Why are schools allowed to discriminate on religious grounds?

[OrangeApples]

I understand this could be very contraversial topic, and I will say in advance I do not know the equality law inside out, but, I was reading a thread earlier about catholic schools and it got me thinking.

Why are schools allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, when, under the equality act 2010, religion is a protected characteristic?

Surely, applying the equality act, schools can’t say they will take religious children over non-religious or those of a different religion. Therefore, aren’t the admissions policies discriminatory and therefore going against equality.

For example, a catholic school takes catholics before all others. Well that’s discrimination isn’t it? If a catholic school was to just accept on distance like all other schools but retain the catholic ethos and teachings that that would be ok because they aren’t discriminating are they? (Just using Catholicism as an example, this point also applies to jewish, Sikh, Muslim and any other religious schools).

I really am just interested to know how this manages to bypass the equality laws.

Yanbu...I've always wondered this. Imagine if hospitals did this or doctors surgeries or any other sort of public service?

It is actually the other way round.

Becuase religion is a protected characteristic, you are allowed to have spaces for people of that characteristic, eg women only spaces.

This includes the right to education, so you can have islamic, catholic and jewish schools for example.

If the school was th eonly one available, then the non catholics could argue that they are discriminated against.

Interestingly, this is the case in many villages, where CofE school ios the only option.

I find this interesting. Schools can discriminate on the basis of being male or female too.

There is an exemption for faith schools in the Equality Act. I don't agree with it personally. Schools shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on the basis of faith.

I’ve always wondered this too OP.
I take your point @steppemum, but surely by giving the places to the protective characteristic it’s dicriminating against the rest. We don’t have schools which have admissions that give priority to non-religious children do we? Religious and non-religious have the same chance of a place at a non-religious school where as at a religious school the non-religious or the other religions have less of a chance.

Isn't if fair enough if that religion started/built the school and partly finance it?

There is history to it... Many schools (before nationalised) were based around churches... So this stayed when nationalised.

Other issue is funding... Upkeep of buildings etc that would otherwise fall to local authority. So my local Catholic schools... When need renovations... 10% contribute to building fund from families that attend... This gives access to diocese funding that pays other 90%.
Church pays for other things too..
The financial implications of this all going under LA responsibility should not be underestimated... Already depleted funds spread across far more schools...

Its about adding more choice to education, not about restricting it. Also religious schools tend to partly fund the school, so it's not entirely state funded.

And as pp said you might be looking at this from the wrong way round.

@AlexaShutUp that’s interesting. Wonder what the justification is for the excemption? @HairySandwiches has a good point even if like steppermum said, it’s to protect the protected characteristic, it’s still discriminatory. Very interesting.

And often built buildings in first place

@Bitofachinwag

Isn't if fair enough if that religion started/built the school and partly finance it?

I think it's fair if the religious organisations fund it entirely. However, if they are in receipt of any public money, I don't think they should be permitted to discriminate.

The local dioceses also will help part fund Catholic schools. Which is funded, in part, through donations of Catholic people.

Got to admit I always wonder why someone would want their child to attend a religious school, if they aren't that religion.

Cross posted with a few of you. Yes, suppose is does make sense from an historical point of view. But if we applied that to all discrimination then wouldn’t racism and sexism would still be acceptable because historically it was acceptable?

But if we applied that to all discrimination then wouldn’t racism and sexism would still be acceptable because historically it was acceptable?

Can you describe the sort of situation you mean?

@Ladylokidoki there are many reasons. But getting my DC into a religious school isn’t why I asked. It’s because I seen another thread about it that it got me wondering.

But, ignoring all other possible reasons, and applying your logic. Why would a religious person choose a non religions school if they were religious?

Yes but that's because it's not socially acceptable to be sexist or racist and there are laws around doing it....
It is however acceptable and legal to chose to have religion in your life and choose to bring your child up in that religion surely?

I presume you also feel the same about single sex schools?

@Ladylokidoki a PP said historically a lot of schools were religious because of the church and that is why the admissions based on religion is still allowed. That’s fine.

But the point I was then making, if discrimination on religion is still allowed on historical grounds then because historically racism, sexism, discriminating because of someone’s sexuality were all accepted, then this should still be allowed.

Attitudes and the law have changed and now discrimination on race, sex and sexuality are not allowed which I fully support. Yet religious discrimination remains.

Im not sure what the point of a catholic school would be if they didnt take mainly catholics? I think they get money from the church to cater for the catholic children in the area
I have mixed feelings as one of my kids is at a catholic school, despite us not being practicing catholics. I chose it because of its reputation for SEN. I didnt feel too bad about this because its still a state school that gets money from the government

Got to admit I always wonder why someone would want their child to attend a religious school, if they aren't that religion.

Well, it depends, doesn't it, on what your other options are? There are four secondary schools in my town. Two very decent oversubscribed non-religious schools, one fairly average Catholic school and one absolutely dire sink school (also non-denominational). Personally, I absolutely did not want to send dd to a Catholic school, but if she hadn't have got into one of the two decent non-religious schools, I'd have chosen the Catholic school over and above the failing school for want of any better options. But they probably wouldn't have chosen her, because they prioritise Catholics, then other Christians, then children of other faiths before children of no faith.

I don't think it's fair in a state education system that some children have more options than others, simply on the basis of their parents' belief system. Quite a lot of Catholic families actually choose to send their dc to the non-religious school that my dd attended, because it's a better school, but they have more insurance options if their kids don't get in. Maybe it would be fairer if the children with no faith could be prioritised at these non-religious schools? Wouldn't go down too well in my town though!

Why would a religious person choose a non religions school if they were religious?

Because not every religious person feels religion has a place in education action and would prefer a more secular education. That's not the same as someone who doesn't believe something, sending their child to a place where the whole ethos is based on something they don't believe in.

But the point I was then making, if discrimination on religion is still allowed on historical grounds then because historically racism, sexism, discriminating because of someone’s sexuality were all accepted, then this should still be allowed.

I know what you meant, I mean can you describe a situation so I understand how the situation would work.

Because there's still men's clubs. There still groups for people of Asian decent as an example.

@happytoday73 I agree it’s acceptable to choose your religion. And if you want to bring a child up with a belief system and religion that’s fine. I was just questioning why schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Yes. I also think single sex schools shouldn’t discriminate. If a boy wants to go to a girls school and a girl to a boys, why shouldn’t they be able to? I’m waiting for the day someone questions this in court. It might never happen, but I have a feeling it might at some point. Especially if there is a transgender child. They shouldn’t be excluded from their chosen gender. In my opinion the Easiest way to solve this is to accept both boys and girls regardless.

@AlexaShutUp that's an understandable reason.

But I attended Catholic school, I would only send my children to one as a last resort. So it's always been something I have wondered.

Yep, I'd get rid of state funded single sex schools as well.

@Ladylokidoki I take your point. But then why should people with a religion be allowed more choice than those without a religion. I refer back to, if schools can discriminate on religion, why don’t we have schools that prioritise non religions people? The reasons for this is because it’s called discrimination and it’s not allowed.

I’m going to use the recent black lives matter. Historically racism was allowed, so, the black lives matter wouldn’t have happened because it would have been accepted on the grounds of history/ we have always been like this, that it’s was right for black people to be unfairly treated/treated differently by the police and the whole black lives matter wouldn’t have happened.

You have a very valid point about different clubs/groups though. I hadn’t thought about this.

It isn't consi6 sexist to have girls schools and boys schools. Whilst it is admittedly heteronormative to assume that any specific child will be heterosexual, there are definitely some advantages to receiving ones education away from the pressures of needing to present yourself to the opposite sex during the traumatic years of puberty. The equalities legislation specifically says that selection of people for any service or opportunity on the basis of a protected characteristic is legal so long as it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Single-sex education is generally agreed to be a legitimate aim.

Likewise it is considered legitimate for those families who are religious to want to educate their children within establishments that uphold their religion.

The problem arises when the religious schools appear to be achieving better results or are in other ways more desirable than the non-religious schools. If this happens then what is required is action to improve the non-religious schools, not to strip away the religious foundations of the desirable school.