Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1275149
13 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 2 AUGUST 2020 Should any school, like the Spanish Inquisition of old, take action against someone who espouses even publicly ideas that go against its ethos? Chris Vella, coordinator of Drachma LGBTI, is co-chair of the Global Network of Rainbow Catholics and lectures at Junior College OPINION Chris Vella Equality or inequality, discrimination or equity? A lot has been said about school 'ethos' and the parameters that define such an ethos and allow educators to work within that ethos, especially, if privately or publicly they may not adhere to that ethos. Should ethos play a role in the recruitment pro- cesses? And what, in one's private and public life, would be consid- ered as unacceptable 'practices' that an employer would deem as liable for disciplinary action? Should the school ethos deter- mine the content of the curric- ulum, how it is taught, and the textbooks? Could school ethos be used to forbid certain books to be in a school library, if they are found to spread ideas contrary to the principles expounded by that ethos? On the other hand, should the State impose a one-size-fits-all curriculum that straitjackets content and principles uncrit- ically? Should the State, through the implementation of any law, muzzle educators who would have to walk a tight-rope, lest they be accused of discrimi- nation, even through non-ver- bals? Do not schools have a right to their distinctive identi- ty? Do not parents have a fun- damental right to choose from the various schools the one that they feel is best for their children? Should any child have the power to throw out an accusa- tion of alleged discrimination against any educator and the onus of proof would be on the educator? Should the educator be considered automatically guilty unless proven innocent? An inclusive ethos An institution that is truly embracing would not have any problems with embracing peo- ple who are different, and have different opinions and views, subject to the very basic rule of mutual respect towards one another. An embracing ethos would allow discussion and the coming together of differ- ent views, however different from each other, and allowing all sides the possibility to pres- ent their views clearly and in mutual respect. An embracing ethos would welcome differ- ence of race, gender, sexuality and religion without any hin- drance and would celebrate the uniqueness of every diversity. It is one where an educator and a school can freely express their own values and celebrate them, but clearly, in full respect for other dissident values, even if these are embraced by others within the school (including educators) both privately and in public quarters. It does not need to muzzle another person's views, if the school manages to create a re- spectful environment that is built on dialogue, sharing of experiences, understanding, and a mutual search for the truth. It is only by learning to use the tool of discernment and apply- ing it critically and equitably to different points of view, that one understands better where the way of truth lies. Should any school, like the Spanish Inquisition of old, take action against someone who espouses even publicly ideas that go against its ethos? Well, for a first, there is a code of conduct for educators, that regardless of the school and its ethos, should be followed by all educators across the board. That code of conduct guides teachers in the way they dress and behave both on and off campus. But, if an educator is able to espouse his ideas with respect to others, and he does not in any way promote or encourage violence and does not under- mine the fundamental human rights of other persons, then, why should anyone stop him? Naturally, there are limits, and there is fundamental re- spect towards the other. This should not be anarchy, because it could undermine the funda- mental human rights of every person. Conscientious objection Much has been said about the 'right' of people to refuse to promote or implement an- ything that goes against their ethical and moral beliefs. Fine, in principle. In practice? What if my ethical beliefs are by their very nature exclusive, non-em- bracing, racist, misogynist or homophobic/transphobic? It is true that there exist 'pro- tected characteristics', but there is the very danger that with the implementation of a vaguely defined conscientious objection, those same 'pro- tected characteristics' would be overruled. Unless, that is, a very specific wording is adopt- ed that clearly delineates spe- cific scenarios where that right could be implemented. The problem is, that we may never completely know how people may try to interpret laws in the future. Something as objectively justified as a 'conscientious objection' may well be abused and manipulat- ed towards quite another end. History is replete with such intentional abuses of the letter of the law. How can we truly know if any school leader will not, in some distant future, use conscientious objection for a blanket whitewashing of the protections given by this Equality Bill? It is understandable, of course, and even legitimate, that the law should protect persons and entities from being forced to do anything that goes against their beliefs. Yet, one also needs to look at it from a different angle as well. There needs to be clear reas- surances that the fundamental human rights of the clients re- questing a service are respect- ed, especially if these servic- es are within their legitimate rights as regulated by law. The State must ensure that there are other viable and ac- cessible options, while the private institution must still ensure that the human dignity and rights of that person re- questing services from it are respected at all times, regard- less of whether it can or cannot provide that specific service. It gets a bit more complicat- ed where schools are involved. Can a school or a teacher refuse to teach a particular topic be- cause it goes against their ethi- cal and moral beliefs? Can they use the conscientious objection to legitimate their refusal? Once again, that is where an inclusive ethos can play a role. As educators we have no right to white-wash or even make in- visible realities that are in the world out there. As much as I might not agree with them, I cannot simply give the impression that they do not exist or they are simply wrong because I do not agree with them. That would be a disser- vice to truth. This brings us back to the problem of the conscientious objection. That we need a sys- tem of clear checks and balanc- es in an Equality law is funda- mental. No person's rights are abso- lute, if these end up undermin- ing the fundamental human rights of another person. Any Equality Law that tries to create absolute rights would become draconian and self-defeating in the long run. We would be cre- ating a witch-hunt or an illuso- ry and false understanding of 'rights' if individuals or institu- tions are allowed an 'absolute' in terms of their conscientious objection. So, what we really need – if this conscientious objection is to be included at all, is to have clear specific cases where it can be used. Otherwise, we might well be creating a mine- field that would render null and void all protections we are busily setting up in this Equal- ity Law. I look with hope at an equi- table society, where people all have a place and a role to play and who are inclusively em- braced. I look with hope towards a so- ciety that might not need con- scientious objection, because we really would know how to respect each other. Alas, that is not the real world for now. Instead, let us continue work- ing towards uprooting all forms of discrimination and embrace genuine inclusion. A better written Equality Law might help. But, let us not muzzle it too much.