Thinly-veiled bigotry

50 thoughts on Thinly-veiled bigotry

1. I hate that these religious battles continue to be fought on the territory of women’s bodies. Either way, it’s about telling women what they can and can’t wear. I actually really like a headscarf from a purely fashion perspective (and sometimes I just have bad hair days!), but would feel uncomfortable wearing one here or anywhere else, because people will make assumptions about me. And it’s not that I fear being “mistaken for muslim”, but it’s become a stigmatized aspect of appearance like a short skirt or tattoo can be.

   So would they fire anyone else for covering their head? Or just muslim women?

2. I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with this. I would not want my child in a class that is taught by a teacher whose face cannot be seen. Think about it–how is a child supposed to feel? Have you ever had an extended conversation with someone wearing a niqab? It is much harder to pick up on social cues . . . is she happy or unhappy with what I am saying? This sort of visual feedback is extremely important to children.

   This isn’t even ever done in the Arab/Islamic world, where there is ONLY single sex education. Throughout their education from kindergarten up through their university education, all students see their teachers’ face.

   Children need to see the teacher’s face, much of how we communicate is done that way. If this teacher wants to teach in a co-ed environment (which she would never even think of in a country governed by Sharia–and it should be remembered, that the veil is an aspect of Sharia, that is it is not “necessarily” mandated according to the Quran) she should adapt to what the CHILDREN need. If my child were assigned to that teacher’s class, I would raise holy hell about it either to get the teacher or my child out of the class.

   This is a very different issue than the headscarf, which is worn by some teachers in NYC schools, for instance.

3. I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with this. I would not want my child in a class that is taught by a teacher whose face cannot be seen. Think about it–how is a child supposed to feel? Have you ever had an extended conversation with someone wearing a niqab? It is much harder to pick up on social cues . . . is she happy or unhappy with what I am saying? This sort of visual feedback is extremely important to children.

   Just out of curiosity, would you oppose your child being taught by someone with a facial deformity?

   This isn’t even ever done in the Arab/Islamic world, where there is ONLY single sex education. Throughout their education from kindergarten up through their university education, all students see their teachers’ face.

   This is true in every Arab/Islamic country? Then what about places like Afghanistan, where the burqa was mandatory? Girls cannot usually be taught by men in very conservative countries — what did they do?

   Oh, right, they just didn’t educate their girls. That’s a lot better.

4. And further, wearing the headscarf or a facial covering only matters in a mixed-sex situation. The reason that many female teachers don’t wear their headcoverings in class in conservative countries is because they’re teaching all-female classrooms. But this issue is happening in England, where classes are mixed-sex. Should the teacher really be fired for this?

5. I agree that there’s too much backlash against Muslims, and particularly Muslim women (in large part because it’s easy to see the veil) in the UK and Europe.

   However, access to facial expression and all of the facial cues that we call “lip reading” is extremely important in learning a language, particularly for students who are deaf, hard of hearing, or apraxic (and many of these students are mainstreamed). So is it appropriate to take a job teaching such a class if you are going to wear a veil?

   That said, I’d like to know how long she’s worked for the school and what prompted the current reaction – I don’t doubt there’s some prejudicial elements involved.

6. The children complained about this teacher because they couldn’t hear her voice which was muffled by the veil. They were immigrant children learning English as a second language and they couldn’t understand her. I think Kirklees Council have a fair point. She’s not just wasting public money, she’s wasting these kids time, by slowing down their acquisition of English, without which they aren’t going to benefit from the rest of their education.

7. It’s the people who see a veiled woman and make certain assumptions: Unworthy of public participation. Uneducated. Silenced. Lacking authority.

   Dunno quite how this observation might apply in the case of the veil, but most of the Muslim women I’ve known who wear a scarf are quite educated and certainly not silenced or lacking authority — indeed, the Muslim women I know who wear a scarf do so as much as a gesture of independence (e.g. from assimilationist minded parents, etc.) as anything else.

8. Look, here’s the background. The school were perfectly happy with Ms Azimi wearing the veil in the corridors and communal areas. They just asked her to remove it while actually teaching the children, who were aged from 6-11. Here’s more.

9. I always have mixed feelings about the veil. On the one hand, I’m not into telling women what they can or cannot wear. But on the other, the reasoning behind it is so infuriating: religion and sexism teamed up, once again.

   I don’t know that her teaching children who maybe aren’t used to the veil is that great an idea. (Or teaching any children, for that matter: I imagine her peripheral vision is pretty limited and that’s got to be some sort of safety hazard.) As a little kid, I might have been freaked out if my teacher was masked all the time. Hell, I’m a little freaked out a little bit as an adult when people are veiled: it’s like a wall between you. It impedes bonding and generally makes me want to keep interaction to a minimum. Not because of the idealogy behind it, but becase I can’t see her face and it’s awkward.

10. Pardon me, just realized this was more about the veil than headscarf.

    This is definitely a problem where a religious belief is conflicting with an occupational requirement – something which is kind of analagous to pharmacists refusing to dispense EC. Should someone really be in the job in the first place if it somehow will clash with their beliefs?

    I’m still uncomfortable with this in the context of related news, and the whole idea that these battles should be over women’s bodies, though.

11. I’m wondering if it would be useful to apply the “reasonable accomodation” standard that’s used in the U.S. with regards to disabled people. If your religious practice seriously affects your fundamental ability to do your job, that’s a problem. If it merely makes people uncomfortable or requires some extra effort from your employer, then religious freedom trumps. Does that make sense?

12. Also, I think you have to differentiate between the merits of this particular case and the discussion around it. It may be that this teacher’s veil was interfering with her ability to do her job. But I just can’t believe, given all the long history of discussions of the veil and its implications, that the discussion is really only about whether her students could understand their teacher.

13. This is definitely a problem where a religious belief is conflicting with an occupational requirement – something which is kind of analagous to pharmacists refusing to dispense EC. Should someone really be in the job in the first place if it somehow will clash with their beliefs?

    The difference is, pharmacists who refuse to dispense EC are refusing to do their jobs. This woman is in no way refusing to perform the duties of her occupation. She simply wants permission to dress in her traditional religious clothing while doing it.

14. Pingback: Expecting Muslim Employees to Do Their Job: “Bigotry” « Creative Destruction

15. True, she is trying to do her job – and I wonder to what exent the communication difficulties do exist – but apparently not doing it to a standard or requirement that is universally expected. They’ll let her wear what she wants in any other work-related situation, though.

16. This woman is in no way refusing to perform the duties of her occupation.

    Ok, but I’ve been reading a lot of educational theory recently in an attempt to become a less-inept teacher, and one of the things that education scholars stress is that you should take a student-centered, rather than teacher-centered approach. That is to say that you shouldn’t just focus on what you’re teaching. You should focus on what the students are learning. You can be teaching wonderful stuff, but if they aren’t learning anything, you’re a failure as a teacher. If you give a wonderfully complex and nuanced lecture and your students don’t retain any of it, you’re not an effective teacher.

    So I’m not that concerned about whether she’s “performing the duties of her occupation,” if she’s not doing that in a way that makes it possible for students to learn. To me, the duties of a teacher’s occupation involve making sure students learn what they need to, not going through the motions of teaching.

    (Of course, you need to have reasonable expectations about what students can learn in a given period of time, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.)

17. I don’t think it’s fair to describe Woolas as a social conservative. I also think that’s a particularly ironic way insult to throw at him while sticking up for a women who has medieval views on sex segregation.

    I also think he’s right. Wearing a veil hampers her ability to do her job. It makes it particularly difficult for children who are hard of hearing. Her job’s teaching children, and I do think interaction and being able to see someone’s face is very important there.

    There also is a sex discrimination issue here. She providing a public service: women get one treatment from her (a face-to-face conversation), men get another (a conversation with someone whose eyes are showing). The same applies to people she works with. That strikes me as clearly discriminatory. Look at it from the perspective of men, would you feel comfortable if your boss took that view?

    I’m really suprised when feminists stick up for conservative islamic practices. One old feminist complain is that men socialising together outside of work – say on the golf course – excludes women. I can’t see how you can condemn something like that and maintain total silence at really egregious violations of equal treatment in the workplace; like someone who won’t let a man look at her face. Would you be happy with your boss refusing to shake your hand and having miminal contact with you while working very closely with your male co-workers?

    P.S. Did Woolas stand up for a woman’s right to wear a (visible) cross necklace? The article you like to cites Peter Hain as saying that, not Woolas.

18. P.S. Did Woolas stand up for a woman’s right to wear a (visible) cross necklace? The article you like to cites Peter Hain as saying that, not Woolas.

    Whoops, you’re right, I mis-read it. Thanks for pointing that out, I’ll fix it in the post.

19. There also is a sex discrimination issue here. She providing a public service: women get one treatment from her (a face-to-face conversation), men get another (a conversation with someone whose eyes are showing).

    That hardly constitutes sex discrimination. Is it sex discrimination that in many office environments, men get one treatment (a conversation with someone whose legs are showing ) and women get another (a conversation with someone whose legs are covered)? I really don’t think so.

    The discrimination issue would come into play if one group of people were required to wear a particular item of clothing. Here, no one is being required to wear anything — this woman just wants the right to wear her religious clothing to her job. If other people freak out at the sight of a veiled woman, that’s their problem.

20. Of course I would not object to my child being taught by a woman with a facial deformity! Anyway, I would assume that if a person is able to speak (necessary for teaching and caring for children) she has the capacity for some kind of facial expression. It is not at all the same thing as a blank, black mask.

    In Afghanistan, all schools are segregated according to sex. Women who wear full burkas while on the streets remove them while they are teaching girls of all ages. Men do not teach girls or women, otherwise the girls would have to veil in front of the men. No one in the Islamic world thinks that it is a good thing for either teachers or students to veil their faces all day long. Women are supposed to be indoors, segregated from men and not mixing at all.

    Take a look at countries like Iran (though NO one covers the face there) or Saudi Arabia where most women areforced) to cover their face (and eyes) with the niqab (btw–until about 20 yrs ago, a niqab or face covering was virtually unheard of outside KSA–it has become popular due to the enormous infusion of Saudi money and values into mosques throughout the world ) and schools are strictly segregated according to sex. But men teach boys and women teach girls in strictly seperated segregated situations. In fact, the rational/reason that women in KSA are not allowed to work in many occupations (such as retail even!!! There is not one single woman working in retail in KSA for this reason!) is because it is recognized that the niqab does interfer with mobiilty and vision. And since it is unthinkable for a woman to remove her veil in front of a man, she cannot work in those occupations.

    I want to emphasize that I don’t have a problem with a woman who choses to wear a niqab per se (but let us not fool ourselves, there are millions of women who do not have a choice; even in places like the UK where they face exile from their families if they don’t conform, thus they “chose” their families over their personal preference). But there are certain occupations in which it is not appropriate, such as teaching, nursing or other kinds of medicine in which emphasizes communication for the good of the patient/student.

    The headscarf is a completely different matter. It, in itself, does not interfer with any of this.

    Also, it is worth noting that many people make religious choices which mean that their ability to “mix” with the dominant culture is limited. Clothing, dress, ritual holidays etc. Not just muslims. At some point, it is up to the individual, is it more important to be a part of the mainstream or to be faithful to their religion.

21. Just read up some more on this: It appears that the school tried to bend over backwards to accomodate her and asked her to remove her veil when actually working with children (6-12 yrs) and she refused!!!!

    “She was asked to remove her veil only when in direct contact with children, a request that is utterly reasonable.

    “I fully support the education authority and school on this matter.

    “As individuals, all women have the right and freedom to wear what they wish, and rightly so, be it a veil, a mini-dress or a gorilla suit.

    “However, in certain occupations there are dress codes which employees are expected to adhere to while at work.

    “All right-minded people – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – will agree that in asking a classroom assistant not to wear a veil while in contact with children because it hinders their learning is perfectly acceptable and just common sense.

    “It is an uncomfortable situation but the education authority has acted responsibly and sensibly.”

    Mr Malik said he had sympathy with Miss Azmi, but at the end of the day the main focus in schools had to be the interests of the children. Their learning must always come first.

    “The role of a teaching assistant is to do exactly that, to assist in a child’s education.

    “But when your style of dress limits your ability to carry out your role then the welfare and education of the children must come first.”

22. Jill, I really don’t understand your example.

    In the UK, direct sex discrimination is when a woman is treated less favourably than a man in similar circumstances because of her sex. It’s illegal. It also applies the other way around (where men are treated less favourable than women). I think talking to women face-to-face but men only through a veil is pretty obviously a breach.

    http://www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=15376

23. Also, it is worth noting that many people make religious choices which mean that their ability to “mix” with the dominant culture is limited. Clothing, dress, ritual holidays etc. Not just muslims. At some point, it is up to the individual, is it more important to be a part of the mainstream or to be faithful to their religion.

    That’s true, I guess, but I think that most members of religious minorities find some sort of compromise, rather than going with either extreme. It’s important to me to be true to my religion and to participate in mainstream society, and I’m not willing to choose one or the other. And I think it’s a whole hell of a lot easier for us to find compromises that work when the dominant culture doesn’t treat us like suspects and has some respect for the struggles and issues we face.

24. But there has to be some sort of negative consequence from the discrimination, yes? I’m not sure how speaking through a veil in any way negatively effects men.

    My point was that in office environments, there is one class of people whose lower bodies are always completely covered (men, who only wear pants). There is another class of people whose lower bodies are sometimes completely covered, and sometimes aren’t (women, who may wear skirts or pants). Is that discrimination, because men are allowed to look at a woman’s legs but women can’t look at a man’s legs in the office? Similarly, is it discrimination if a woman can look at a man’s full face, but a man cannot look at a woman’s full face?

25. Pingback: Feministe » Why the Headscarf Debate Matters

26. I think that, while the headscarf debate does matter (I skimmed your most recent article), this particular instance does not really fit in there… because it’s not so much about the headscarf/veil itself, as it is about the impact of her use of it on the children. And school is supposedly for and about the children.

    I noticed some time ago that I couldn’t hear as well without my glasses… even though my hearing is perfectly fine. But I tended to look at people’s lips and how they form their words and so on while they are speaking, so I didn’t actually rely on hearing so much as I did sight. Now that I am aware of doing that, I’ve tried to change that little quirk (and I’ve done pretty well… I can understand people just the same now even if they are blurry while speaking).

    For these children (and they ARE children, the oldest 11), learning a new language in the first place, to not be able to see the lips of the teacher can definitely be detrimental (and apparently is, according to the article).

    Her responsibility is to the children, as that is what she is there for, and that is where the focus should be, in my opinion. And, like I feel should be the case with the pharmacists, if her religion conflicts with her ability to do her job, and works to the detriment of those she is supposed to be helping, then she should consider switching jobs.

27. but I think that most members of religious minorities find some sort of compromise, rather than going with either extreme. It’s important to me to be true to my religion and to participate in mainstream society, and I’m not willing to choose one or the other.

    This is very true. But it requires the capacity to compromise, which is why the ultra-orthodox Jews of NYC are well integrated into some aspects tteh culture (such as working in medical feilds) and the Chasids are not. Tibetan Monks don’t get jobs as bar tenders. Neither do Muslims for that matter. The Amish don’t work at Wal Mart.

    This woman (or I suspect, her husband) wants to have it both ways. If she REALLY wants to be an English teacher, then she should be willing to remove her face veil for the sake of the children.

    BTW–it is important to understand the “symbolism” of the niqab vs the headscarf. Women who wear the headscarf by choice will usually tell you that it gives them more freedom , they are protected from many (but not all) forms of sexual harrassment. Now whether or not this is true is not what is relevant, because that is what they believe. They wear it because they feel it provides them with the ability to move more freely in public life; thus you have women in headscarfs doing literally any job a secular woman can do. The purpose of the niqab is the opposite; women who wear it are not even supposed to speak to men who are not mahram (related). (which makes me wonder who she could have a male boss–the whole thing is so bizarre)

    And it has the effect of putting the person who is not wearing it at a disadvantage–it is very unerving to try to have a “real” conversation with someone you cannot see (and human beings are genetically programed as are many other animals to rely on visual cues when communicating), which is why women remove them when they are around other women and children under a certain age (which can vary from 6 – 12). We all know that if we want to know were a person is “really” coming from, we look at their face. If a person says they are happy but their facial expression and tone of voice says sad, we decide they are sad. Children are even more cued into these kinds of visual signals than adults.

    No, there is no way I would want my child to be taught by a woman or a man with a mask on his or her face.

28. This reminds me of a controversy from back when I was attending school at a major state University– graduate student TAs, often from foreign countries, taught intro sections of math and science. The TAs got no training as teachers and often they had quite thick accents. The people taking the classes began to object that it was difficult for them to learn because they couldn’t understand the TAs, especially not in 200-student lecture halls where there was no ability to see the TA’s face to try to get to know the accent better.

    The entire issue got turned into accusations that dissatisfied students were ” just threatened by a foreign body/foreign accent in a position of authority (or at all)” rather than what it mostly was (IMHO) which was “it’s hard enough to learn Calculus at 8 in the morning when the TA is intelligible to me.”

    Also FWIW I do have friends who lip-read most of the time, and even bad lighting can be enough to make them feel shut out of the conversation.

    The larger question in both cases is: what, and whom, does the public enterprise of school serve, and how do we balance that? Is school entirely set up to service the learning of the students? Should school also strive to broaden the perspective of school participants (students and parents and employees and etc) and the community more generally? Should school aim to provide opportunities for participation and employment to larger segments of the population? Granted that it is important for the students to learn, for the students, teachers, etc to see and be around people of cultures different from their own, and for people of different sartorial/religious imperatives to be full participants in society… but given that there will be cases where these three factors cannot be entirely reconciled, which trumps which?

29. Also re the issue of whether girls are educated in Afghanistan. The issue was NEVER whether men would be allowed to teach girls, because they never have and likely won’t in the foreseeable future, but whether or not women are allowed to teach girls. In Saudi Arabia, for example, teaching is one of the very few career opportunities available to women, because women teachers are needed to teach girls.

30. Ruth:

    Granted that it is important for the students to learn, for the students, teachers, etc to see and be around people of cultures different from their own, and for people of different sartorial/religious imperatives to be full participants in society… but given that there will be cases where these three factors cannot be entirely reconciled, which trumps which?

    From what I understand, there was agreement that she could wear the veil outside of the classrooms, in the halls, lunchrooms and wherever, just not inside the class while teaching the students.

    To me, this would serve to satisfy both things… introducing children to other cultural/religious etc practices, and allowing the ESL children to get the full benefit of their education by having them be able to actually see the teachers lips.

31. Jill;

    I think there is a difference between a normal face-to-face conversation, and one had through a mask. If you don’t see that, I’m not sure I can convince you of it though.

    Is that discrimination, because men are allowed to look at a woman’s legs but women can’t look at a man’s legs in the office? Similarly, is it discrimination if a woman can look at a man’s full face, but a man cannot look at a woman’s full face?

    I find this analogy really bizarre. I’m not claiming it’s discrimination because men don’t wear veils, so women can look then in the face; but women do, so men can’t; so women get to look people in the face more. That’s just odd.

    I’m saying it’s discrimination because men do get treated differently by this woman, in the same situation, because of their sex. Women get a normal conversation, men don’t. It’s certainly different treatment, and it’s certainly because of their sex. That why I think it’s discriminatory.

    With the trouser thing no-one is treated differently to anyone else. You can’t look at my legs if I wear trousers, but neither can men in the same position. So you can’t complain that I’m discriminating against you based on your sex. Similarly, if you wear a skirt I can look at your legs, but women are in the same position. So you’re not discriminating against them either. This woman clearly is discriminating against people: men get one treatment, women another.

32. When I was taught French as a child, part of the process involved the teacher showing us how to physically shape our mouths to make sounds that were foreign to us. I see how a veil would hinder that part of the process.

    Personally, I see the veil as a symbol of oppression. But we can’t drag people into the 21st century against their will. If a woman wants to wear it, fine. But we should not have to further lower the standards of education to accommodate a teacher’s religious beliefs.

33. The kids aren’t exactly reacting to a different culture here, because most of the kids at the school come from South Asian backgrounds with a mixed bunch of smaller ethnic groups (according to Ofsted). Ms Azimi is of Pakistani origin herself I believe, and although niqab is not a Pakistani tradition, it’s pretty common in the Pennine towns nowadays. Some of the kid’s mums are also niqabi.

34. Dunno quite how this observation might apply in the case of the veil, but most of the Muslim women I’ve known who wear a scarf are quite educated and certainly not silenced or lacking authority — indeed, the Muslim women I know who wear a scarf do so as much as a gesture of independence (e.g. from assimilationist minded parents, etc.) as anything else.

    That makes you one of the people who don’t make assumptions about veiled women, DAS. I have the same experience. The most articulate and brilliant students I’ve met were wearing a veil.

35. Riiiight… except that she will work with men. She’ll just dress in a particular way if there are men around. She isn’t asking anyone else to change their behavior. She isn’t asking for special accomodations. She’s simply making herself comfortable given her situation.

    Just to tie what I said earlier in to the post here a bit closer … her making herself comfortable in this situation may affect her ability to do her job, and makes it impossible for her to work with deaf and hard of hearing men (or deaf and hard of hearing women in a mixed-gender environment). I’m sure that’s not her goal, but that doesn’t change the end result.

36. It is really really important to differentiate between veiling the face and covering the hair and throat with a headscarf. There are Muslim women who consider themselves feminists (I know some of them) who wear a headscarf. But I have yet to meet (outside Saudi Arabia) a woman who associates the niqab with freedom and equality. In KSA, such women will generally argue that given their overall situation (not allowed to even seek medical treatment for themselves or their children without permission from their male guardian) the veil is the least of their problems, and indeed many would argue that they do not want to stand out in public by forgoeing the niqab. I would imagine there are similar women in Afghanistan in terms of the burka. But I have a hard time reconciling women in Saudi or Afghanistan who are struggling under unimaginable oppression, often just to survive, with a Pakistani woman in Britain (who does not come from a culture in which face-veiling is customary) who wants to wear a veil to work, in spite of the fact that wearing a mask all day long in front of children in your care is not really an ideal situation for the children.

37. Pingback: Ostensibly Neutral Standards « Abstract Nonsense

38. According to the interview with Ms Azmi screened on ABC news here in Australia, she had no problem with removing her veil to teach, but was sacked for refusing to remove her veil in front of male colleagues outside the classroom.

39. According to the interview with Ms Azmi screened on ABC news here in Australia, she had no problem with removing her veil to teach, but was sacked for refusing to remove her veil in front of male colleagues outside the classroom.

    In that case, my objections are mostly taken care of, as long as none of her colleagues were deaf or hard of hearing.

40. From Reuters:

    She added that although she was unveiled during an interview for the job and that a man was present, her faith meant she could not be unveiled in front of male colleagues while teaching.

    Huh?

41. According to the interview with Ms Azmi screened on ABC news here in Australia, she had no problem with removing her veil to teach, but was sacked for refusing to remove her veil in front of male colleagues outside the classroom

    She added that although she was unveiled during an interview for the job and that a man was present, her faith meant she could not be unveiled in front of male colleagues while teaching.

    Heh. It’s obvious that we’re mostly operating from incomplete (and contradictory, of what is known) information here.

    Me, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for her to be asked to unveil for the students, if they are having trouble understanding her while they are trying to learn a new language. While I hold no briefs for any religion at all, I don’t think she should be required to unveil outside of the classroom, as long as it doesn’t affect the job she is doing inside of it.

    Other than that I guess it depends on what more of the story comes to light, and who is saying what.

    Maybe it’s that some of the classes her partner teacher (I believe she is a teaching assistant) is male, and so for those classes she veils, but not for the other with female partner teachers.

42. You’re right, Sunrunner, headscarfs not veils.

43. Sunrunner: (btw–until about 20 yrs ago, a niqab or face covering was virtually unheard of outside KSA–it has become popular due to the enormous infusion of Saudi money and values into mosques throughout the world )

    Absolutely, and also due to its adoption as the uniform of the female division of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 70s. 20 years ago, British Pakistani women wore saris or shalwar kameez with a chador (and often, trainers and a cardigan).

44. Woolas said Azmi’s stance amounted to sex discrimination:

    “By insisting that she will wear the veil if men are there, she’s saying; ‘I’ll work with women, not men’. That’s sexual discrimination. No headteacher could agree to that.”

    Is he also pushing to make the locker rooms and bathrooms coed? ‘Cause that’s sex discrimination in the exact same way—a lack of willingness to display the same amount of skin to the opposite sex as to the same sex.

45. Pingback: Veil (discussions by white people who don’t know what they’re talking about) suck at PunkAssBlog.com

46. […] I want to look at this specific case of Aishah Azmi and the discussion on some feminist blogs where disability has come up in more than one context. […] Neither R. Mildred or Jill, the original posters at PunkAssBlog and Feministe, respectively, have appeared to consider the intersection of disability, though it’s part of the discussion everywhere. […]

47. I am not capable of most facial expressions, yet capable of making quite intelligible speech sounds. (Not capable of using those speech sounds for communication, though.) Most of the time when I do make speech sounds my lips and face don’t move at all, though, except on the occasional sound requiring lip movement (there are not very many).

    So by those standards, if I were capable of using speech to communicate, then even if I were totally intelligible to a class in an auditory sense, I would not be considered by some of you fit for the job because my face does not move around enough. (I’m autistic, but what I say could also apply to people with any of a number of neurological conditions affecting facial expression but not speech.)

48. The fundamental question is this: what is most important, the children’s rights to a good education, or the teacher’s right to wear a veil. This is a school. The children’s rights to a good education trump, to me, her right to wear a veil while teaching. If wearing a veil inhibits the students’ ability to learn (and that is what the complaint was about), then she needs to remove it. Period. If she refuses, what other recourse does the school have but to fire her?

    Apparently the school went out of its way to accomodate her, but it wasn’t enough for her. I say, put the childrens’ needs ahead of her. After all, THAT is what education is supposed to be about.

49. Pingback: adult personal
50. Pingback: fetish pic

Comments are currently closed.