“The law on secularism is perceived as coercive by young people” – L’Express

A few days before the twenty anniversary of the law of March 15, 2004, which prohibits the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools, a new incident demonstrates that its application can cause tensions. On February 28, the principal of the Maurice-Ravel high school, located in the 20th arrondissement of Paris, reminded three students of the obligation to remove their veils within the high school. “One of them, an adult and studying in BTS, ignored the principal, which provoked an altercation,” the prosecution, which opened an investigation, told AFP. “Since these events, death threats against the principal have been noted online. The national center for the fight against online hatred has taken up this part,” explained the public prosecutor. The investigations also relate to two complaints filed respectively by the student, who accuses the head of the establishment of violence, and by the principal for “act of intimidation towards a person participating in the execution of a public service mission for obtain an exemption from the rules governing this service”. On the morning of March 1, the entrance to the school complex was blocked with trash cans by several dozen young people, displaying a banner “student beaten, high school blocked.”

Iannis Roder, professor of history and geography in Seine-Saint-Denis, director of the Education Observatory at the Jean-Jaurès Foundation and member of the Council of Elders of Secularism, has just signed a book entitled Preserve secularism. 20 years of the 2004 law (editions of L’Observatoire) to be published on March 6. An extremely documented work in which he examines, with his co-authors Alain Seksig and Milan Sen, the events at the origin of the law, notably the Creil scarves affair in 1989. For L’Express, Iannis Roder looks back on the way in which the 2004 law is perceived by young people and the misunderstandings that remain today.

L’Express: Does the incident which affected the Maurice-Ravel high school in Paris surprise you?

Iannis Roder: Absolutely not. In general, when you approach the issue of banning signs or clothing ostensibly displaying religious affiliation in schools, the first reaction from students is incomprehension. Their feeling is that the application of this rule would be a form of coercion which would deprive young people of being what they want to be and wearing what they want to wear. Even if it is rare for these protests to lead to the type of outburst observed at the Maurice-Ravel high school, these provocations against the institution exist. We remember the similar affair which affected the Charlemagne high school two years ago, when young girls spoke out against the ban on wearing the abaya, which led to threats against a senior education advisor. The process is often the same: bringing the controversy to social networks even if it means making false accusations of verbal or physical violence on the part of teachers or management staff. We are faced with an exploitation which aims to victimize itself and to demonstrate that the school and therefore the Republic would go against respect for religious freedom, that of Muslims in particular.

Isn’t this young generation, particularly sensitive to the notion of freedom and the fight against all forms of injustice, at risk of unwillingly serving the cause of those who seek to destabilize schools?

The fact that young people are so open and tolerant is a priori good news. The problem is that they often only think in terms of individuals and not in terms of a political community. They forget that our Republic has chosen rules and principles, in particular that of secularism whose main virtue is to guarantee social peace. This lack of knowledge and incomprehension that young people have stems from several factors, notably the very strong influence of the Anglo-Saxon model. American soft power, extremely powerful and conveyed by music, series, lifestyles, spreads this idea that individual religious beliefs must be protected by the State. This model gives rise to a communitarian society. Recent events have demonstrated that in the United Kingdom and the United States, some people now seem to be aware of the limits of this model.

Which ones?

I am referring to what is happening today in the American town of Hamtramck, Michigan, which has welcomed many Muslim migrants in recent years and which, in the name of tolerance and religious freedom, has allowed certain ideas or principles contrary to the notions of equality and freedom to take hold and persist. Today, the Hamtramck City Council is made up entirely of Muslim men who have taken to imposing certain rules such as banning the use of the LGBT flag. For many citizens who did not see this danger coming, it is a cold shower.

In France, those under 25 in particular are not necessarily aware of this pitfall…

Indeed, many young people, very attached to this liberal vision which says that everyone must be able to be what they want to be – whether they are binary or non-binary, practicing or not practicing their religion – do not seem to be aware contradictions that can emerge. They do not necessarily realize that other comrades, imbued with sometimes radical religious beliefs, can convey visions of the world that are in reality reactionary and opposed to the values ​​of tolerance that they advocate. The role of the school is precisely to help them open their eyes to these contradictions and to explain the advantages that our model offers compared to others. This is what I strive to do when I work in schools.

How do you proceed?

I approach the subject by returning to the models applied in other countries, whether the United States, the United Kingdom, but also Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh or Tunisia for example. I explain how the different systems in these countries influence religious, educational, social or family issues, often based on real facts. In particular, I tell the story of this Iraqi student who, in her country, was never called by her first name but only by her nickname: “The Christian”. On her arrival in France, this young girl agreed to testify and had this very strong sentence: “I would like to thank secularism because it gave me back my first name.” I also give the example of this other teenager who recently arrived from Cameroon: “I was not allowed to be me and I had to give the illusion that I was a believer like everyone else,” he says. Before adding: “When I arrived in France, I was fascinated to see that no one talked about religion in class or asked how many times we pray a day.” All these testimonies speak to the students. Many confide to me that they did not realize the consequences that the absence of secularism and the application of other models of organization of society can have on daily life.

During these interventions, you also return to the role of the 2004 law which prohibits the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols at school.

Yes, I of course raise the subject and I explain, as we do in our book, that this law was designed to protect individuals from possible pressures. I also insist on the fact that, even if the French system is based on the protection of individual freedoms, signs of religious affiliation have the effect of constantly reminding us where we come from. In this, they do not give us the right to be “different from our difference” as stipulated in the call “Teachers let us not capitulate” launched in 1989 by the intellectuals Elisabeth Badinter, Régis Debray, Alain Finkielkraut, Elisabeth de Fontenay and Catherine Kintzler. The whole point of the 2004 law is precisely to allow us to envisage a liberation from what we are told we must be. This does not prevent freedom of worship and it is in no way a ban on practicing one’s religion since this principle is only exercised within the framework and during school time. Secularism ensures freedom of conscience as well as it guarantees freedom of worship. By presenting it in this way, as an asset rather than a constraint, and by demonstrating pedagogy, teachers have every chance of being heard and understood by the young people they have in front of them.