Is this discrimination at a school?
Discussion
The father in law has been a teacher for many years, been at the current school for about 20 years and has moved up the ranks from basic teacher to doing no teaching and pretty much organising and running the place.
He deserves to be the Head or Deputy and more often than not is doing things for them that they should be doing.
He is always in work before 8 am and often in at weekends and doesnt get the long teacher holidays.
Gets a decent wage but from memory its about £20K short of what the head gets.
Now the bit I was wondering about and I'm surprised its actually allowed in these PC days.
The school is a "Catholic College" so secondary school and 6th form.
They have plenty of non catholic students from various religions and teachers and other staff from all walks of life but apparently the Head and Deputy are "Protected Positions" and are only allowed to be occupied by a full on Catholic not just anyone or even any old christian.
I could understand a restriction on a position if not being x made you incapable of doing the job but I dont see how being of the wrong branch of religion can effect your organisational and admin skills. There is no requirement for the Head to do sermons to the school etc.
He deserves to be the Head or Deputy and more often than not is doing things for them that they should be doing.
He is always in work before 8 am and often in at weekends and doesnt get the long teacher holidays.
Gets a decent wage but from memory its about £20K short of what the head gets.
Now the bit I was wondering about and I'm surprised its actually allowed in these PC days.
The school is a "Catholic College" so secondary school and 6th form.
They have plenty of non catholic students from various religions and teachers and other staff from all walks of life but apparently the Head and Deputy are "Protected Positions" and are only allowed to be occupied by a full on Catholic not just anyone or even any old christian.
I could understand a restriction on a position if not being x made you incapable of doing the job but I dont see how being of the wrong branch of religion can effect your organisational and admin skills. There is no requirement for the Head to do sermons to the school etc.
The school exists to promote the catholic faith. I'm not a catholic, but I see nothing wrong with requiring the head and deputy to be catholic, any more than it is reasonable to limit posts in church to members of the relevant faith. I went to a Quaker school, the head and deputy were always Quakers, other staff were encouraged to be but not compulsory. (in my year we had a Muslim head boy though, which seemed bizarre, particularly when he fell asleep in morning meeting during Ramadan and sat there snoring...)
If he's qualified, up to the job and wants to be a head there's nothing stopping him applying to another school is there?
If he's qualified, up to the job and wants to be a head there's nothing stopping him applying to another school is there?
Tom_C76 said:
The school exists to promote the catholic faith. I'm not a catholic, but I see nothing wrong with requiring the head and deputy to be catholic, any more than it is reasonable to limit posts in church to members of the relevant faith.
If he's qualified, up to the job and wants to be a head there's nothing stopping him applying to another school is there?
I'm not sure I agree there.If he's qualified, up to the job and wants to be a head there's nothing stopping him applying to another school is there?
Let's put this example into a motorsport context, using the Red Bull Formula 1 team.
The F1 team exists to promote the Red Bull energy drink. Let's assume that the OP's Father in Law holds a senior position there, but prefers Monster as a drink.
Dietrich Mateschitz calls him up and says that to be Team Principal, he must drink Red Bull and go to a meeting with other Red Bull drinkers on a Sunday morning.
Our man would be a good Team Principal - he has been involved with motorsport for years, knows the team, is good at organisation, Bernie Ecclestone likes him, the drivers like him, etc. He just prefers something else to Red Bull as a drink.
He'd happily wear the Red Bull shirt and tell other people whilst at work that Red Bull is a nice drink. He just prefers another drink in his own time.
Do you think it's fair that he's not able to become team principal, just because he prefers Monster when he's at home? Does that affect his ability to run a Formula One team?
Should he give up his job and benefits with Red Bull and go to another team, just because he chooses another drink at home?
Same principle applies at the school. Him not being a Catholic does not affect his ability to run a school, therefore why should he not be able to do that job?
vxr8mate said:
If the job required the person to be of a particular faith owing to the duties of that job, then it could well fall outside the field of discrimination.
This is the right answer. Discrimination is perfectly legal in the right circumstances. Unfair discrimination isn't. When they were casting the film Ali, Will Smith got the job. Hugh Grant wasn't even considered. If they ever make a film about Boris Johnson, it's fair to say that Will Smith will not get the job.Catholic school wants senior positions filled by catholics. Seems reasonable.
vxr8mate said:
If the job required the person to be of a particular faith owing to the duties of that job, then it could well fall outside the field of discrimination.
This was along my lines of thinking. Its fine to say Catholics only if the head was expected to preach to the students or do other Catholic things but they just run the school same as any other headteacher. No religious activities involved so why cant a person other than a Catholic do the job?The poster with the F1 analogy pretty much nailed my thinking on the subject.
TooMany2cvs said:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
section 2.3, p7
good find.section 2.3, p7
So if I'm reading that correctly the School is allowed to favour someone of the correct faith but not exclude people of other faiths?
eg if an Atheist and Catholic both applied to be head then the Catholic will get the job but if only atheists apply then they can not turn them away or block their applications and one can be made Head?
RB Will said:
eg if an Atheist and Catholic both applied to be head then the Catholic will get the job but if only atheists apply then they can not turn them away or block their applications and one can be made Head?
Well, when two local school merged to become a CofE Academy they wouldn't let one of the existing heads take over as he was an atheist - so wouldn't fit in with the ethos of the school.RB Will said:
TooMany2cvs said:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
section 2.3, p7
good find.section 2.3, p7
So if I'm reading that correctly the School is allowed to favour someone of the correct faith but not exclude people of other faiths?
eg if an Atheist and Catholic both applied to be head then the Catholic will get the job but if only atheists apply then they can not turn them away or block their applications and one can be made Head?
Whether you or I agree with the concept of faith schools is a separate issue entirely. They exist, they are allowed, and they receive religious money. It really doesn't seem to be rocket science that a Catholic school might lean strongly towards a Catholic head. If a non-Catholic really, really wants to be head, he should probably dust off his CV.
Muzzer79 said:
Tom_C76 said:
The school exists to promote the catholic faith. I'm not a catholic, but I see nothing wrong with requiring the head and deputy to be catholic, any more than it is reasonable to limit posts in church to members of the relevant faith.
If he's qualified, up to the job and wants to be a head there's nothing stopping him applying to another school is there?
I'm not sure I agree there.If he's qualified, up to the job and wants to be a head there's nothing stopping him applying to another school is there?
Let's put this example into a motorsport context, using the Red Bull Formula 1 team.
The F1 team exists to promote the Red Bull energy drink. Let's assume that the OP's Father in Law holds a senior position there, but prefers Monster as a drink.
Dietrich Mateschitz calls him up and says that to be Team Principal, he must drink Red Bull and go to a meeting with other Red Bull drinkers on a Sunday morning.
Our man would be a good Team Principal - he has been involved with motorsport for years, knows the team, is good at organisation, Bernie Ecclestone likes him, the drivers like him, etc. He just prefers something else to Red Bull as a drink.
He'd happily wear the Red Bull shirt and tell other people whilst at work that Red Bull is a nice drink. He just prefers another drink in his own time.
Do you think it's fair that he's not able to become team principal, just because he prefers Monster when he's at home? Does that affect his ability to run a Formula One team?
Should he give up his job and benefits with Red Bull and go to another team, just because he chooses another drink at home?
Same principle applies at the school. Him not being a Catholic does not affect his ability to run a school, therefore why should he not be able to do that job?
I'd assumed, perhaps naively, that at any "faith" school the staff, teaching staff at least, would be of that faith.
Has the position ever come up and has he ever applied for it? Also what do you know of what the job of head teacher entails? That isn't meant flippantly but I think I have pretty good organisation skills but I won't be applying for the CEOs job when he moves on IYSWIM.
Has the position ever come up and has he ever applied for it? Also what do you know of what the job of head teacher entails? That isn't meant flippantly but I think I have pretty good organisation skills but I won't be applying for the CEOs job when he moves on IYSWIM.
Muzzer79 said:
I'm not sure I agree there.
Let's put this example into a motorsport context, using the Red Bull Formula 1 team.
The F1 team exists to promote the Red Bull energy drink. Let's assume that the OP's Father in Law holds a senior position there, but prefers Monster as a drink.
Dietrich Mateschitz calls him up and says that to be Team Principal, he must drink Red Bull and go to a meeting with other Red Bull drinkers on a Sunday morning.
Our man would be a good Team Principal - he has been involved with motorsport for years, knows the team, is good at organisation, Bernie Ecclestone likes him, the drivers like him, etc. He just prefers something else to Red Bull as a drink.
He'd happily wear the Red Bull shirt and tell other people whilst at work that Red Bull is a nice drink. He just prefers another drink in his own time.
Do you think it's fair that he's not able to become team principal, just because he prefers Monster when he's at home? Does that affect his ability to run a Formula One team?
Should he give up his job and benefits with Red Bull and go to another team, just because he chooses another drink at home?
Same principle applies at the school. Him not being a Catholic does not affect his ability to run a school, therefore why should he not be able to do that job?
Are you suggesting that an energy drink is his fundamental guiding principle in every decision he makes? If not then it's not a valid comparison.Let's put this example into a motorsport context, using the Red Bull Formula 1 team.
The F1 team exists to promote the Red Bull energy drink. Let's assume that the OP's Father in Law holds a senior position there, but prefers Monster as a drink.
Dietrich Mateschitz calls him up and says that to be Team Principal, he must drink Red Bull and go to a meeting with other Red Bull drinkers on a Sunday morning.
Our man would be a good Team Principal - he has been involved with motorsport for years, knows the team, is good at organisation, Bernie Ecclestone likes him, the drivers like him, etc. He just prefers something else to Red Bull as a drink.
He'd happily wear the Red Bull shirt and tell other people whilst at work that Red Bull is a nice drink. He just prefers another drink in his own time.
Do you think it's fair that he's not able to become team principal, just because he prefers Monster when he's at home? Does that affect his ability to run a Formula One team?
Should he give up his job and benefits with Red Bull and go to another team, just because he chooses another drink at home?
Same principle applies at the school. Him not being a Catholic does not affect his ability to run a school, therefore why should he not be able to do that job?
Yes its dicrimination, as it is one of the Protected groups under the Discrimination Act. However religeous groups seem to be outside the law when it comes to this act, as seen recently http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/13/jer...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff