On one side, the Stanislas high school, a private Catholic establishment under contract in the very chic 6th arrondissement of Paris. On the other, the Averroès high school, also a private Muslim establishment under contract located in Lille-Sud, in a priority district of the city’s politics. The two have in common that they are currently placed in the spotlight, suspected of practices not in conformity with the republican values which they are nevertheless required to respect. On January 19, a few days after the revelation of a report from the General Inspectorate of National Education denouncing certain “drifts” at the Stanislas high school, the Ile-de-France region announced that it would maintain its funding while awaiting decisions of the State. The City of Paris has suspended its contribution as a precautionary measure.
This Wednesday, January 24, the Lille administrative court will look into the case of the Averroès Muslim high school. On December 7, the prefect of the North, Georges-François Leclerc, decided to end the contract linking the high school to the State, thus ceasing public subsidy from the start of the 2024 school year, due to “serious failings”. Professor of history and geography Iannis Roder, director of the Education Observatory of the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, insists on “the importance of fairness” in the handling of these two cases. At the risk, otherwise, of giving credence to the thesis of the existence of a “culture of community” and “protection of the elites”.
L’Express: How does what the respective reports on these two establishments denounce seem problematic to you?
Iannis Roder: In the case of Averroès, the problems seem essentially linked to funding considered opaque for the high school but also to teaching which would not conform to what is expected of an establishment under contract with the Republic. For his part, the indictment of Stanislas would arise in particular from homophobic and sexist remarks made by regular speakers. If all these facts are proven, we can indeed speak of mistakes. Moreover, in the case of Stanislas, we can think that the fault has been recognized because the establishment no longer calls on these workers. Contracting with the State implies compliance with school programs but also with article 131-1 of the Education Code. However, this point of law clearly states that beyond knowledge, these institutions must share the values of the Republic.
You would like to warn of the importance of giving the same treatment to both of these two high schools. Why is this crucial?
Indeed, if the breaches observed are indeed of the same nature, no one could conceive in the Republic that they would not be similarly sanctioned. And if there is a difference in sanctions, it is appropriate to clearly motivate them at the risk of giving credence to the “double standards” that some would not fail to emphasize. We must not suggest, because this is not the case, that the Republic would treat citizens differently based on their religion. On the other hand, more and more voices are being raised to denounce a certain culture of mutuality and protection of elites. The Republic is of course equality, but it is also fairness. We must neither give in to the idea that the elites would protect themselves, nor encourage the discourse of victimization on which activists, particularly Islamists, surf in certain territories and on social networks.
The common point of these two cases is the weight of religion which would influence the teachings. Where does the freedom of private establishments under contract begin and end in this area?
Yes, this is a subject on which we must remain very vigilant because we know to what extent certain radical acceptances of religious dogmas can contravene republican values and principles. Gender equality is non-negotiable, as is the respect owed to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation, for example. Let us also remember that the Republic was partly built against the influence of these dogmas. Private educational establishments under contract do not have the mission of building a counter-society and undermining the values of the Republic.
The Stanislas high school is also accused of circumventing the rules of Parcoursup by favoring the access of its high school students to its preparatory classes. Is this a blow to the contract signed with the State?
In my opinion – if, again, the facts are proven – this is a serious fault which deserves to be sanctioned. We would clearly be dealing with a breakdown of equality here. In addition to having the freedom to select its students in primary and secondary schools, the Stanislas group would prevent other young people from accessing its preparatory classes who, as we know, obtain excellent results in the entrance exams. to the major schools. All this would once again corroborate and fuel the self-accusations. Let us remember that Stanislas benefits from substantial public funding and that this is the money of taxpayers who are not necessarily Catholic and who do not necessarily send their children to private school. However, our fellow citizens are increasingly attentive to what are seen as privileges that an elite reserves for itself and to what could appear as a form of dishonesty in these processes.
Are the controls of these contracted establishments sufficient?
There is not enough time for inspectors and the institution in general to ensure regular monitoring of all the schools, colleges and high schools in question. Usually, inspections of contracted establishments are triggered when there is a report or when a malfunction is more or less proven. However, I would say that the vast majority of private establishments under contract seem to meet the specifications. Which does not exclude potential slippages as in the case, according to reports from the General Inspectorate of National Education or the Regional Chamber of Accounts of Hauts-de-France, of the Stanislas and Averroès high schools.
.