Kenny Farquharson: New school of thought on sectarian debate

THERE is an elephant in the room in the debate about sectarianism in Scotland, and we need to acknowledge it’s there. To do so, I’m aware, is to risk fuelling yet more bigotry and bile. But in an otherwise thorough debate about the Old Firm, parcel bombs and ingrained religious intolerance, it would make no sense to avoid it. I’m talking, of course, about our habit of educating Scottish children in separate schools according to their religion.

Let me say from the outset, I’m a supporter of denominational schools, for reasons we’ll get to. But I roll my eyes when people insist our system of religious apartheid is not a factor in the sectarianism problem we now call Scotland’s shame. Let’s not be naive. The truth is that any system of dividing children into different pens for the purpose of an education will inculcate an us-and-them attitude.

That’s true if the split is between the wealthy and the not wealthy. It’s true if the split is simply a geographical one, between different areas of a town. And it’s also true - maybe particularly true - if the split is between whether you’re a Billy or a Tim.

How can it be otherwise? It doesn’t take a degree in sociology to figure this out, just some plain common sense and a modicum of insight into the human condition. Catholic children in Scotland are effectively herded into reservations from nursery age, before they are able to tie their shoelaces. Separate schooling builds walls, both literal and metaphorical, that last for a decade and a half. They make an “other” of children of another religion. Yet an acknowledgement of this reality is completely absent from the way Scotland is approaching the sectarianism issue. And when I say “Scotland” I mean the country’s government, its churches, its local authorities and its schools.

The difficulty here is a simple one. The first step to tackling a problem is to admit a problem actually exists. And when it comes to educational apartheid’s role in sectarianism, this is something the Scottish Government is completely unwilling to do. Why? Because even to begin to acknowledge that separate schooling might in any way, shape or form contribute to sectarianism would be to risk the wrath of the Catholic Church. The political orthodoxy over successive administrations, Labour and SNP, has been that denominational schooling is an unalloyed good. For our political masters, any deviation from this would be the thin end of the wedge. It would open the door, they believe, to those who want to scrap denominational schooling altogether. And that is a debate they are scared to have. They are incapable of accepting that a system with many positives can also have some negatives. That’s foolish.

Sensible things that could and should be done to break down the “otherness” are therefore left undone. Any rational plan to combat sectarianism would, for example, include a compulsory system of twinning Catholic schools with non-denominational schools and organising joint projects, particularly those with an outreach into the communities the schools share. The projects could be social, educational, cultural or sporting. They shouldn’t be an add-on - they should be a fundamental part of what schools are expected to do, policed like any other part of the curriculum by HM Inspectorate.

Like everyone else, I bring my own baggage to this argument. My education in Dundee was entirely in Catholic state schools. My primary, SS Peter and Paul, had a full-sized Catholic church next door, built at the same time with the same red brick, and both run by the Augustinians. My secondary, Lawside Academy, had a school badge consisting of a papal mitre and crossed keys, with the motto Laborare et Orare, “To Work and To Pray”. There was a crucifix in every classroom and Mr Tully the maths teacher would occasionally insist on a decade of the rosary at the start of a lesson.

My own children went to the local non-denominational primary in Edinburgh - but when it was time for high school my wife and I sent them to the local Catholic comprehensive rather than the local non-denominational alternative. Why? A good question, since I was an atheist and my unbaptised sons grew up in a godless home. In part it was down to one of my pet theories - that Catholic schools are more “comprehensive” than non-denominational schools because they have bigger catchment areas and therefore a broader social mix, at both ends of the spectrum. Partly it was because the school had just moved into a fantastic new GBP14 million building.

But a big factor was that I bought into the notion about the educational ethos of Catholic schools - especially their approach to discipline and personal development. It was a bonus that in common with other “Catholic” schools, a large proportion of the roll was actually non-Catholic, with children from many faiths and none. Proselytising, I was assured, was not on the syllabus. Six years on, I have no regrets. Parents should have the chance to have their children educated in a faith school. The alternative is one-size-fits-all Stalinism.

It is bizarre, however, for the Catholic ethos to be used as an excuse for refusing to engage with non-denominational schools. Is Catholicism really so delicate a flower that it has to be nurtured in children’s hearts without the sullying influence of social contact with Protestants? When does an ethos become an expression of social exclusion rather than an expression of human richness?

We live in a diverse and many-splendoured world. If we want our children to engage with it as open-minded and non-sectarian young adults then the school and church authorities must lead by example, and not treat the local Catholic school like a ghetto.

• This article was first published in the Scotland on Sunday on 15 May 2011