Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1475004
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 31 JULY 2022 9 INTERVIEW them', in education dents from all sorts of different backgrounds and religious de- nominations – be they Muslim, Christian, atheist, black, white, immigrant, whatever: we have the whole lot – we felt we had to cater for all this diversity. Be- cause the alternative is to have all those different people coming in… and simply 'leaving them to their own devices'. So we decided to create a space, within the school, for this encounter to take place. It start- ed off two years ago – at a time when the new board didn't even exist; and when the rector him- self was only ever present at the school maybe once a week – and we obviously discussed the pro- gramme, extensively, in a num- ber of meetings beforehand. Hold on: who do you mean by 'we', now? We work in teams: and on this occasion, we put together a curriculum development team, which discussed the programme at length, and in detail. And the rector was always invited to at- tend those meetings. But he nev- er did. This is why I was puzzled, to be honest, that the rector claims that there were a number of ini- tiatives going on, that he himself 'knew nothing about'. Because there was certainly nothing 'se- cret' about what we were doing. It was all very public: two years of activities involving students, and parents… it was on our web- site; it was reported in the press, and so on. And yet: around eight months ago, [Fr Zahra] informed me that he didn't know anything about it all; and that he had been alerted by someone, external to the school, who objected to the idea. To this day, I still have no idea what the reason for this ob- jection even was… Do you have any idea where the objection came from? It seems to have stemmed from someone in the Curia; but I can't be more specific than that. Meanwhile, the board itself had only just been set up; and we had a meeting in which my deputy and I explained what we were doing, in detail, to its members. We then waited for around six months, for some kind of re- sponse… and by the end of it, we basically received a notification telling us that the programme had to stop. We were told to finish off the programme this year… and next year, 'forget it'. And we sought answers, nat- urally. Because we feel that this was not the way to treat profes- sionals, working in the field. We have, after all, been working in education for 30 years. So we feel we deserve answers, which are at least plausible: especial- ly considering the fact that this programme was very successful. And yet, it might even have been the very 'success' of your programme, that raised the alarm within the Curia to begin with. Out of curiosity: what ac- tually happened, in those class- room sessions, to elicit such a hostile reaction? Can you de- scribe a typical MEET session for us? To give you a rough idea: it was an inclusive programme, so all students – regardless of their denomination, ethnicity, etc. – would remain in class, and discuss different issues together. And it was flexible enough, to be able address individual issues as they arose. For instance: when there was a general election going on – with all the political fervour, and divi- siveness, that comes with it - we would avail of the opportunity to discuss stereotypes; prejudices; that sort of thing. And if some- thing happens in Palestine, for example; we would discuss that, too. Ultimately, however, the idea was to provide an encounter between different people; dif- ferent faiths; different perspec- tives, and ideas… and they [the administration] pulled the plug on it. And this is why I feel that the real reason for stopping the pro- gramme, cannot be the one we were officially given: i.e., simply because the rector 'didn't know about it'. Because to my mind, that is absolutely no justification whatsoever, for halting a pro- gramme like this. But it wasn't the only justifica- tion: there's still the part about 'insubordination'. Here, we have to make a distinction be- tween what is 'ethically right' (or wrong); and what is 'legally permissible', or otherwise. For instance: some people might argue that, even if Fr Zahra was 'wrong' (in the ethical sense) to sack you… it was still some- thing that fell within his remit to do, as your superior. How do you respond to that? Are you suggesting that there some- thing 'irregular' about your dis- missal? Yes, of course. Most definite- ly. Even because of the fact that the programme itself – if we just stick to 'MEET' for now – was actually just an extension of what the school ethos is all about. Ba- sically, the school ethos looks at four main areas: that 'we care'; 'we welcome everyone'; 'we seek fulfilment'; and 'we read, and change the world'… The latter is a 'Freirian' con- cept; lifted straight from the works of [Educational Philoso- pher] Paolo Freire. In a nutshell, the idea is to give children the right tools to be able to 'read' the world around them; and to 'transform' it, where necessary. Now: if the school ethos em- braces those four points – and the ethos itself, by the way, was drawn up collectively: also with the contribution of members of the Dominican Order itself – it is not 'in spite' of being a Catho- lic school… but precisely be- cause of it. As a Catholic school, we are in a fact obliged to uphold those four basic pillars; and MEET is essentially an extension of all this. But apart from the Catholic ethos itself, there is also the na- tional educational agenda: which is legally binding, on all schools. And one of the hallmarks of the national curriculum is, in fact, 'inclusion and diversity'… What you're talking about now calls to mind another pow- er-struggle unfolding in the background: that between the Church and State (especially insofar as education is con- cerned). For while the Catholic church retains ownership of its schools, most Church-school teachers today are, in fact, lay-people such as yourself… Yes, that is certainly correct. Could it be, then, that your own difficulties with Fr Aaron Zahra are simply a manifestation of the fact that the Catholic Church – as a whole - is struggling to retain control, in the face of an increasing 'laicisation' of its role in education? It's an interesting point you raise there: because it's some- thing that is being discussed even now, in educational cir- cles. I form part of the Catho- lic Schools Association, for instance; and part of our discus- sions was precisely about this. The number of religious people [in the teaching profession] is on the decline; and the number of lay teachers is on the rise. So the only way forward, in my view, is to 'do this together'. In this context, we can't afford to have an 'us versus them' men- tality; this cannot be reduced to a question of 'laity', versus 'reli- gious'. The only way we can ad- dress these challenges, as Catho- lic schools, is to 'do it together'. And that requires mutual trust, and respect. In fact, that is what we have all along been saying: 'please trust us'. We're on your side; we're your partners. So please, stop treating us like 'you're up there'… and 'we're down here'. Because at the end of the day, 'Faith' does not belong to any one particular group; it belongs to anyone who wants to partake of it. And what happened in our case, has reverberations in the wider picture as well. It has im- plications, for the Church's own message of 'inclusivity'…