“Law 2004: chronology and struggles against a racist and sexist law in education”. The title of this workshop, offered as part of a union training course at SUD Education 93 (Seine-Saint-Denis section) on January 24 and 25, is surprising. This position on the subject is a first for this far-left union. In recent years, its national representatives have been careful not to express themselves openly against the law of March 15, 2004 which prohibits the wearing of signs or outfits by which students ostensibly show a religious affiliation in schools, colleges and high schools. public.
“Our position has not changed, we are not demanding the repeal of this law”, specifies Jules Siran, federal co-secretary of SUD Education, to L’Express. “There can be debates within the framework of a training course, we can discuss a topical subject without deducing that it is for us a central theme”, continues- he. For Iannis Roder, professor of history and geography in Seine-Saint-Denis and member of the Council of Elders of Secularism, the title of this famous workshop is not without consequence. Interview.
L’Express: what does the title of this SUD Education 93 workshop mean to you?
Iannis Roder I am very surprised that this law, relating to the prohibition of the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols at school, can be described as “racist” and “sexist” – I would also remind you that it was passed in March 2004 by the vast majority of both chambers. But it is quite the opposite. Economist and sociologist Eric Maurin has demonstrated in a recent book, Three Lessons on the Republican School (Seuil, 2021), that this measure had been followed by an increase in the educational level of young girls of Muslim origin. They have been able to go further in their secondary and higher education, in particular thanks to this law which, by clarifying the rule prohibiting the wearing of the veil at school, has made it possible to ease tensions on the ground. I do not understand how a union, which certainly enjoys a relative representativeness at the national level, can endorse such a training workshop which reveals a certain drift.
Does the position of SUD Education 93 reflect the point of view of teachers on the subject?
A survey, carried out under the aegis of the Education Observatory that I direct within the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, shows that 94% of public teachers are now in favor of this 2004 law (compared to 76% when it was passed). This position of SUD Education is therefore not representative of what the teaching world thinks. Far from there. Those who consider this law “racist” and “sexist” are fortunately ultra-minority. I specify that union activists have the right to express themselves freely, to give their opinion on a law. The problem is not there. But the fact that this assertion is part of a training course raises the question: would the instructions given to their activists and members by the union representatives of SUD Education 93 be – I am careful not to use the conditional – not to enforce the law of the Republic in schools? This deserves a clear answer. There has not been a racist law in France since the Second World War. The law on the status of Jews, dated October 1940, was indeed a racist law, absolutely scandalous and anti-republican. No relation, obviously, with the law of 2004. If there is one for SUD Education, then the union must explain itself.
Professors who speak out openly against the 2004 law are therefore in the ultra-minority. Does this mean that this law is respected on the ground?
Overall, the law is well respected. Nevertheless, several recent examples show that it is not necessarily everywhere. Last year, two teachers from the Angela Davis high school in Saint-Denis (Seine-Saint-Denis) received a reprimand for refusing to have their signs “ostensibly manifesting a religious affiliation” removed from young girls in their classes.
Recently, a teacher contacted me to tell me that young girls, once passed the control at the entrance to the establishment, put the veil back inside without her colleagues finding fault. Also in the Paris region, a teacher took the side of a student who did not want to remove her veil during a school outing, clearly opposing the deputy headmaster who ordered him to do so. The motivations of these teachers who turn a blind eye diverge. In some cases, these are political positions. Which, once again, poses a problem when one is a civil servant of the Republic. But there may also be a compassionate dimension, the idea that the students in question are already victims of society and that it would be counterproductive and unfair to ask them to comply with this rule. A fault, in my opinion, which on the contrary serves the students.
Some establishments, particularly in the Paris region, would today be seen as bastions held by far-left unions. That is to say ?
It would seem that some militant professors are implementing regrouping strategies. They arrange to be transferred to the same establishment in order to create a local dynamic and to exert pressure more easily. This was the case at the Collège République de Bobigny where administrative transfers were ordered in order to thwart their project and allow the establishment to regain a certain serenity. A first !
I don’t know if these extreme left activists have any real power to influence their other colleagues. On the other hand, they are capable of intimidating in the staff room. They have a certain ability to speak up and instrumentalize groups. If they manage to impose themselves in this way, it is also because the rate of unionization of teachers is today relatively low, less than 30%. Many professors are in fact more distant from political questions or union involvement. Which perhaps allows these activists to occupy this place left vacant.