The educational competence of the European Court of Human Rights: judicial pedagogies of religious symbols in classrooms

Abstract

The courts' role in educational disputes is much researched, but while the legal and socio-political implications of judicial decisions are often scrutinised, judges' pedagogical assumptions have generally been overlooked. This paper focuses on educational competency by considering judges' understandings of the pedagogical effect of religious symbols in classrooms. The formal judgements of two key cases in the European Court of Human Rights are treated as textual data for qualitative analysis: Dahlab v Switzerland, concerning a Muslim teacher's right to wear hijab; Italy v Lautsi, concerning whether the classroom display of crucifixes breached atheist pupils' rights. Four approaches emerged: unmediated didacticisma direct emission of meaning by the symbolic objects; mediated didacticism -when the symbols require a spoken explanation to convey meaning; contextual factors -then other factors determine or limit the symbol's meaning; dialogical pedagogy -when education is conceived as an open encounter with different points of view. The wide variation in the judges' pedagogical assumptions is discussed, including the implications of how educational competency affects the variable radiating effects of the courts' decisions. Further, the concept of educational competence is developed, particularly in relation to issues of religion and belief.

Using Religious Symbols and Religious Teachings to Cope during Times of Adversity

“…Weaver [21] concluded there was a need to increase catechism and religious education due to its positive effects on individuals. In addition, further empirical studies emphasized the socio-cultural significance of teaching and learning in individuals' mental development [22]. Overall, extant studies emphasized that religious practice is not only about how the faithful perceive God or interpret sacred scriptures but also entails the social forces that mobilize people and reshape their cognitive and behavioral functions by focusing on the well-being of the collective whole [23].…”

“…The literature review indicated a trend in research to focus on studies that explored the effects of religious beliefs, practices, and teachings on cognition, behavior, and emotions. Extant empirical studies have explored how using religious rituals, symbols, and teachings helped alleviate feelings of cognitive dissonance [1], soothe fears and anxieties [2], forge prosocial behavior [3], boost mental development [4], and enhance the overall quality of the individuals' daily lives [5]. These findings constitute an emerging research trend in religious sociology.…”

National, international and supranational perspectives on religious education, law and the judiciary: past, present and future

“…Moreover, these articles also show that if legislation and court decisions did produce answers, they often created further questions; Relaño, for example, argued that the European Court of Human Rights made "an insufficient analysis" (p. 25). Some of the questions she raised were: "how to discern whether education is neutral and objective" and how to carry out "objective and neutral" religious education (p. 26 original emphasis), echoing wider concerns about the limitations of the courts for the development of policy (see also Fancourt, 2022;Heise, 2002). She also pointed out the absence of any consideration of the rights of the child (p. 27).…”

The Effects of Judgements by the European Court of Human Rights on Religious Education in England and Turkey

“…There have been studies which have focused on the direct and indirect effects of the ECtHR judgements on the responding states (Lied, 2009;Özgül, 2019). Moreover, there have been studies which have focused on the general implications of the ECtHR judgements for RE in European countries (Evans, 2008;Relaño, 2010;Cumper, 2011;Leigh, 2012;Fancourt 2017aFancourt , 2021, but these judgements' wide-ranging effects within different countries need more attention. Using Bråten's (2014) model as a theoretical lens, we compare how the ECtHR's decisions and guidance are represented and interpreted in Turkey and England.…”