The latest figures, on the rise, remind us of the importance of not letting our guard down. On May 7, Pap Ndiaye indicated that around 500 cases of attacks on secularism had been recorded last March. “There is always a rise, each year, at the time of Ramadan”, he advanced to justify this peak. A few weeks earlier, the Minister of National Education had overhauled the Council of Elders of Secularism by broadening its scope to the fight against racism and anti-Semitism, by modifying its operating rules and by carrying out new appointments, one of which, that of political scientist Alain Policar, is particularly controversial.
Several fierce defenders of the principle of secularism at school see it as an attempt to stifle this body created by Jean-Michel Blanquer in 2018. In this interview with L’Express, Elisabeth Badinter in turn steps up to the plate and denounces the “contradictory attitude” of the Minister of National Education on these questions of secularism. The philosopher returns, more generally, to the factors of disintegration of a public school which fails to defend its principles and its values.
L’Express: The principle of secularism at school has been strongly questioned in recent months between the case of the abayas, the reorganization of the Council of Elders of Secularism, and several polls and surveys pointing to the divisions that cross the teaching world. Does the situation worry you?
Elisabeth Badinter: All these events confirm the following observation: in forty years, the situation has been completely reversed. At that time not so long ago, we had a school that functioned much better, that posed no problems, and that aimed to instruct and eliminate all that was personal and intimate. Politics and religion had no place there. Until the affair of the young veiled girls in Creil, in the Oise, broke out in 1989. From then on, and while no one complained, our secular model began to be attacked by outside and bowed in the name of a so-called “tolerance” towards each other’s beliefs.
The situation has continued to deteriorate since. Republican secularism, which we have known for more than a century, is today treated as “combat”, “aggressive” and “intolerant” secularism by many intellectuals, academics and even college and of high schools. All this is part of a broader movement and in a contemporary context that advocates benevolent education. This new form of education, even if it had positive effects, contributed by its excesses to the decline of the public school since refusing something to a child or a teenager has, little by little, become unacceptable. The observation is that we have not succeeded in defending our principles, that the school is collapsing for lack of authority, and the best trained teachers are reluctant to come and teach there.
Principles of secularism but also of authority therefore…
Yes, that is to say everything that made the quality of the public school. Which, in the past, far surpassed the private sector in the minds of a large majority of parents. Once again, we can clearly see that the situation has changed, and not only for questions of religion or belief. Even if, from the moment when we started to abandon our values, certain enemies of our model like the Islamist militants took advantage of it to push their pawns. This has given rise to various controversies. I am thinking in particular of these young girls who, in the name of their religion, refuse to go to the swimming pool, but also of all these disputes over courses or lessons linked, for example, to Darwin’s theory. Beliefs are undermining rational reasoning and knowledge and we end up tolerating the intolerable. All of these factors cause our school to plummet in international rankings. Everyone recognizes that our school system is at the end of its tether. Alas, the political leaders who follow one another are content to brandish a few reforms as band-aids or chain announcements that contradict each other.
Precisely, Minister Pap Ndiaye recently announced the extension of the scope of the Council of Elders of Secularism to the fight against racism and anti-Semitism. The operating rules of this body, which goes from 15 to 20 members, have also been modified. Is this a way of strengthening or weakening its action?
To weaken it, very clearly! The fact that the Council of Elders of Secularism no longer has, in principle, the power to seize itself, and that referral no longer belongs to the Minister, constitutes, in my opinion, a considerable setback. It can make him impotent. School leaders, who were already struggling to raise their grievances, risk giving in even more to the famous “no waves” which persists within National Education. Quite frankly, I did not expect this attempt at suffocation at all. The arrival of certain new personalities also risks breaking the beautiful unity that prevailed between the 15 initial members of the Council. Bringing in a sociologist for whom our model of secularism must be inspired by the Anglo-Saxon system is particularly deleterious because his ideas will clash head-on with the convictions of his new colleagues.
“In the past, the religion or the origin of the pupils was not a subject”
You are referring to the political scientist Alain Policar whose ideas indeed seem very far from the universalist line that you defend. The latter recently returned to the platform “Profs, let’s not capitulate!” that you had signed with other intellectuals, in The new observer, at the time of the Creil scarves affair in 1989. He accuses you of having defended “a fetishized Republic, inattentive to the persistence of discrimination”…
But it’s completely insane to say that. I would even say that it is disgusting! As a former philosophy teacher in Limeil-Brévannes (Val-de-Marne), I can assure you that at the time, primary school, middle school and high school were not at all affected by these problems of racism and anti-Semitism that this sociologist denounces. The school framework was a place of union and not of claiming its differences, where the teacher, whose figure was respected, endeavored to transmit a common culture to students, admittedly sometimes of diverse origins or religions. But in any case we didn’t know anything about it, it really wasn’t a subject. And we were very far from the permanent conflicts that we know today.
The 2004 law prohibiting the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols at school is one of the current subjects of controversy. Why is this law so misunderstood today, especially by part of the teaching world?
Even if this may seem to you a priori a bit far from the subject, this rejection of the 2004 law joins this obsession with tolerance that I mentioned at the beginning of our interview. “I think and dress as I want and I demand that you respect it”… This is the current leitmotif of many young people with the acquiescence of this new generation of teachers aged under 35. In the name of this famous benevolent education, the parents got it into their heads that they had to avoid the slightest frustration for their children at all costs. Yet learning the law goes hand in hand with frustration.
“Many teachers prefer to self-censor”
To be someone more or less balanced, you must certainly be able to benefit from the benevolence of those around you, without however doing without this frustration which is in a way the second pillar of education. Instead, we tend to fall into a form of pathological individualism. To return to the law of 2004: some strong voices are heard today to defend it. Unfortunately, I have the impression that we are becoming a minority compared to those who put forward this famous concept of “open” or “tolerant” secularism. The fact of adding these positive adjectives is a lure, a way of deceiving minds: for me, this model is the opposite of republican secularism that we should endeavor to preserve and defend.
A recent survey, conducted among headteachers, shows that, in secondary school, 43% of those who had to deal with students wearing outfits with a religious connotation, did not report it to the institution. An eloquent figure…
This can be explained by the fear of being badly marked by his superiors or of having to face the remarks of certain teachers who consider that outfits, such as abayas, are not of a religious nature. The Islamists have a political finesse that we don’t have, they know how to wait for the right moment to act and rush into our loopholes. The fact that the public school appears so divided on this issue is one.
“My hand is not shaking on questions of secularism,” said Pap Ndiaye last October at the time of the abaya affair… a few months before considering the fate of the Council of Elders of Secularism. What are his true beliefs?
One day, Pap Ndiaye affirms his will to defend public schools and their principles at all costs. The next day, the opposite is expressed. This contradictory attitude, this famous “at the same time”, can only generate a stationary situation. I do not hide from you that his appointment, which symbolizes a 180 degree turn compared to the action carried out by his predecessor Jean-Michel Blanquer, surprised me a lot. It is obvious that these two personalities defend diametrically opposed opinions. Let’s not forget that in September 2022, Pap Ndiaye made no secret of his convictions during a trip to the United States, in particular to the prestigious University of Washington. His speech appeared, rightly or wrongly, as a critique of our secular public school. I found that quite inappropriate.
The assassination of Samuel Paty in 2020 marked a turning point. In addition to the difficulties of the teaching profession, there is the fear of possible reprisals from certain religious communities, or the fear of being accused of being Islamophobic by students or even colleagues…
Let’s not forget the parents who no longer hesitate to step up when they believe that their child is unfairly evaluated by his teachers. A consumerist attitude that continues to gain ground. Yes, of course, since the assassination of Samuel Paty, we know that a teacher can become a target. This is why I am convinced that many prefer to censor themselves, close their eyes or keep silent when faced with certain breaches of secularism. Which can be understood because being accused of being Islamophobic on social networks can be very expensive. For my generation, becoming a teacher was a dream. A real dream! Today, it is difficult to find volunteers, so much so that we are starting to organize speed dating to recruit people who have never taught. This says a lot about the loss of attractiveness of the profession.
Your observation is harsh. How to make the school finally go up the slope?
It would take tremendous courage from society as a whole, a strong political conviction like that of Blanquer, principles anchored in the body, to carry out this intellectual fight. I speak well of fight because the role of the school is obviously essential. This cannot be done without the support of the whole society. Alas, I must admit that I am quite pessimistic. When I see that a good part of the left finds itself embroiled in this long tumble, shows itself complicit in all this by believing itself to be on the right side of the barrier, it saddens me… I have the impression, once again, to be part of a minority camp and that the rising generations gradually strive to undo this treasure that we had in our hands. I sincerely hope I am wrong.