David QuinnCalls are growing for abolition of the baptism rule in Church-run schools, writes David Quinn
We have had the referendum to permit same-sex marriage. A referendum to delete the protection the Constitution gives to unborn children might happen as soon as 2018. Now there are growing signs that a referendum on the future of Irish schools might be also on the cards, but further down the road, say five to 10 years from now.
The purpose of the referendum, which Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland is calling a “school equality” referendum (to borrow the rhetoric of the so-called ‘marriage equality’ referendum) would be to end Church control of our schools, and along with it all forms of school patronage, and to replace the current system with State control of all State-funded schools.
The idea that such a referendum could be held might seem far-fetched. It’s true that there is almost no public demand for such a thing. In fact, all the evidence points to general satisfaction with the current patronage system. Even the scandals have not caused a general rebellion against Church oversight of more than 90% of our schools.
Because there is no public demand for a ‘schools referendum’, there is no real political demand either except within sections of the left and the ‘commentariat’.
Public eye
However, 10 years ago there was no public demand for same-sex marriage. It wasn’t even a gleam in the public eye. Enda Kenny could still safely say he was opposed to same-sex marriage and so was Leo Varadkar, who is now an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage and gay adoption. So things can change very quickly in politics.
We know how the same-sex marriage referendum was achieved; by a combination of media support, lots of money and tireless activism by influential NGOs. There is not, and will not be the same support for a schools referendum but there doesn’t have to be. The marriage referendum has no precedent in Irish history in terms of the huge effort that was put into it by the ‘establishment’.
A better precedent for a schools referendum might be the children’s rights referendum. There was little public demand for that, but again there was money behind it, the media were behind it and so were powerful NGOs.
I don’t know what, if any money, is behind the idea for a schools referendum. At present I would suspect there is little enough.
RTÉ and The Irish Times have not explicitly called for a referendum. RTÉ won’t make such a call, of course. But what it will do is provide lots of platforms for those who will make the call as they did prior to the marriage referendum, the children’s rights referendum and as they are doing now in the case of the hoped-for abortion referendum.
Here’s what is happening though. There are growing calls for the rule allowing Church-run schools to admit baptised children first to be abolished.
This is considered to be ‘discriminatory’. In fact, it is perfectly rational for a school to wish to admit those who support its ethos ahead of those who do not support its ethos. Even Educate Together can see that and has a similar rule.
Education Minister Jan O’Sullivan has said she cannot abolish the rule allowing schools to admit those who support their ethos first because of the Constitution. This obviously invites us to change the Constitution and specifically the provisions relating to education and freedom of religion.
Junior Justice Minister, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has also expressed sympathy for calls to abolish the ‘ethos first’ rule.
Baptism
The media, led as usual by RTÉ and The Irish Times, has given a platform to those calling for the abolition of the baptism rule. I debated one such person myself last week, namely barrister Patrick Monahan.
There are also calls for the repeal of Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act. This allows religious organisations to employ staff on the basis of their ethos. Again, this is considered to be ‘discriminatory’. Section 37 has already been significantly weakened – without a murmur of protest from the Churches – but its critics want it abolished completely.
Again, this almost certainly cannot happen without a constitutional referendum.
Finally, the very idea that so many of our schools form children – or at least try to – in a given religious faith also offends influential people. This, too, is considered discriminatory.
The claim is made that it would be fairer if we simply abolished our present patronage system and if the State took over all State-funded schools and ran them on a more ‘egalitarian’ basis.
This would, of course, crush parental choice and effectively nationalise our schools. This cannot happen without a referendum.
The Churches are well aware that they run too many schools given how much Ireland has changed. This is why they support a certain amount of divestment, that is, handing over some of their schools to other patron bodies such as Educate Together.
But divestment is happening very slowly to the point where the Education Correspondent of The Irish Times, Joe Humphreys, has expressed the opinion that the divestment project is over.
He said on Twitter last week: “I think the patronage question is heading towards a legal and possibly constitutional solution. The divestment experiment is spent.”
What might well happen is that a case will be taken to the European Court of Human Rights and a finding made against our education system. In all likelihood the finding will be narrow. It might, for example, be a ruling against the baptism rule, but it will be used as an excuse to radically change the constitutional provisions regarding education and freedom of religion.
Or there may be a case before our Supreme Court. It might interpret the education provisions against the Churches in which case there will be no referendum. It is more likely that it would find in favour of the Churches in which case there will be a loud hue and cry in favour of a referendum.
None of this is a foregone conclusion, obviously. What is clear, however, is that the current situation is unsustainable and if there is no change then calls for a referendum will grow.
This is why it is essential that more energy is put into the ‘divestment project’ both by the bishops and by local politicians.