Submission for DAN Magazine

C M Syms August 2008

Human Rights – the ToledoReport

A Rationale for Religious Education?

During the build up to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing media attention focused most particularly on the issue of Human Rights. Australasian readers will recall the impact of protesters as the Olympic torch made its way around the globe to a blaze of largely ‘anti-China – pro-Tibet’ sentiment. Just days to go, BBC reports brought us the story of one unfortunate Beijing citizen forced to leave his family home forever in order to accommodate the development of ‘necessary’ Olympic facilities. The 2008 Beijing Games, for all its pomp and ceremony, at least initially, was largely overshadowed by negative publicity and discussion about the ethics of the Chinese authorities.

It would be fair to argue that the issue of human rights has taken centre-stage in almost every aspect of Western secular society. We see its impact on Politics, Business, Media, Religion, Law, Science, Technology...the list is endless. Human rights, to a large degree, has emerged as one of the few palatable ‘Truths’ in a sea of post-modernism and relativism and is the ‘battle cry’ of many of our young people. There can be no surprise then, that in our almost ‘obsessive’ preoccupation with human rights,’ the world of education and in particular, Religious Education has not been left unscathed.

The scene is nowset for a discussion about one of the more comprehensive and potentially influential reports to have surfaced in recent times...

TheToledo Report:

The Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools (Toledo, Spain, March 2007) is an extensive one hundred page document compiled by a broad international panel of eminent educators, human rights lawyers and religious leaders.

In Europe (as in many other areas of the world including Australasia), nation states are continuing to absorb migrants in large numbers from many different backgrounds and regions of the world. Recent events have caused national and religious leaders to be increasingly concerned that antagonistic racial issues have taken root in the minds of individual citizens and communities. Human rights and the dignity of the individual are perceived to be under threat. Thepotential for large scale spread of misconceptions about race, culture, religious beliefs and traditions is almost unavoidable.The need to exercise tolerance at all levels and in all dimensions of human interaction has never been greater or more evident. It is against this background that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Ministerial Council requested in 2006 that its 56 member States address the development of “comprehensive domestic education policies and strategies” as a matter of urgency.

The report is presented as a significant contribution in correlating perspectives of human rights and religious education towards the achievement of peaceful global co-existence. It recognises, as a fundamental tenet, that if young people are given the opportunity to learn more about different religions and belief systems which co-exist in today’s pluralistic societies then the potential for clearer understanding and consequential mutual respect and tolerance is greatly enhanced. “There is positive value in teaching that emphasises respect for everyone’s rights to freedom of religion and belief, and that teaching about religions and beliefs can reduce harmful misunderstandings and stereotypes”.Roots of the report can be traced back to the 1948 UN ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, and in particular Article 18 which leads with the statement “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion….”.

In today’s media, religions are frequently portrayed in a way that does not adequately reflect their diverse, complex and dynamic nature. Circumstances now mean that different religious communities, and their individual members, interact more closely than ever before, increasingly in day to day circumstances. The Toledo Report stresses that whilst the achievement of a deeper understanding of religions does not necessarily guarantee tolerance and understanding, the alternative is destined to result in further misconception and possible conflict: “no educational system can afford to ignore the role of religions and beliefs in its history and culture”.

The ten Key Guiding Principles contained within the report promote a practical level of human rights based direction and support for teaching about (not “of”) religions and beliefs. They address procedures for achieving a fair and balanced curriculum, but do not address any specific teaching approaches nor do they offer any curriculum content. The report is intended for wide dissemination across the OSCE member states as assistance to educational ministries, legislators and teachers. It has also been promulgated on the basis of the universality of human rights to other international organisations for use as appropriate within national educational systems worldwide.

The Key Guiding Principles are abbreviated here as:

  1. Teaching about religions and beliefs must be provided in ways that are fair, accurate and based on sound scholarship. Students should learn about religions and beliefs in an environment respectful of human rights, fundamental freedoms and civic values.
  1. Those who teach about religions and beliefs should have a commitment to religious freedom that contributes to a school environment and practices that foster protection of the rights of others in a spirit of mutual respect…..
  1. Teaching about religions and beliefs is a major responsibility of schools, but the manner in which this teaching takes place should not undermine or ignore the role of families and religious or belief organisations in transmitting values to successive generations.
  1. Efforts should be made to establish advisory bodies at different levels that take an inclusive approach to involving different stakeholders…..
  1. Where a compulsory programme involving teaching about religions and beliefs isnot sufficiently objective, efforts should be made torevise it to make it more balanced and impartial…..recognising opt-out rights may be a satisfactory solution for parents and pupils…..
  1. Those who teach about religions and beliefs should be adequately educated to do so. Such teachers need to have the knowledge, attitude and skills to teach about religions and beliefs in a fair and balanced way.
  1. Preparation of curricula, textbooks and educational materials for teaching about religions and beliefs should take into account religious and non-religious views in a way that is inclusive, fair and respectful.
  1. Curricula should be developed in accordance with recognised professional standards in order to ensure a balanced approach to study about religions and beliefs.
  1. Quality curricula in the area of teaching about religions and beliefs can only contribute effectively to the educational aims of the Toledo Guiding Principles if teachers are professionally trained to use the curricula and receive ongoing training to further develop their knowledge and competencies……
  1. Curricula focusing on teaching about religions and beliefs should give attention to key historical and contemporary developments pertaining to religion and belief, and reflect global and local issues. They should be sensitive to different local manifestations of religious and secular plurality found in the schools and communities they serve.

Citing a number of UN and other international initiatives in this field over the past three decades, the Toledo report emphasises the common threads of the past in forming the present day lives of individuals and communities, stating that “Much history, literature and culture is unintelligible without knowledge of religions and beliefs”. This theme is progressed into promoting the importance of achieving an understanding of both self and the views of others. In its supporting chapters to the Guiding Principles, it outlines a human rights framework as a basis for the promotion of teaching about religions and beliefs, curriculum preparation considerations, teacher education requirements and considerations, and the formulation of inclusive approaches.

Human Rights – A Rationale for Religious Education?

So the question arises, after consideration of the human rights philosophy and evidence presented in the report, as to whether these are viable, adequateand legitimategrounds on which to base our Religious Education practices and curriculum.In its latter stages, the report makes the statement that “a human rights framework is the best guarantee for the development of a fair and balancedapproach to teaching about religions and beliefs”,which takes the debate to a different domain and raises a number of questions not merely about the validity of human rights issueswithin the subject environment but focuses more particularly about the rationale and foundation on which this subject is based.

We may take this statement as apoint of departure in considering to what extent a focus on human rights justifies and adequately provides a platform for the philosophy and practices behind RE classroom teaching. It is gratifying, at last, to see strong international initiatives and support (albeit aimed primarily at the European scene) for the value in teaching of Religious Education, recognition of the importance of the subject in a contemporary education, and that the recommendations of the report are aimed at administrators and planners as well as practicing teachers.In several countries, the UK for example, this subject has been compulsory at both primary and secondary levels, and certainly in recent years we have seen an explosion in the numbers of students opting to take RE, in various forms at tertiary level. This trend is increasing. There is a genuine interest across the board; to assert that ‘religion’ is a private matter is increasingly inaccurate. Interest in, and study of ‘religion’ is once again moving to centre stage. Other European countries are experiencing similar trends. Young people cannot avoid religion; it is integral to the past and key to making sense of national cultures and heritage.

News media in the western world today frequently confuses opinion with knowledge, overwhelms us with instant “soundbites”, exhorts us to participate in and buy a vast range of consumer products and, for the unwary, provides us with little time to think. We are frequently almost too busy with the “me first” lifestyle to worry about “our neighbour”, particularly those of other cultures or faiths; insidiously the media draws us away from inter-personal experiences. The report is keen to promote a counter-environment in which, through a study of world faiths and beliefs, young people can challenge misconceptions promoted in this continuous media blitz. By basing this on human rights, it is asserted that a greater level of tolerance across cultures might be achieved and adverse stereotyping of other population groups reduced. This is a ‘non-confessional’ approach to Religious Education classroom delivery for which teachers need adequate training and qualifications for their responsibilities, can conduct their teaching in an objective and balanced manner, and in which the curriculum is fair and inclusive.

DAN members would undoubtedly recognise that this approach fits within Peter Vardy’s Five Strands. Where, then, are the differences between the Toledo Report recommendations for teaching RE and our best current practices, and with what validity can we view the report’s claim that human rights is the best guarantee for the development of a balanced approach to Religious Education? Here we are forced to address what the issue of ‘human rights’ actually means, from what (and where) are they derived, to what extent do they embrace the historic philosophical and ethical principles which underpin religious beliefs? An initial observation can be made here that the context of “human rights”, as perceived and specifically portrayed in this report (and now applied almost universally in defence of the equality and dignity of the individual), is a relatively recently created phenomenon primarily established as a consequence of the large scale conflicts of the first half of the twentieth century. They are comprehensively reasoned statements (the UN Declaration contains 30 articles of rights and entitlements) which most of us are no doubt fully prepared to accept as a common code of existence at a social level. As composed, they do not have great historical longevity, nor are they necessarily a final statement on the subject. Realistically however, they collectively express ideals common to a large part of religious thought and beliefs, and we can at least take them as a strong argument in support of the promotion of the study of religions and beliefs.

The emergence of an argument for Religious Educationbased solely on secular parameters undoubtedly carries considerable weight in potentially re-educating authorities where arguments of secularism frequently seek to portray any teaching about religion as a form of indoctrination or proselytizing. In this regard, the Toledo report may certainly be welcomed as one element in the framework of arguments which underpin a rationale for RE; it is a supportable starting point, particularly in state schools, to justify why the subject should be an integral part of the overall educational syllabus.

There are, however, some inherent dangers here too. In theory, and in following only the Toledo approach, the teaching of RE could possibly evolve into merely a dispassionate study of religions, of their traditions and practices, and a purely academic exercise necessary only in the context of twenty-first century living. “Is that all?” we might ask; and the answer of most current RE teaching professionals must be “By no means”. The public debate which occurs right across the religious spectrum is also of note here; those who strongly support a secularist ‘freedom of thought’ educational system frequently deploy the counter-Toledo argument that teaching about religions and beliefs is an infringement of individual human rights; some in the UK are lobbying to have RE removed from the state curriculum based on arguments about ‘indoctrination and conscience’. Equally there are those who would argue that Toledo’s predominantly phenomenological approach constrains the study of religion to a merely factual and dispassionate process and religious ‘truths’ presented in this context become relative to culture.

The emphasis placed in the first Key Guiding Principle on fairness, equality and respectfulness are clearly highly desirable components of any educational environment, regardless of subject material, and unquestionably describe the classroom situation we would all desire to create. But these are most certainly not unique or constrained to RE teaching, they are an integral part of a quality values education curriculum and aims; most teachers strive to support their students in the achievement of such levels of mutual appreciation and equality. Thus “guaranteeing” the benefits of a human rights framework as “best” for (specifically) the teaching of religions and beliefs does not necessarily imply that these areas have one-to-one correspondence or are interchangeable.The teaching of human rights is not Religious Education, and vice versa.

Toledo constrains itself to considerations on a societal level;there are a number of aspects which many would recognise as essential to a comprehensive RE curriculum which it does not include. Here we meet possibly itsgreatest limitation. Addressing for a moment the Five Strand approach; a key objective is to bring young people towards an understanding of what ‘being human’ really means holistically, depending in significant part upon the recognition of a sense of spirituality. Understandably, Toledo does not venture into aspects of spirituality in any sense; it remains with factually sustainable arguments.Human Rights, for the Toledo report, derive directly and solely from the UN Declaration and subsequent associated documents (Convention on the Rights of the Child, European Convention on Human Rights amongst others). Nothing of the report attempts to address more fundamental ‘rights’ and concepts which are central to historical philosophical and religious thought.But human rights and ‘being human’ are not synonymous.

Generational characteristics have evolved rapidly in recent decades with successive population age-groups moving further away from traditional ‘conformance’ with established societal norms in favour of a more independent attitude. Today’s youth has an innate tolerance and recognition of the right of others and are considerably more likely to question or reject past practices. In addition, much current research claims that that the Generation Y (largely our current students) are very aware of the concept of ‘spirituality’ and have a considerable curiosity in exploring this aspect of their nature; they have far less interest - initially at least - aboutgaining any understanding of ‘established religions’. Adoption of a Religious Education approach based solely on the Toledo recommendations would therefore not immediately capture their imagination; spirituality being seen as not adequately objective within the context of the Guiding Principles.

Very brieflymentioned but not explicitly addressed in Toledo are references to Philosophy and Ethics in a comprehensive RE curriculum. Whilst it is reassuring to see, at least, recognition of the value of these elements, Toledo fails to develop or discuss these critical strands. DAN members will recognise that without a conscious and explicit focus on Philosophy and Ethics many students will be ill-equipped and disengaged in responding to the fundamental challenges of life. Post-modernism, the advances in technology and the exploding information wave has led to a succession of hugely significant ethical dilemmas to which our young people are unqualified to respond. Australian and New Zealand statistics in relation to teenage drug and alcohol abuse, sexual health, self-harm, suicide, crime and addictive consumerismbear witness to this. Our students need to be engaging explicitly with the complex Philosophical and Ethical questions they are facing and Religious Education programmes need to reflect a proper acknowledgement and serious attempt at addressing them.