The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in Ontario's Public
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in Ontario’s Public Schools: An Exploratory Case Study By Wendy A. Dunlop A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto ©Copyright by Wendy A. Dunlop 2017 The Legal Duty to Accommodate Faith and Religion in Ontario’s Public Schools: An Exploratory Case Study Wendy A. Dunlop Doctor of Philosophy, 2017 Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto 2017 Abstract Ontario public schools have become a focal point—and contested sites—where the dichotomy of a proclaimed secular stance must be reconciled with the legal duty to accommodate diverse faiths and religions. This exploratory case study examines the experiences of principals in addressing the challenge of ensuring the public school is positioned as secular, while simultaneously accommodating the faiths and religions of Ontario’s increasingly diverse, multi-cultural society. When competing rights under the Canadian Charter or Human Rights Code come into conflict it can present a complex challenge. To provide context for this exploratory case study jurisprudence, legislation and school policy, developed post-Charter, are reviewed. With this legal framework data from interviews with twelve elementary and secondary principals from five Ontario public boards are examined to learn how the principals enact, integrate, and mobilize the duty to accommodate faith and II religion in their ‘secular’ schools. What is the impact on how schools function? How is conflict managed when religious tenets conflict with other equal but competing rights, such as sex equity, same sex relationships, or freedom of speech? Is there a tipping point—a point of ‘undue hardship’—where a principal must declare a religion-based request as deleterious to the rights of others, and thus impossible to accommodate? The study demonstrates the legal duty to accommodate faith and religion in Ontario’s bourgeoning multi-faith society adds to the complexity of the principal’s role in ensuring the religious diversity of students and staff is recognized, included and integrated into the fabric of our public schools. The study also demonstrates the successful accommodation of faith and religion is facilitated through the principal’s mindset of inclusivity, respect for difference, engagement with the community—including religious leaders—and knowledge of the law. The growing influence of Muslims and Islam in our schools and their accommodation needs are also recognized. Principals particularly acknowledge the new health education curriculum which has created discord with Christians and non-Christians. Opposition to content on same-sex relationships places principals in an untenable position between accommodating religious beliefs and safeguarding the rights of the LGBTQ communities. Principals are greatly challenged by the dilemma. III Acknowledgments There is a part of my nature that compels me to undertake challenges that are all-consuming. It upsets the other part of me that enjoys peace and contentment. The pursuit of a doctorate would be a case in point of the former. For me, the road to earning a Ph.D. was not only challenging, winding and seemingly infinite, but truncated—several times—by life events. Initially, I engaged in this academic process several decades ago. Regrettably, I had to abandon my inchoate goal. In the intervening time, however, I worked with teachers and administrators in Nepal, India, Australia, and Kuwait. I then morphed professionally from an educator to a lawyer. In turn, all those experiences drew me back to OISE with a renewed interest in the quest of a doctorate in education, after a twenty-five years’ absence. I am most grateful for the second opportunity which has allowed me to combine my academic interests in both law and education. I am also grateful for the guidance of Professor John Portelli as my thesis supervisor. Professor Portelli has shown great interest and engagement in the topic of my research since I first discussed it with him, seemingly a lifetime ago. I thank Professor Portelli for his continued assistance and insight, and for enduring whatever frustration I was experiencing or expressing along the way, with great patience. The role of thesis supervisor is definitely not for the weak of heart. Equally, I would like to express my appreciation for my committee members Justice Marvin Zuker and Professor Joseph Flessa who both contributed greatly to this academic pursuit and process. Their time and constructive input—Justice Zuker’s from a legal perspective and Professor Flessa’s from an educative one—served to ameliorate and to focus my academic work. Thank you too to Professors Bishop and Stewart who provided valuable and supportive commentary as part of the FOE committee, and to Professor Mitchell who served as Chair. You made the FOE a positive experience. I would also like to thank and to acknowledge the public school principals who generously volunteered to take part in my exploratory case study. I appreciate the time they gave to speak to me and the insight and expertise they shared—in spite of their oversubscribed and hectic schedules. These twelve individuals are truly outstanding professionals. Anyone that may question the strength of the public school system need only read this study and reflect upon the dedication to the well-being of children which is evidenced in the principals’ words. I stand in awe. Finally, thank you to my family and friends that lend encouragement whenever I engage in challenges that they (or I) cannot quite fathom. Thank you for simply shrugging your shoulders and getting behind whatever I am pursuing. Thank you for always being there. —Wendy IV Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction...................................................................................................... 1 1.1. General Focus............................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Historical Background............................................................................................... 2 1.3. Research Problem.................................................................................................….. 5 1.4. Research Question and Subsidiary Questions.......................................................... 7 1.5. Theoretical Framework............................................................................................. 8 1.6. Conceptual Framework.............................................................................................. 14 1.7. Significance of Research............................................................................................. 15 1.8. Profile of Researcher.................................................................................................. 21 Chapter Two: Literature Review............................................................................................. 25 2.1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 25 2.2. The Development and Impact of the Human Rights Code and Commission in Ontario.............................................................................................. 28 2.3. The Enactment and Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.............................................................................................................. 32 2.4. The Evolution of Education Policy........................................................................... 38 2.5. The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion.............. 46 Chapter Three: Methodology................................................................................................... 60 3.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 60 3.2. Selection of Participants............................................................................................. 65 3.3. Ethical Aspects............................................................................................................ 68 3.4. Data Analysis............................................................................................................... 69 3.5. Overview of the Principal Participants and Their Schools..................................... 72 Chapter Four: Findings............................................................................................................. 77 4.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 77 4.2. The Role of the Principal in the Accommodation of Faith and Religion............... 79 4.2.1. Overview.................................................................................................................... 79 4.2.2. Review of Findings.................................................................................................... 82 4.2.2.1. Students and School........................................................................................................ 82 4.2.2.2. Staff............................................................................................................................. 88 4.2.2.3. Community..................................................................................................................