Planting a “tree of secularism”, poster or poetry competition, drafting a charter drawn up by the students themselves… Every December 9, teachers compete with ideas to celebrate in their classrooms the famous law of 1905 recording the separation of Church and State. However, the secularization of public schools actually predates this law. “The conquest of power by the Republicans, in the last third of the 19th century, was accompanied by a series of decisions in favor of the secularization of the school institution. This appears to be a real novelty”, recalls Ismail Ferhat , professor of science of education at the University of Paris-Nanterre. The challenge is then to fight against the political influence of religion, and therefore of the Catholic Church. “Our system, unlike others, has the specificity of not taking into account the political, religious or community particularities of each individual. In summary, to “make a Republic”, you have to know how to get rid of a small part of yourself as the philosopher Jean-Claude Michéa puts it so well”, explains Iannis Roder, professor of history and geography in Seine-Saint-Denis and member of the Council of Elders of Secularism. From the Ferry law of 1882, religious education was replaced by civic education courses in public schools. That same year, a circular noted the withdrawal of religious symbols from these establishments. Finally, in 1886, the Goblet law prohibits clergymen from exercising the function of primary school teachers.
It is therefore no coincidence that debates and tensions linked to secularism often focus on schools. From the beginning of the Third Republic, parents of conservative Catholic pupils mobilized against the secularization of school curricula. “The state must also sometimes use tricks, for example by taking advantage of school holidays to remove crosses and crucifixes from classrooms and thus circumvent tensions”, explains Ismail Ferhat. Between the 1920s and 1980s, the principle will end up almost achieving consensus. The duty of neutrality of public teachers, State officials, is acquired. But what about the students? Do they have as much religious freedom as other users of the public service? “No, firstly because the students are minors towards whom the institution has a duty of protection”, answers the philosopher Catherine Kintzler. But beyond the legal arguments, there is a fundamental question related to the vocation of public schools. “This must be sheltered from the social whirlwind. This is why the student is asked to temporarily suspend all his possible affiliations and assignments during school time”, continues Catherine Kintzler who likes to speak of “secular breathing”.
The debates around secularism at school came back in force from 1989, when the “headscarf affair” broke out in Creil (Oise). At the origin of the discord: three Muslim schoolgirls refuse to discover each other before entering their classroom. Should veiled girls be excluded from school in the name of the principle of secularism? Or accept them in the name of the right for all to education? These questions, then unpublished, divided the political, associative, trade union, religious world… “The problem goes beyond that of the place of Islam in school. It’s about “, explains Dominique Schnapper, president of the Council of Elders of Secularism. “Proof that the subject is indeed political: only the intervention of the King of Morocco will defuse the crisis”, continues the sociologist. Fifteen years later, the law of March 15, 2004 prohibiting in public schools, colleges and high schools the “wearing of signs or outfits by which students ostensibly show a religious affiliation” will calm the situation on the ground.
The 2004 law increasingly shaken up
A look in the rear view mirror shows that the principle established by this law of 2004 is not totally new. Already in 1936, a circular written by Jean Zay, Minister of Public Instruction of the Popular Front, had prohibited political signs. “At the time, the school was the scene of conflicts, even fights, between highly politicized high school students. To identify themselves, they wore distinctive signs such as a red scarf for young people on the far left, and a fleur-de-lis or a French flag for those on the far right”, explains Ismail Ferhat. The following year, the measure was extended to religious symbols on the pretext that “no form of proselytism can be admitted in establishments”. An important reminder at a time when the 2004 law seems increasingly controversial. “A little music seems to settle in the current debate, suggesting that it would be contrary to the law of 1905. Which is totally false!” protests Iannis Roder. Article 1 of the 1905 law provides that “the Republic ensures freedom of conscience”. However, the members of the Stasi commission, created by Jacques Chirac in 2003 to debate the possible banning of religious symbols at school, had mostly rallied to this decision, convinced by the testimonies of teachers or associations of ground reporting intolerable pressures suffered by some young girls to wear the veil.
It prevents. If most college and high school students adhere massively to the law of 1905, that of 2004 today has a hard time convincing. “In most recent surveys, this is actually rejected by a small majority of students. No doubt because those under 30 are more seduced and influenced by multicultural models than their elders,” says Ismail Ferhat. In recent years, new modes of action aimed at circumventing the principle of secularism in schools have appeared, such as wearing the abaya or challenging certain teachings.
“For teachers, the difficulty in tackling this subject is all the greater since many students of Muslim origin, often from working-class neighborhoods, feel singled out and perceive these prohibitions as discrimination”, continues Ismail Ferhat. . A terrible misinterpretation for Delphine Girard, professor of literature and member of the Vigilance Collèges Lycée collective. “You have to be a child blessed with democracy not to know that the real danger of freedom is not secularism. Quite the contrary! Do not be afraid to see your freedom to learn or your freedom of expression muzzled by injunctions nuns is a huge opportunity”, she underlines. For many teachers who, like her, pose as lookouts for secularism, it is urgent to put the history of this principle and its primary vocation into perspective. The task seems immense, of course, so much does this philosophy seem to go against current fashions, the cult of individualism, the exaltation of identities. But these “black hussars of the Republic” of today will continue to defend it because they know that secularism at school is the condition for the preservation of the French model, at its best.
