School patronage

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Diarmuid Martin mandated that RC ethos schools in his diocese which did not alreadly proritise catholics began to do so. Utter hypocrite but like Frankie he has a great PR image.

Makes sense when you think about it; encourage people who don't want to be Catholics not to baptise their kids, and encourage Catholic schools to prefer pupils who are baptised, thereby actually ensuring the ethos of the school is maintained. Doesn't seem at all hypocritical when you look at it that way.

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

so that loophole... That's a legal provision, yes? Making religious discrimination in schools not illegal. Religious discrimination is schools is not illegal is what you should have said so; at least insofar as the kind of religious discrimination we're talking about goes.

I don't think many in this thread are truly arguing that under current legislation the practise is illegal. I know I am certainly not.

The fact that the equal status act exists to protect adults against such discrimination, is surely a clear sign the government does view such discrimination as wrong.
In fact the legislation seems to protect adults seeking employment in the same very schools that it refuses to offer protection to the most vulnerable members of society.

Absolam wrote: »

Nothing is normally illegal; we pass laws which make things illegal, and we ensure those laws don't cover areas where we don't want the law to make that thing illegal. If enough people want those areas to be illegal as well they can lobby their TDs and try to change it, and if enough do it their TDs might try. Unless what they want to change is protected by the Constitution of course

This kind of discriminatory practise is illegal against adults, so one would have to consider the morality of refusing the same protection to children in accessing state funded services.

techdiver

http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2016-Press-Releases/PR2016-07-06.html

Under this new bill it will "Explicitly ban discrimination in school admissions".

Good news!

Qs

Ban waiting lists? What does that mean? I have my son on the local educate together waiting list since he was one, why should someone who applies at the last minute potentially take that place?

Pherekydes

A waiting list is a type of queue. How will children be admitted if not by some sort of queuing system? Also, schools are generally built in heavily populated areas. Are these schools not primarily for the children of these areas?

Random selection from the 'not-a-waiting-list' list as opposed to FiFo perhaps?

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I don't think many in this thread are truly arguing that under current legislation the practise is illegal. I know I am certainly not. The fact that the equal status act exists to protect adults against such discrimination, is surely a clear sign the government does view such discrimination as wrong.
In fact the legislation seems to protect adults seeking employment in the same very schools that it refuses to offer protection to the most vulnerable members of society.

Well, Recedites argument appears to be that it is illegal, but there's a loophole. My point was that it's not made illegal, it's not illegal. That certain kinds of religious discrimination are illegal because we feel they are wrong is clear, and as I said, the fact that we ensure some are not illegal is due to us (generally, if not us specifically) feeling they are not wrong, or are a wrong that is lesser than the greater wrong of making them illegal. It seems apparent that there's more support for the notion that there's no need for teachers in a school to participate in its ethos in order to protect its ethos, than there is for the notion that pupils in the school should participate in its ethos in order to protect it. 'Such' discrimination is obviously a very broad subject.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This kind of discriminatory practise is illegal against adults, so one would have to consider the morality of refusing the same protection to children in accessing state funded services.

No... Some similar discrimation based on religion whether against adults or children is illegal, and other similar discriminations against adults and children are not. A Protestant cannot insist on a legal right to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church; that's religious discrimination, but not illegal. Jews are not permitted to conduct services in Mosques; that's religious discrimination, but not illegal. Whether or not these things are right or wrong is a matter of opinion.... And certainly that religious discrimination of one kind in a particular environment is permissible and another isn't is pretty obvious.

Absolam

techdiver wrote: »

http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2016-Press-Releases/PR2016-07-06.html
Under this new bill it will "Explicitly ban discrimination in school admissions".
Good news!

But it won't prevent schools preferring students when they are oversubscribed.... Which is precisely the discrimination that exercises the secularists on the thread.

Qs wrote: »

Ban waiting lists? What does that mean? I have my son on the local educate together waiting list since he was one, why should someone who applies at the last minute potentially take that place?

i took it to mean doing away with applying for school places in advance; so schools could only accept applications in the timeframe immediately preceding the school year, rather than allowing parents to put children's names down years in advance? So basically, doing away with what you've done, though you'd imagine it would have to phased in, so existing applications remain in place, but future applications would have to conform to the new system. That would make sense... Not that sense is a renowned feature of our government.

Qs

Absolam wrote: »

But it won't prevent schools preferring students when they are oversubscribed.... Which is precisely the discrimination that exercises the secularists on the thread.

I took it to say that they had to take ALL applicants when under 80% but also that over 80% they couldn't discriminate on the basis or religion, etc when deciding who not to take.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

But it won't prevent schools preferring students when they are oversubscribed.... Which is precisely the discrimination that exercises the secularists on the thread.

Among other things the new law will:
· Ensure that where a school is not oversubscribed (80% of schools) it must admit all students applying
· Ban waiting lists, thus ending the discrimination against parents who move in to a new area
· Ban fees relating to admissions
· Require all schools to publish their admissions policies, which will include details of the provisions for pupils who decline to participate in religious instruction
· Require all schools to consult with and inform parents where changes are being made to admissions policies
· Explicitly ban discrimination in school admissions
· Provide for a situation where a child (with special needs or otherwise) cannot find a school place, and allow the National Council for Special Education or Tusla to designate a school place for the child
- See more at: http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2016-Press-Releases/PR2016-07-06.html#sthash.yqgmOGPd.dpuf

smacl

Qs wrote: »

I took it to say that they had to take ALL applicants when under 80% but also that over 80% they couldn't discriminate on the basis or religion, etc when deciding who not to take.

No such luck, see the following article

April Duff of Education Equality Ireland gave the bill a guarded welcome, saying it will help erode soft barriers placed by some schools against special-needs children.
“It’s welcome progress,” Duff told TheJournal.ie.
“It’s a good bill but doesn’t address religious discrimination in schools. In that respect, I’m not sure what the point of it is.

Absolam

Qs wrote: »

I took it to say that they had to take ALL applicants when under 80% but also that over 80% they couldn't discriminate on the basis or religion, etc when deciding who not to take.

I bet it means that so long as the school doesn't have applicants for more places than it has, it may not prefer students on any basis, but if applications for places are greater than availability they are allowed to use a preference system.. Whether that be religion, locality, family connections, whatever. Because I think all school places will be offered at the same time, you won't be able to apply early (no waiting lists) and get a place to avoid being in a preference race with later applications; all applications will be considered together, so they'll know when allocating whether they are over or not.

Which is a pretty equitable system... Just not the system that most people here want, because it doesn't remove denominational education from the public sphere.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Right at the top;
"Among other things the new law will:
· Ensure that where a school is not oversubscribed (80% of schools) it must admit all students applying "

Where the school doesn't admit all students applying it will have to practice some form of discrimination to decide which of the students won't be accepted.

lazygal

Qs wrote: »

Ban waiting lists? What does that mean? I have my son on the local educate together waiting list since he was one, why should someone who applies at the last minute potentially take that place?

They aren't waiting lists, schools get around the rules by calling them pre-enrolement lists, which can be changed at any time. Some ET schools have switched to catchment area based enrolment and have bumped children on those pre-enrolement lists down the categories.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Right at the top;
"Among other things the new law will:
· Ensure that where a school is not oversubscribed (80% of schools) it must admit all students applying "

Where the school doesn't admit all students applying it will have to practice some form of discrimination to decide which of the students won't be accepted.

Random Selection is not discrimination.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Random Selection is not discrimination.

Any selection is discrimination. Those who get a place are differentiated from those who do not; that's discrimination.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Any selection is discrimination. Those who get a place are differentiated from those who do not; that's discrimination.

And from the linked definition we get

to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups

and

to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things

While the second definition is synonymous with distinguish, it is clearly not what is meant in this context and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Any selection is discrimination. Those who get a place are differentiated from those who do not; that's discrimination.

Well No.

http://www.xperthr.co.uk/law-reports/race-discrimination-random-selection-was-non-discriminatory/6689/

smacl

Bruton just finished on the radio. Religious discrimination will continue for the time being but there is another strand of Labour led legislation being worked through in the Dáil to have it removed. My guess is that, like most things carried out by our beloved politicians, we will see action only as and when continued inaction becomes more troublesome than actually doing something positive.

PopePalpatine

smacl wrote: »

No such luck, see the following article

*Legatus Lackeys' euphoria intensifies"

expectationlost

really don't know why this admission bill couldnt have been brought through in the previous Dail

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

And from the linked definition we get
<...>
While the second definition is synonymous with distinguish, it is clearly not what is meant in this context and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Since the context is actually my statement as quoted by emmot02, it's disingenuous to suggest the meaning is other than what I intended... and you can clearly see from what I wrote which it was.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Well No.
http://www.xperthr.co.uk/law-reports/race-discrimination-random-selection-was-non-discriminatory/6689/

We'll... Yes. That it may not be illegally discriminatory I'll happily agree, just as discrimination by locality, sex, or religion is not illegally discriminatory in school admissions. Random selection discriminates between candidates; not illegally, and probably not unfairly as far as at least some people are concerned, but it still recognises a difference between those who have a school place, and those who do not.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Since the context is actually my statement as quoted by emmot02, it's disingenuous to suggest the meaning is other than what I intended... and you can clearly see from what I wrote which it was.

Religious discrimination is a widely used and well understood term, from Wikipedia for example;

Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe. Specifically, it is when adherents of different religions (or denominations) are treated unequally, either before the law or in institutional settings such as employment or housing.

Religious discrimination is related to religious persecution, the most extreme forms of which would include instances in which people have been executed for beliefs perceived to be heretic. Laws which only carry light punishments are described as mild forms of religious persecution or as religious discrimination.

The fact that you are deliberately confusing this and using it interchangeably with the meaning discrimination as an alternative to distinguish is disingenuous as it is clearly not the meaning of the word taking by any other posters in the context of this discussion.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

We'll... Yes. That it may not be illegally discriminatory I'll happily agree, just as discrimination by locality, sex, or religion is not illegally discriminatory in school admissions. Random selection discriminates between candidates; not illegally, and probably not unfairly as far as at least some people are concerned, but it still recognises a difference between those who have a school place, and those who do not.

That's twice you've asserted this. I'm not really that arsed getting into a linguistic wankbattle here, but simply asserting that selection = discrimination does not make it so.

From that extract linked (which of course says nothing about being 'legally' discriminatory)

A random selection procedure under which an employer picked 30 applicants from a pool of 500 with the required educational qualifications, was not in itself discriminatory, holds the EAT in Isonor v Department of Social Security. The procedure adopted amounted to a simple lottery, governed entirely by chance.

Are you suggesting that a lottery is discriminatory?

Random / Blind / Neutral selection policies are patently not discriminatory, given that they do not require any information whatsoever about the subjects (other than their existence) in order to group them.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Religious discrimination is a widely used and well understood term, from Wikipedia for example; The fact that you are deliberately confusing this and using it interchangeably with the meaning discrimination as an alternative to distinguish is disingenuous as it is clearly not the meaning of the word taking by any other posters in the context of this discussion.

Well... I certainly didn't restrict myself to religious discrimination (nor less illegal religious discrimination or legal religious discrimination). I'm certainly not deliberately (or even inadvertently) confusing them; suggesting I am is what's disingenuous. Even Davian Proud People has offered discrimination in the sense of racial discrimination per his example, so it seems the only one fixating on having such a narrow scope of language is yourself.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

That's twice you've asserted this. I'm not really that arsed getting into a linguistic wankbattle here, but simply asserting that selection = discrimination does not make it so.
From that extract linked (which of course says nothing about being 'legally' discriminatory)
Are you suggesting that a lottery is discriminatory?

Yes... The lottery discriminates between winners and losers, so it does discriminate. And the extract you linked is from a Law Reports section of a Human Resources website... You'd be very very hard pressed to argue they're not talking about legal discrimination.

Deleted User wrote: »

Random / Blind / Neutral selection policies are patently not discriminatory, given that they do not require any information whatsoever about the subjects (other than their existence) in order to group them.

They're probably not unfairly or illegally discriminatory, sure.. But if they group selections then they discriminate; between those in one group and another, by placing them in those groups.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Yes... The lottery discriminates between winners and losers, so it does discriminate.

Third time asserting this. (Suggesting that selection = discrimination)

Absolam wrote: »

And the extract you linked is from a Law Reports section of a Human Resources website... You'd be very very hard pressed to argue they're not talking about legal discrimination.

Not as difficult a time you're having at actually showing that selection is discriminatory, given that discrimination is in effect a very specific case of selection and therefore a subset of it. Yet you are trying to equate the two.

Absolam wrote: »

They're probably not unfairly or illegally discriminatory, sure.. But if they group selections then they discriminate; between those in one group and another, by placing them in those groups.

And now you're just using the wrong word and hoping nobody notices.

If you actively choose to misuse the term discriminate then of course you can choose it to mean anything.

By all normal understanding, general usage, scientific usage, legal usage, mathematical usage, selection where there exists no preconditions for the selection beyond enumerability is not discrimination. Discrimination occurs only when there are preconditions in selection.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Well... I certainly didn't restrict myself to religious discrimination (nor less illegal religious discrimination or legal religious discrimination). I'm certainly not deliberately (or even inadvertently) confusing them; suggesting I am is what's disingenuous. Even Davian Proud People has offered discrimination in the sense of racial discrimination per his example, so it seems the only one fixating on having such a narrow scope of language is yourself.

Wrong once again. Davian Proud People's use was;

A random selection procedure under which an employer picked 30 applicants from a pool of 500 with the required educational qualifications, was not in itself discriminatory

Where discriminatory clearly means to treat unfairly, as it does in racial discrimination, religious discrimination etc... This is an entirely different meaning than being able distinguish one thing from another, as I'm sure you understand. All posters other than yourself, and also linked articles and legislation are using the term discrimination to mean;

to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups

You would appear to be using the alternate meaning as a way of purposefully obfuscating the discussion which is clearly disingenuous.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Third time asserting this. (Suggesting that selection = discrimination)

. No.. Your third time saying I did it. I've stuck with what I said; discrimination is recognising the difference between two things. Not selecting them, simply acknowledging that they're not the same.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not as difficult a time you're having at actually showing that selection is discriminatory, given that discrimination is in effect a very specific case of selection and therefore a subset of it. Yet you are trying to equate the two.

I never said anything about selection; that was all you. I said where the school doesn't admit all students applying it will have to practice some form of discrimination to decide which of the students won't be accepted.

Deleted User wrote: »

And now you're just using the wrong word and hoping nobody notices. If you actively choose to misuse the term discriminate then of course you can choose it to mean anything.

Nope, I'm hoping you'll notice how it's used and understand it is quite correct. In vain apparently, but still, if you just don't like what the dictionary says I can't really help much.

Deleted User wrote: »

By all normal understanding, general usage, scientific usage, legal usage, mathematical usage, selection where there exists no preconditions for the selection beyond enumerability is not discrimination. Discrimination occurs only when there are preconditions in selection.

As I said, you're the one caught up on selection. I only said that some form of discrimination is practiced in separating students into groups.