Culture, religion and curriculum: lessons from the ‘three books’ controversy in Surrey, BC

Abstract

This article considers the spatial, cultural, and legal dimensions of the controversy surrounding the Surrey School Board's religiously motivated refusal to approve three books portraying families with same-sex parents. It examines the issue in terms of debates over the public/private distinction, and the notion of a 'culture war' between progressive and orthodox stakeholders. The polarized opinions advanced in such debates not only invoke and rely upon particular understandings of space, they also have ramifications for the organization of the public sphere, and services such as public education in particular. This article focuses on the three decisions handed down in the Surrey case, culminating in the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that religious concerns have a place in public decision making, but not to the exclusion of other considerations. This decision signals that the religious opinions of some parents may shape the public school curriculum, and thus the instruction of all pupils. In this respect, it poses a serious challenge to liberal visions of secular public education, and to a secular public sphere more generally.Cet article prend en considération les dimensions spatiales, culturelles et légales de la controverse provoquée par la décision de la commission scolaire de Surrey de retirer pour des motifs religieux trois ouvrages qui présentent des familles homoparentales. Il aborde la question sous l'angle des débats sur la distinction public/privé et d'une guerre culturelle qui opposerait les intérêts progressifs et orthodoxes. Dans ces débats, les opinions se sont polarisées non seulement en faveur de conceptions particulières de l'espace, mais ont aussi eu des incidences sur la structuration de l'espace publique et des services comme l'éducation publique. Cet article porte sur les trois décisions rendues dans l'affaire Surrey et sur le jugement de la Cour suprême du Canada selon lequel la religion peut prendre sa place dans les processus publics de prise de décisions, mais non sans tenir compte d'autres considérations. Cette décision laisse entrevoir que les opinions en matière de religion de certains parents pourraient modifier les programmes scolaires de même que l'enseignement dispenséà l'ensemble desétudiants. Elle s'oppose de la sorteà la vision libérale de l'instruction publique laïque, et globalementà la sphère publique laïque.

Secular iconoclasm: purifying, privatizing, and profaning public faith

“…That said, no one (to my knowledge) has attempted an in-depth geographical study of secularity or secularism. For one notable exception on the legal geography of religion in US and Canadian public schools, see Collins (2006Collins ( , 2007. On the geography of secularization, see Henkel (2005), Knippenberg (2005), and Knippenberg et al (2006).…”

Legal Geographies—Legal Sense and Geographical Context: Court Rulings on Religious Activities in Public Schools

“…As such, it is usefully understood not as "a single formula for interpreting the world," but as a way of "seeing the world as a series of complex dualities" (Frug, 1980(Frug, , p. 1075. These dualities can be highly consequential for the organization of social space, especially when invoked in combination (Bakan and Blomley, 1992;Cresswell, 1996;Collins, 2006).…”

“…The issue of religious exercises in public schools is a matter of long-standing controversy in many western democracies, including the United States (Drakeman, 1991;Fraser, 1999), Canada (Sweet, 1997;Collins, 2006), and the United Kingdom (Poulter, 1996;Cooper, 1998). This controversy reflects a broader tension between concerns for individual freedom of conscience and demands for public recognition and affirmation of religious beliefs.…”

To tell or not to tell: how children of same-gender parents negotiate their lives at school

“…Homophobic prejudices or religious beliefs may not provide the atmosphere of acceptance that is needed and many people demonstrate discomfort talking about different sexual orientations due to a lack of information, experience and understanding (Collins, 2006;Ryan & Martin, 2000). With few exceptions, schools are not required to talk about same-gendered families or to display positive role models or images of these families (Casper, Schultz & Wickens, 1992;Kroeger, 2006;Victor & Fish, 1995).…”

“…Another prominent example of religious opinions clashing with gay/lesbian parenting is the Surrey School Board's refusal to approve three books portraying gay/lesbian families, due to religious objections from local parents. For six years a heated debate raged until the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a final decision (Collins, 2006). This conflict alludes to the place of religion in education, and schools are traditionally seen as a tool for instilling shared values and a common identity in children from diverse backgrounds.…”