School asking daughter to remove small cross despite religious symbols policy

[FanFckingTastic]

I'm looking for some advice and thoughts!

DD is 15 and at secondary school. She has always worn a small silver cross - at primary school this was never an issue (it was a church school) Up until this point it's not been an issue at secondary school either. The cross is very small and is tucked into her shirt so you would have to be really looking for it in order to see it. She always removes it for PE etc.

Last Monday her head of year saw the cross and asked her to remove it. My daughter replied that it was her cross, and that she didn't want to. She was then approached and asked to remove it every day for the remainder of the week, with increasing threats of sanctions if she didn't comply with the schools 'no jewelry' rule. My daughter kept reiterating that this was her cross, and asked the teacher to speak with me. Finally on Friday I received an email to tell me that my daughter needed to take her cross off.

I completely understand the new jewelry rule but wonder how this sits alongside the responsibility that the school has under the equalities act 2010. In their uniform policy it states that it will 'allow pupils to wear headscarves and other religious or cultural symbols' I would interpret this to include a cross too?

My daughter wears her cross as a sign of her faith and really wants to continue to do this.

Has anyone come across this situation before? If so, what was the solution?

Well, she does under their published policy....

As I said above, there doesn’t have to be a requirement in her faith to wear a cross for discrimination to exist. She could absolutely express her faith in any number of ways but if the way that she has chosen to express it is impacted then that could be found to be what’s known as indirect discrimination. There is a huge body of case law on it. I’ve no skin in the game, btw, as a devout atheist.

https://humanists.uk/2018/05/14/government-clarifies-law-relating-to-religious-dress-in-the-workplace/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332

That's me done on this thread. Thank you all for your input. It has been illuminating to see just how narrow minded people are in relation to religious freedom of expression.

Sorry, why do you feel the need to take the piss?

I think people are viewing a cross and chain as a decorative piece of jewellery and that’s it.

It’s not. It’s almost dare I say it (and I really don’t like to describe it in this way) superstitious. I feel protected in my cross and chain. It’s like armour. Or a talisman. It feels wrong to not wear it. It feels naked. Vulnerable. I feel like I’m letting God down. I feel better when it’s near. When I can touch it.

Similarly I won’t travel without my St Christopher. It’s not a case of pop the cross off, hang it up and wear it when you get home. It is part of you. It’s not like wearing a chain with a pendant of a butterfly.

The cross and chain is often bought or gifted with meaning beyond ‘happy 16th birthday!’. You don’t just buy a lapel for your collar and say ‘it’s a cross, they are all the same - job done’.

It’s really quite cruel the way some people are talking about this.

Er, the OP stated she hasn’t yet asked them to clarify.

She thought a bit of MN rage bait was in order first.

Of course it is.

It can hardly be a request for Mumsnetters to help find a 'solution' when the answer has already been given in clear, unambiguous terms. That answer is 'no'.

The comment was very obviously sarcasm!

No, she doesn't. The rule is no jewellery. There are no exceptions for jewellery with any religious symbols, not just the cross.

Interesting, my child's at a catholic school and they are allowed and many do wear cross/ crucifix necklaces.

But there isn't case law which is says wearing crosses is permissible where a school has a no jewellery rule. There is case law around employers who allowed jewellery but not the wearing of crosses (unlawful), and case law around employers who did not allow things like necklaces for health and safety reasons and therefore did not allow necklaces with crosses (lawful).

The case law does, however, it clear that you cannot choose a way to express your faith that happens to break school or other rules and then claim discrimination if the school enforces its rule ,unless you can show it is a religious requirement and there is nothing that otherwise justifies the rules.

What on earth is the relevance of an announcement made by a Minister in a government five Prime Ministers ago, relating to employment law and not the law around school uniform?

But, with every respect, your reference to refusing to travel without a St Christopher really makes the point here. It's an individual want, not a religious requirement. The fact that you as an individual feel a need to wear this does not mean that someone else has to relax all their rules to allow you to do so. Just think how that would work in a school: every child would be claiming they feel a need to wear those blingy diamond earrings, that lip piercing, that bright coloured baseball cap, those skin-tight jeans, or whatever - and if they have allowed you to wear your cross they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on in enforcing the rules for everyone else.

To be honest, if a child was telling me they would feel they were letting God down by not wearing a cross, I would be seriously worried about them. A god that that would make you feel that way doesn't really feel like a god they should be worshipping. If you feel better when it is near, surely it would be enough to have it secured in your pocket or something similar? If you really have to wear it, surely you can wear it so that it is never on show?

I’ve followed most of this thread with interest.

I’d like to make three statements at this point.

• There are local elections tomorrow in some areas, where Reform hope to achieve a large share of the vote.
• Threads like this, which invite people to think that Christians are treated less well in this country with regard to their faith than those who follow other religions, form a significant part of the tactics of the minds behind the likes of Reform, which manipulates public opinion to create division in society.
• The Equality Act 2020, which many posters supporting the rights of this child to freedom of religious expression are citing as her protection, will be scrapped by Reform if they win power.

If you can’t see that this thread is a microcosm of what is being done to us, and how big a sham it is, then god(s) help us all.

A few pages ago someone said that school uniform is stricter than most work uniform - for state schools this just isn’t the case. Schools can’t demand pupils have too many branded items, nor shoes of a particular make, I look around at pupils at my child’s school and see a lot of supermarket variance (extra pockets, slim fit, stripes or checks on summer dresses etc). The school really can’t mandate things to the nth degree.

As regards religious expression, Government guidance on uniform policy states:

“Pupils have the right to manifest a religion or belief, but not necessarily at all times or places, or in a particular manner.
Where a school has good reason for restricting an individual’s freedoms – for example, the promotion of cohesion and good order in the school, or genuine health and safety or security considerations – the restriction of an individual’s rights to manifest their religion or belief may be justified.”
www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-uniform/school-uniforms#human-rights-equality-and-discrimination-considerations

OP’s daughter is manifesting her faith - and the Council of Europe agreed 20 years ago that a small cross work around the neck is a normal manifestation of Christian faith, see link up thread - I really don’t think this is as clear-cut as “100% no jewellery, no exceptions”. It’s an interesting case that I don’t think is as clear-cut as some posters contend.

If the daughter really is wearing a small cross under her blouse, and taking it off for PE, I can’t see how that is being disruptive. People around her can’t even see it. As for her not being well-behaved or compliant - if she believes her cross is a commitment to god then he is her higher authority. The teacher is , in her mind, surely secondary.

There doesn’t need to be a case that deals with exactly the same point. Precedent is iterative.

There is case law around employers who allowed jewellery but not the wearing of crosses (unlawful) would appear to support OP’s position.

I’ve already distinguished h&s?

There’s an obvious difference between playing silly beggars and then crying discrimination as justification - happens all the time and tribunals give short shrift - and a rule that prevents a long-standing expression of faith.

You seem pretty entrenched on the principle and I don’t want to patronise you with a law lecture (I get entrenched on the law) so I will leave it there. Best wishes.

You won't be responding to 'Christian haters????'

The hijab is clothing. Clothes. Something you wear to denote faith. Fabric.

Not jewellery. Ornament. "bling" (I'm a Christian BTW)

Might this school allow the girl to dress up as a nun? That seems fair.

My guess is, said girl won't be too keen to look like whoopi Goldberg in sister act... That'll test her faith though and deal with this evolving problem.

I think you'll find that fashion top trumps faith in this case. It's not 'cool' to be a teenage nun, even though she is so devout as the OP implies.

I think the school should offer that option. Nun option. Then go back to teaching English and Maths and try to get more than half of them achieving a "c" grade.

I am not religious at all. But it’s interesting how it is fair game to mock a wearer of a symbol of Christianity than it is to mock any other kind of religious symbol. Some of the trite comments on here - she just wants to wear jewellery. Is a hijab wearer just trying to hide a bad hair day? Respect for all religions or none at all. My preference is none at all. Religion causes so much division and discord.

The problem is that OP's daughter is clearly wearing her cross somewhere visible, otherwise this issue wouldn't have arisen once, let alone every day for a week.

You cannot have a rule forbidding jewellery that allows for exceptions because one child decides that wearing jewellery is her way of manifesting her faith, nor indeed can you run a school on the basis that pupils can ignore the rules if they proclaim that a higher authority tells them something different. Otherwise you will have people claiming that they are witches or satanists or believers in the Great Lizard and that they feel the need to express their faith by wearing various outlandish objects, and by smiting the unworthy, and all of that overrules anything that a teacher says because the teacher is secondary to their god.

Just no jewellery in a school, please.

One poster said the cross was protective, akin to interview with the vampire. Yes, fine, but not in a school please. The odd french teacher may be a bit garlicky, but you don't need the cross in a school to protect you from evil. I do know the ex Archbishop of Canterbury failed in his protecting duties of children and was sacked for the coverup, but the DBS checks are pretty stringent these days.

It doesn't matter what your faith is, the school says yes to religious clothing of all faiths, no to religious jewellery of all faiths. That's fair. Everyone knows where they stand. Christians have religious clothes. Wear them. Be equal. Stop making a fuss. Wasting time. Complicating everything.

Our school results, the levels our children achieve in maths, English, the subjects they will need in their lives, are simply not good enough today, now, to waste teacher's time on a girl or girls wanting to wear crosses. Chinese children aren't tying their teachers in knots about it... They are learning coding, programming, AI, leaving our kids behind with each (wasted) day that passes...

Please don't feel you are patronising anyone with your knowledge of the law, because you have yet to cite any legal principle that supports your position. The employment law you cite doesn't assist your case because, where it supported the wearing of crosses, it was in the context of an employer which allowed other jewellery to be worn, and which was saying that its right to preserve its corporate image outweighed the employee's rights.

If you are washed in the blood of the Lamb and regularly partake of the sacraments (or whatever your Christian denomination does) and try to live in a Christlike way, you do not need worldly stuff. Though it may feel nice.

I’ll bite because baby has reflux and I’m holding her upright for the next 30 minutes.

Bilka-Kaufhaus and the all the jurisprudence that flowed from it.

I think Eweida was mentioned up the thread. That might even be the case you’re referring to but misapplying.

Begum. Likely distinguishable here because no apparent accommodation by school. The suggestion up the thread to pin it to her underwear is not comparable.

Lots more but I’m not on the clock.

Happy ChatGPTing.

I’m still waiting to find out if any of the posters proclaiming that hijab is not compulsory in Islam are Muslim. Also very keen to find out why one poster declares it is simply being worn as fashion.

Yes here you are: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47032829