Indonesian citizens.
When a school builds this single Muslim identity, that school will also foster radical attitudes among students as they only believe in a single Islamic interpretation that is in line with their values.
Headmasters from this type of school usually order their students to follow all religious rituals at schools, despite the students’ different religious background.
A headmaster told us that his students with a NU background must abandon their prayer ritual in the morning called qunut when they are enrolled in his schools.
This policy is different from other schools that allow flexibility for their students in their religious practices.
In addition, the rejection of other identities creates a “we versus them” attitude not only between different religions but also within the larger Islamic community itself.
What we can do
These three types of schools contribute to the growth of intolerance as well as radicalism at schools, which can lead to terrorist acts.
Therefore, we believe that the recent terrorist attacks should give momentum to the government to plan preventive measures to promote diversity, social integrity and diverse identities in various schools across the country.
The government’s campaign on tolerance should reach different educational institutions via the Culture and Education Ministry as well as Religious Affairs Ministry.
The government must also provide platforms and programs to promote tolerance. Apart from that, related government institutions in the regions must develop the capacity to identify schools that are prone to radicalism and apply persuasive approaches to prevent the spread of radicalism in those schools.
The Toronto District School Board’s decision to suspend a controversial program that places armed police officers in high schools has come under criticism from officials who say the move was made in haste. But advocacy group Black Lives Matter said the decision marked a step forward.
TDSB trustees voted Wednesday night to discontinue the Student Resource Officer initiative, pending a review of the practice, due in November.
“It was felt that the presence of (officers) during the review when we were asking people to talk about them might be intimidating and create a potential bias,” TDSB Chair Robin Pilkey told the Star.
About 16 votes were cast in favour of suspension and six votes were cast against, said Pilkey, who voted to suspend.
The Student Resource Officer program, in place since 2008, has garnered a mix of praise and criticism since its inception. Some students, parents and school staff have said the presence of armed, uniformed police improves safety, and gives teens a chance to get to know local officers.
Others have expressed concern that the program leads to criminalization of relatively minor schoolyard problems and alienates marginalized students who may not feel comfortable around police.
In June, the TDSB ordered a review of the program to take place this fall.
A report on the planning for the TDSB review of the program was scheduled for Wednesday night’s board meeting, prompting Trustee Marit Stiles to draft a motion for the program suspension.
“Earlier in the day, I circulated to all trustees a motion I intended to introduce related to the report (on the review),” Stiles told the Star. “It was introduced during the meeting as business arising from the (review) report.”
The trustees debated the suspension issue for at least an hour, Stiles added.
The decision to suspend the program was “unfortunate,” Mayor John Tory told reporters on Thursday.
The Toronto Police Services Board, of which Tory is a member, has commissioned its own review of the SRO program, to be completed in Spring 2018.
“The school board decided they would take a different approach, and, before that review is done, cancel the program,” Tory said.
“I wasn’t prepared to rush to judgment to say the program was perfect or imperfect,” he added.
At least one trustee has said board officials should have been given time to consult their communities before the vote.
Trustees would normally have a week or two to discuss a motion like this, “but we had no chance to do any of that,” Trustee Pamela Gough, who voted against the suspension, said.
“My decision last night not to support it was basically a status quo until we hear the evidence and we hear the voices of the people actually in the schools,” she added.
“Evidence-based decision making is better than taking a stab in the dark on a topic, especially when the motion, came with such short notice.”
Stiles acknowledged that not all the trustees were comfortable with suspending the SRO program, but added that officials have had ample time to consider the public’s feelings about the practice.
“We’ve been talking about the future of the SRO program for quite some time,” Stiles said.
“I think if enough trustees were concerned about that we would have seen a vote against the motion,” Stiles added.
The controversy over the Student Resource Officer program erupted in May after a review of the nearly decade-old program was one of the items on the agenda of the Toronto police board meeting. A group of teachers and school workers presented a detailed report about the negative impact the program in schools. A motion to suspend the program was deferred to June.
Things became more heated at the June board meeting, where 74 people spoke against uniformed police officers in school. Protestors from Black Lives Matter and other groups filled the auditorium at police headquarters. The meeting was disrupted a couple of times as tensions rose and board members were heckled. At the end of a long night, the board decided to postpone the decision over the motion until the end of the year.
It was no different during the board’s August meeting where Toronto police chief Mark Saunders presented a plan to have Ryerson University perform a review of the contested program. Activists attended the meeting calling for board members to resign. They also carried signs saying “We’re here for Dafonte,” in reference to Black teen Dafonte Miller who was allegedly beaten by an off-duty Toronto police officer and his brother.
Responding to the decision of the TDSB to suspend the program, Black Lives Matter put out a statement: “Last night, Toronto District School Board Trustees voted to temporarily suspend the School Resource Officer (SRO) program for the start of the school year. The program will be suspended to allow for the TDSB to conduct a review of the program, its effectiveness, and hear from students from marginalized communities about their experiences with cops in schools.
“While this is not a full victory, this is an important step forward. After years of activism from groups like Education Not Incarceration (ENI), and the Latinx, Afro-Latin-America, Abya Yala Education Network (LAEN), the TDSB has undertaken a thorough review of the program to happen throughout the fall.
“Toronto Police Services Board are also conducting their own (questionable) review of the program. This review will be overseen by a committee comprised of TPS board chair, the Chief of Police, amongst others. We remain skeptical of any instance in which cops are reviewing other cops.
“It’s time to hear from students themselves about their experiences with police surveillance, criminalization, profiling, and their experiences with armed police officers in their classrooms. The work has only begun.”
Forty-six of the TDSB’s 113 high schools had student resources officers in 2016-2017, though one has since closed and three others suspended the program due to “schedule issues.”
Five schools have an officer assigned solely to them last year. The rest shared one or two officers with other TDSB and Toronto Catholic District School board institutions.
The SRO program has been in place since 2008, instituted in large part as a response to the murder of 15-year-old Jordan Manners, in the halls of C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute in North York.
As part of the TDSB’s review of the SRO program, the board’s research department will conduct a written survey of staff and students at participating schools.
Multicultural Meanderings 