I don't know whether I was right to have been offended by this….

[DaisyHayes]

I am a teacher, and part of my role in school is to train and mentor new teachers and student teachers.

Last year, when we got the intake of student teachers, I greeted them and delivered my welcome presentation and induction as usual.

One of the students, when I introduced myself to him, refused to shake my hand when I introduced myself to him. He did not offer any explanation for this. I continued to offer my hand expectantly, and after an awkward pause, he told me that he does not shake hands with women on religious grounds.

I found this unbelievably fucking offensive.

Aside from anything else, the man was a student teacher on his first day in the school. I was (effectively) his manager who had the power to pass or fail him - I am fairly experienced and have been in my current school for eight years, so have some responsibility and superiority. He was at least ten years younger than me.

Firstly, I think that if someone in a professional environment is proffering their hand to you upon being introduced then professionalism and simple manners would take precedence over whatever religious conventions you adhere to.

Secondly, if you are going to be so rude as to not shake my female hand, then you should at the very least explain why you are not doing so, rather than let me stand there with my hand stuck out while you studiously ignore it.

Part of me worries that I am being incredibly bigoted. I am an atheist, but have never felt the need to demonstrate a Richard Dawkinesque crusade against those who have religious belief and think that it is good manners to respect others' faith.

On the other hand, part of me just thinks why on earth should I be understanding and accommodating about someone who clearly demonstrated that he thinks my possessing ovaries makes me utterly inferior to him and unworthy of simple manners?

I'd be really grateful for your thoughts on this.

[claig]

Did they have bad lawyers? I think the day will eventually come when they will win. Have you got any links to them losing? It would be interesting to see why.

[Pendeen]

Haven't spotted yet - what religion doe he claim to follow?

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

The people who tried to bring discrimination cases against their employers all lost because their employers always had shitloads of evidence about their unprofessional behaviour and insistence on pushing their superstitious bullshit at colleagues and clients. The dismissals/disciplinary procedures that were legally challenged were always shown to be the last in a long line of repeated formal and informal warnings and lots of complaints against the superstitious and socially inept employee.
And in the case of this dickhead, the OP should arrange for him to be informed that the onus is on him to smooth the situation over if he doesn't want to shake hands, and if he can't cope with that then he should go and find a job that doesn't involve contact with other people.

[MillyR]

You could just google it. They're widely reported. There was the case of the foster parents who wanted to tell children that homosexuality was wrong, the registrar (found in her favour and then overturned) who wouldn't carry out civil partnerships, and the woman who wanted to wear a face covering in a primary school.

As far as I understand it, the rules on this have been tightened up under the new version of the equality act. A person bringing a case on such grounds is now no longer allowed to appeal and bring a second court case. In response to such cases the regulations on sexual orientation are strengthened, so you now have protection under the law from discrimination if you are the child, family member or friend of a gay person.

[claig]

'insistence on pushing their superstitious bullshit at colleagues and clients'

Can you be sacked for that? The Daily Mail often informs us of the Christian nurses who wish to wear a cross and the nurses who gave unsolicited prayers to patients, who were threatened with the sack by their employers. Do these religious people win their cases or does the employer prevail?

[claig]

'A person bringing a case on such grounds is now no longer allowed to appeal and bring a second court case.'

wow, one law for some and another for others. Political correctness gorn mad? I think it will eventually be overturned.

[claig]

'Haven't spotted yet - what religion doe he claim to follow?'

Pendeen, we don't know his religion. But there are several religions who have these customs.

[MillyR]

No, it is the same law for everybody. You cannot use that fact that you are a woman/buddhist/gay/epileptic/black as a justification for discriminating against somebody else.

[claig]

which have

[claig]

But what happens when two people claim they are both being discriminated against due to the religious beliefs of one of the people? Which discrimination takes precedence? Isn't this for lawyers to argue over. Can't these decisions be challenged and sent to the European Court of Human Rights?

[HHLimbo]

I agree with MillyR, sensible advice.

[BranchingOut]

I am a teacher/ex-SLT and strongly advise you to seek advice upon this asap.

A couple of thoughts:

You have a duty of care to ensure that he is going to be complying with the school's policy on equality. Even if he does not teach girls, his attitude and outlook (if his personal beliefs become evident in the classroom) will be influencing male pupils.

On the other hand, if you are denying him the professional development opportunity of teaching A-Level students, on the basis of what you believe to be his religious beliefs, then he could reasonably make some kind of complaint on the basis of discrimination.

Possible sources of help:

Your Headteacher
LEA equalities officer
His university
GTCE Code of Conduct

[CrapolaDeVille]

I can't see how or why someone could discriminate against someone else on religious grounds, but if that religious person is challenged you are accused of prejudice.

[MillyR]

Both would bring separate court cases/tribunals against their employer. It may be that both or neither are being discriminated against.

[CrapolaDeVille]

Please let common sense prevail and if your beliefs mean you discriminate you find a suitable outlet for those beliefs, and a profession which doesn't allow you to come into contact with children, at the very least.

[claig]

I think it is all about a matter of degree. Is the shaking of hands a big enough issue or is it swept under the carpet as the allegedly furious Sir Ian did.

"Sir Ian was informed on his arrival of the officer's request. This has never happened before and he was bloody furious. But he agreed to go along with it so as not to cause a scene."

[Pendeen]

I had not heard of a religion that refuses to let someone shake hands - you learn something every day - but if that's his superstition then so be it.

I agree however that he should have explained politely rather than standing there like a prat.

[claig]

He is not as good at dealing with it as cinnarbarred's friend is. He was probably embarrassed about it and didn't want to draw attention to it in front of a crowd and hoped that it would just be ignored. He will have to learn better ways of dealing with it.

[MillyR]

The overwhelming majority of these cases are never going to involve disciplinary action or any sort of court case. They are no different from other types of behaviour that is not inkeeping with a person's work contract or code of conduct when on a placement.

There are many occasions when I have been told not to do XYZ or have gone and asked for advice on what to do about XYZ. There have certainly be times when I've been told not to do something because of issues of equality. I don't go into some sort of meltdown and believe it will have an impact on my job or lead to a tribunal. I accept it as part of the process of getting feedback and improving my performance. Most other people behave in the same way.

If people deliberately did not give me feedback on the basis of my gender or any other equality category than in itself would be discriminatory.

[HandDivedScallopsrgreat]

I am failing to see why someone's religious views outweigh the rights of women in this country to be treated equally?

I am also failing to see how a refusal to shake hands with someone can be construed as anything other than sexist i.e. The woman being treated as inferior. No reasons have been given on this thread to suggest otherwise ither than "holiness" whatever that may be

[claig]

'There are many occasions when I have been told not to do XYZ or have gone and asked for advice on what to do about XYZ. ... Most other people behave in the same way.'

Yes, but devout religious believers of some religions are different. They can't change their behaviour, however many equality officers speak to them, because their beliefs are part of their faith. If they can't change, should they be barred from working in these roles. I think that would be discriminatory. They may be losing court cases now, but I don't think that will last forever.

[mateysmum]

I can understand why the OP was shocked and offended by this incident, but perhaps I can present another angle on it and expand on other posts.
Living in a Muslim country, I have come to understand that not shaking hands men/women is normally a sign of courtesy not offence. It shows the man's respect for the woman, that she may not wish to be touched by a strange man. It is a custom of long standing and not intended to demean women.

However, in the OP's context, it doesn't quite feel like that. I think it should be explained to him how it comes across and he needs to develop a strategy for dealing with his objections, or he will leave a string of offended ladies and dashed career hopes in his wake.

[MillyR]

It is legal to discriminate against people in certain situations. We discriminate against disabled people who are less able to perform a job if adjustments cannot be made. A member of my family was told they could not work in a certain profession because they were deaf in one ear. There are other jobs where adjustments could be made, but not in this particular job.

People who do not agree with abortion for religious reasons can work in medical professions, as long as adjustments can be made so that clients seeking advice have alternative professionals available to them. But if a person had a religious belief that made them incapable of treating people equally in a wide range of situations, then it would be easy to see how adjustments cannot be made.

[CrapolaDeVille]

claig....I absolutely think if your religion prevents you from treating people equally then you lose the right to have equal opportunities in a whole host of life, whether it be work or otherwise. Like the covered woman losing the right to work with children or members of the public.

[NotJustKangaskhan]

"I am also failing to see how a refusal to shake hands with someone can be construed as anything other than sexist"

For people with OCD or similar issues (though they would not shake hands with anyone), it's a fear of germs or similar. Many of these people will use religion to prevent people trying to force them.

There are some bone conditions which makes handshaking extremely painful.

There are cultures where handshaking is not the norm, some of whom see it as a unhygienic.

Some people avoid all unneeded physical contact due to issues or feelings about personal space, either inborn personalities or previous violations to their persons which makes physical contact, particularly with strangers, very undesireable to the point of avoidance.