printable versionLetter to the Editor: Readers at odds with lecturer’s analysis of French law banning Islamic headscarf
Professor Joan Scott presented her interpretation of the French government's attitudes and related statements made by certain writers and journalists (Stanford Report, May 9). In my opinion, she did not relate the view of the common French man or woman. Contrary to her assertion that no rule existed banning ostentatious religious symbols in schools prior to the 2004 law, I can attest to the fact that, back in the period 1946 to 1949, when I was in high school in the city of Calais, no large crosses or yarmulkes were allowed in the school. This was rarely a problem because Christians and Jews had fully accepted the concept of separation of state and church. Because of this general acceptance, the schools did not react promptly when a few Muslim girls started to wear the veil. As it became more prevalent, then came the realization that the schools had become lax on the enforcement of the rule. The commission appointed to look into the matter was at first somewhat sympathetic to the wearing of the veil, but it changed its views looking at the potential consequences of relaxing the rules. Various Muslim groups had started to demand that municipal swimming pools have separate hours of operation for men and women and that Muslim women in hospitals be viewed and treated only by female doctors. Now imagine the practical problems that would burden a universal health care system if at all levels of specialties both a male and a female doctor had to be provided! How many female surgeons specializing in heart transplant are there at Stanford Hospital currently?
Hubert Morel-Seytoux, PhD '62
Atherton, Calif.
I was shocked when I attended the lecture by Joan Scott, and shocked when I read your report on it. The law of 1905 was never mentioned. I can't believe that someone presenting herself as a historian never explained the roots of the "French headscarf ban." This "ban" is just a reinforcement of something that has existed for more than a century in France; i.e., the strict separation of church and state in the public sphere. And it is a false statement when Scott asserts that no laws were passed affecting yarmulkes or Sikh turbans until the headscarves became a concern. All religious signs were banned from public schools before 2004. The word "lay" was also never mentioned, while it was a key word in the French debate. Because for most of the people that is actually the point—and not some hidden sexual agenda. It is still possible for those girls to attend private schools where they can wear the veil. The laïcité is a contract: The French state offers you free education of quality; in exchange you have to respect one of its inalienable principles. If you don't accept the contract, you can still have an education, but you have to pay for it. It is the same in the United States for those who don't want their kids to study Darwinism. As for the question of the reasons why the girls are wearing the veil, I think she gave a very naive explanation. These girls are rebels, with "anti-West, anti-materialism" opinions? Well, but it is still against the French law. If I want to rebel and wear a Nazi shirt or walk naked in the street, is that OK according to Scott? Scott said that she was offering the way she thought. In this case she should not have been introduced as a historian before the lecture, because she didn't present the serious documented work of a scholar, but the highly biased point of view of an individual person. She claimed that, following Michel Foucault, an intellectual should be critical. I agree with her, but being critical doesn't mean hiding a whole part of the truth in order to make one's point. And I would suggest to her to read Max Weber, explaining that a scholar should always, when talking as a scholar, keep a certain neutrality of values. When talking as a public person—well, that's another story.
Marianne Blanchard
Palo Alto, Calif.