UlrikeSchuhFricke

Isn't it interesting that most postings on this topic have once again come from the male part of the forum mostly refering to the problem: "women and ICT". I became involved in the forum and its different debates beacuse I was very interested in and emotionally touched by the then subject (Teaching the Holocaust). In recent times I have posted less because of the reasons mentioned by Maggie: Actually I don not want to add something to the problem of gender, communication and ICT.

On the one hand the best solution would be to analyse every case individually. The woman who at the moment is fighting for her right to wear a hijab in Germany credibly asserts that she is not forced by anyone to wear a hijab that she wants to wear it as it symbolizes her religious identity; she also claims that by wearing the hijab she is not making a political statement. On the other hand a government understandably must find legislation for a large number of cases and then I think there are only two options left: allow students and teachers to wear the clothes they like or ban any display of religious and/or political affiliations in school (the French way). A "third way" would be the course suggested by the German President: allow teachers and civil servants to wear the hijab but find ways to make sure the Muslim girls and women can enjoy the Human Rights like non-Muslims. School is seen as a medium and catalyst to help especially Mulsim girls to find out which rights they have and how to use them. This very often leads to severe conflicts in the girls' families and I think we have to find ways of how to help them and protect them e.g. from forced marriages. I would like to add an anecddote which refers to Rowena's statement about beauty and the hijab. A had a colleague whose husband comes from Iran. They live in Germany but whenever they go to Teheran to visit his family she has to wear the chador. She brought the chador with her to one her to school and her lesson; we all tried the chador on and felt extremely uncomfortable; we felt as if suffocated by the heavy black garment and our view literally limited to a very narrow vision. Maybe the explanation is that we are not used to wearing this kind of dress, but I am not so sure. I definitely do not like society's obsession with beauty idols and I know which dangers they pose especially for young people but my answer is definitely not the recommendation of wearing a chador, burqa or whatever.

I personally think the decision of the Baden Wuerttemberg parliament is wrong because it openly discrimates against women and it discriminates against one religion: Islam. Nobody would ask a nun, a Catholic priest who come to our schools to teach Religious Education not to wear their habit, their crosses or anything else.

This is what many fear is about to happen in France with the establishment of more private religious school; there are already some private schools for orthodox Jews and one private Muslim school was founded in Lille only recently. By the way, the French law also would not allow Sikhs to wear their turbans or Jews to wear their skullcaps. In Germany the situation is more complicated. The motion in Berlin and in Baden Wuerttemberg does only forbid teachers and all civil servants (in Berlin) to don the hijab (in Baden Wuerttemberg) or any other religious symbols (Berlin). Mr. Rau, the President of the Federal Republic, would agree with Rowena's point and he argued for more tolerance to include the ethnic minorities in our society. He also expected some efforts on the immigrants'side: learning our language; accepting our Constitution which among other things of course codifies the equality of men and women; accepting and abiding our laws and legal system and accepting in general the rule of law. I am sure that after the decision of the Parliament in Baden Wuerttemberg (only the Greens voted against the motion or abstained) the new law will be taken to the Supreme Court which will eventually decide.

I think this is the core of the problem. One argument of the Baden Wuerttemberg government yesterday was that the hijab is not only a religious symbol but also a political one which expresses separation and the attitude of not wanting to inegrate into our society. Aother argument is that many Muslim girls and women are forced to wear traditional dress. I personally think that this argument is not very convincing because I believe that this only is true for a minority and you can find many examples of discrimintion against girls and women and forbidding them to wear e.g. short skirts in fundamentalist Christian sects in Germany as well. The first argument contains the problem: how much difference can we tolerate without losing the coherence of our societies; what do we expect from the ethnic minorities who have come to live in our countries, if we allow the headscarf on the one hand can we interfere later when we notice that girls are not allowed e.g. to take part in P.E. lessons, go on class trips, are forced into marriages at an early age on the other hand. Berlin wants to ban all religious smbols from the civil service whereas Baden Wuerttemberg "only" forbids teachers to wear a hijab; students can still wear it and crosses can still be displayed in schools. I personally think that the Baden Wuerttemberg way is wrong because it only targets Mullims and it discrimnates against Muslim teachers.

Ray, it is true that most suggestions refer to the national history of some European states. If you do the de Gaulle era or France in the 50s and 60s it might be an interesting point to compare e.g. the state of democracy in France and Germany and find out why the students and major parts of the young generation took to the streets. May 1968 France was right in the middle of a general strike which lasted till Whitsuntide. You could include the Prague spring of 1968 and its end.

Eeyore, some aspects which I personally belive are important to understand the history and development of Western Germany and/or the German Democratic Republic. Even though might be seen as one aspect of the Cold War in Europe the history of the division of Germany is important. The war and post-war conferences are likely to be part of a curriculum about the Cold War (they are part of our own curriculum) so that it might be a good idea to analyse the political development inside the four zones and why and how the two parts drifted apart. While writing I notice how difficult it is to decide which times, aspects of post-war German history are really important; the main difficulty is that there were two German states which were really very different. The basic and first decision is if you want to focus more on domstic affairs or foreign affairs and policy. I personally think that focussing on domestic affairs of both parts is a very interesting and enlightening topic but I know that it is difficult to find textbooks and resources in English. I have found one for my lessons: Alison Kitson, Germany 1858-1990; Hope Terror and Revival, Oxford Advanced History; OUP. The last 30 pages of this schoolbook offer a concise survey of Germany from 1945 to 1995. The main aspects are the economic miracle in the FRG, the economic development in the GDR; the death of Stalin and the process of De-Stalinisation (do you have that word in English?); the 60's in the FRG: emergency laws; protest movement; more democracy; the origin of new movements/parties like the Greens; protest and protest movements in the GDR - especially peace movement, role of the churches; youth culture in both states. If your focus is foreign affairs the following topics might be interesting: - the attitude of the governments of Western Germany towards the GDR and the USSR (in the beginning no negotiations and no talks with the government of the GDR; non-acceptance of the GDR; no diplomatic realtions with countries which accepted the GDR as a souvereign state; till 1955 no contacts with the USSR; in the 60's the beginning of worldwide detente; the rise of Willy Brand and his new policy: negotiations with Poland and the GDR; the way towards reunification) - the impact and importance of the development of European unity for Western Germany and its political status in Europe itself and the world (regaining complete souvereignty via integration and cooperation with the Western world). I am not sure if this does really help you, but I hope it does maybe a bit.

Dear Jaywalker, thank you very much for the explanation. Our educational reform is not as far reaching as yours, but the methods you described (jigssaws, mindmaps etc.) are in fashion here as well and they are sold as some form of heal-all which they definitely are not. We try to incorporate some of the aspects you mentioned in our ordinary lessons leaving the timetables untouched, so that e.g. in history students learn among other things how to visualize texts, how to read for understanding, taking notes etc. The core of the lessons and the curriculum for one year is still defined by contents. As Grammar schools are still seen as institutions peparing students for an academic career our lessons and curricula are focused on acquiring a basic academic knowledge as a precondition for being successfull in tertiary education.

Problems with parents and their expectations seem to be global phenomena; we have loads of those in the German system as well. Even though I do not completely understand what is happening in Australia it sounds like the reforms our educational authorities want to impose upon us. To understand what is going on in Australia and to maybe share some of my German experiences could you please explain the following statements to me: Thank you Ulrike

I would like to start a new topic whose focus is more the classroom than a general exchange of opinion. In the history section we debated the problem in how far the way we teach history and the contents of our schoolbooks are tainted by nationalism. Looking at politics textbooks I found that they even more than history books mainly deal with national politics especially when topics like government, parties, the legal system etc. are concerned. For example German pupils learn all they need to know about the German political system, the legal system, our welfare state etc. British and American textbooks inform their students about their respective political and social systems and structures. Of course our students have to know, understand and analyse their own political systems but I think that it is also necessary that they learn about the political systems, culture, philosphy and theory of our neighbouring countries. German Grammar school students get some information about the British and American system in their English lessons but of course language lessons are different from politics lessons and the students do not necessarily acquire a political understanding and do not always learn to assess the information they get politically. I personally think that it is vital to create and enhace intercultural understanding among the young people and one way to do this might be e.g. comparing the different forms of democracy that have evolved and examining their historic roots, their implications and shortcomings (see debate "Do we still live in a democracy"). I think a good example of textbooks offering a global perspective of political and social phenomena are most of the books written for the citizenship lessons and textbooks concentrating on e.g. human rights. Schoolbook authors for textbooks on classical "national" topics could learn from them.

But unfortunately neither the Soviet Union nor China were forced to change by the dissidents but because of economic necessities and the dictaorial regimes of Greece and Argentina toppled because of the wars (Cyprus and the Falklands) they could not win; Salazaar in Portugal was forced to go into exile peacefully but what had weakened him and his regime had been a long and bloody war in the African colonies.

Dalibor, I think you are right that King and Gandhi could be so effective because they could work within a democratic framework. As was said Hitler would not have been stopped by peaceful means and those who tried to resist using peaceful means (e.g. The White Rose) failed and were executed. The only chance of stopping Germany from her slide into a dictatorship would have been in 1933 and the only force would have been the trade unions and the only way would have been a general strike. There are some reasons why the German trade unions did not call the workers to such a strike: at the end of the economic depression and a huge number of unemployed it would have been questionable if the trade unions still would have been able to rally the masses; already at the beginning of the 20th century the German trade unions had decided against strikes as a means of politics and had limited themselves to economic and social demands only ( the reaction to the Kapp Putsch was an exception) and the trade unions like the bourgeois parties believed Hitler would reward their compliance and it was Hitler who made May day a national holiday; on May 2nd 1933 he then destroyed the trade untions, had their leaders tortured and put in concentration camps. Coming back to the problem of your last posting I must say that I do not know of any successful non-violent opposition against authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, which in a consequence means that an opposition movement working in such a system sometimes has to use violence: see July 20, 1944 the futile attempt to assassinate Hitler. Those who planned the coup knew about the risks and they had had long discussions about the ethical implications of what they were about to do.

Javier, no private donations to parties sounds like a nice idea but I'm afraid not a very realistic one. But a "must" must be that these donations have to be made public immediately and if this does not happen parties have to pay huge fines (happened in Germany).

Alma, Israel is a state like Germany, France, the USA; furthermore it is a democracy and a member of the UNO and has subscribed to adhering to the standards established by this organisation. As much as I question and citicise the activities of my own country and her government I question and critise the activities of Israel. Criticising Israel is not automatically anti-semitism. Or would your call the Jewish peace movement in Israel and e.g. the activities of the officers of the Israeli army to follow Sharon's policy(all of the Jews) anti-semitic also?

This sounds like one of the ifs in history: what would have happened if.... Actually I think that neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King would have been able to save Germany from the Nazis. The great pacifists who were able to influence people and world history needed a mass movement behind them to put pressure on governments to bring about change; I am afriad that at the end of the 20s and in the 30s the majority of people in Germany were not too unhappy with Hitler and the system he had established. For many Germans he seemed to guarantee work, safety and law and order after the chaotic years at the end of the Republic of Weimar. Hence neither Gandhi nor Marin Luther Kind would have found the backing they both had and needed. John, I think there are two more questions inherent in your posting: Are we allowed to use "terrorist" strategies and tactics e.g. to fight corrupt, dictatorial, and inhumane systems? In the final stage of World War II a large group of people planned the assassination of Hitler (July 20, 1944), but they failed, not Hitler was killed by the bomb planted in his camp but others. Was this ilegal, did those who planned it all have the right to do it, was it right to risk the lives of innocents? Would there have been another way to topple the system? What about the resistance movements in France and Italy fighting a guerilla war against the German army and their own fascist leaders? You can ask the same questions when you study the history of South Africa: Was the ANC and Nelson Mandela right to leave the non-violent struggle behind and train as guerillas and plant bombs in front of police headquarters etc? When are we allowed to use violence? What about the lives of innocents? The second question I think refers to foreign affairs. Many German pacifists - among them our Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer - changed their attitude during the war in former Jugoslawia when they saw what was going on in Sarajevo and the ineffectivity of the blue helmets. Can we still uphold our conviction that conflicts must and can be solved by peaceful means only? Was there an alternative to e.g. sending armed forces to Bosnia, Albania to end the slaughter? And again the question is when has a conflict got out of hand so that peaceful mediation and conflict resolution is no longer possible? Who decides this, what are the ethical principles and the rationale behind the decision? I am not quite sure if these questions can be answered on a theoretical and philosophical basis only. I think to find answers we must analyse either historical periods and precedents or real international conflicts. Coming back to the Near East conflict I still think that the only way out is a non-violent roadmap, but I can understand Palestinians and people in Israel who are utterly frustrated because they have seen that neither the attempt to solve the conflict peacefully nor the attempt to put an end to it with the means of war has brought any feasible results, has made life in Israel and the occupied territories safer.

Adrian, the forum is about education. Being a history and politics teacher it is important for me to exchange/debate my views with colleagues. Topics like the one in this section are those I have to deal with in my classroom and debating them with colleagues from different countries and of different opinions helps me to get a better perspective and sharpen my own understanding. Maybe we sometimes get carried away a bit but every member has the option to start a new topic which for example might concentrate on how to teach certain subjects, how to improve our lessons (there was a thread about using simulations in history lessons last year), sharing resources etc.

As far as I know no one has restricted alma from posting her opion freely. I strongly disgagree with JP Raud Dugal and think verbally abusing one of the debaters is bringing a forum like this down, but if you look at some of alma's postings she also is using fairly strong words to disparage others. I think we all should follow the standards we expect our students to learn and if I look at the student's debate they mainly follow the established standards of a civilised debate. By the way, I do not mind being called a "happy socialist and liberal" sister.

As you can see from the posting I am refering to an article I found in the New York Times which -as you can also see - quoted a Jewish teacher: I didn't know that the New York Times qualifies as an instrument of propaganda.

True, all those who come and want to live in Germany are expected to and must accept the German laws and the Basic Law. What the immigrants and the ethnic and religious minorities can expect and what they can justly and legally claim is that the Human Rights and the guarantees they give and promise are valid for them as well and that they can enjoy these rights in the same way a German citizen can. Even though this is not explicitly said in one of the articles of our constitution, the right of being different is inherent in most of them. To quote only some: I think the first step is to listen carefully- to both sides, to simply acknowledge the grievances and fears of both sides - non-immigrants, majorities and immigrants, ethnic minorities. Those who planted the bombs in the Madrid trains are criminals and they do not represent Islam and/or the Muslims. Religion is only a pretext as demanding more autonomy for the Basque country has been a pretext for the ETA to kill. One of the lessons of Madrid for me is that a dialogue between Muslims, immigrants and us, i.e. Christians, atheists, Germans, French,... is necessary worldwide to find ways of how to cut off terrorists of all sorts from their supply of volunteers and cover.

Bertha von Suttner could also be nominated. She was born into an Austrian aristocratic family and was a teacher. She was a dedicated pacifist and her novel "Die Waffen nieder" (Lay down your arms/weapons - sorry, I do not know the English title). In 1905 she received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Lou Phillipes, I agree; inclusion would be what I want

I agree that integration is a must, but the question is how we define integration and how we want to bring it about. I think banning teachers because they wear a headscarf is a way to hamper integration because it forces these women out of our state-schoolsystem and it shows them that we do not accept them. Including Muslim teachers and offering Muslim students religious education in state schools the curriculum and the way the subject is taught controlled and monitored by boards of education as Rau suggests seems worth trying. The largest ethnic minority in Germany still are the people from Turkey - a completely secular state which by the way does not allow the headscarf in schools, businesses, offices etc. The more come, the faster the "ghettos" like Berlin-Kreuzberg grow the greater the number of problems with extremely conservative members of the predominantly Mulsim community who deny especially their girls and women the Human Rights e.g. by sending them back to Turkey, forcing them into marriages, not allowing them to go on class trips etc. One way of addressing this problem might be integrated housing projects; close cooperation between schools and the Muslim community - actually Muslim teachers in our schools would be of great help here.

In Germany we have different Religious Education currica and courses: one for the Protestants, one for Catholics and one which can be called ethics, or in some Laender philosophy. Each student has to choose one of these.

The World's Greatest citizen - how do we define "Great"? Refering to Germany some I think would suggest Bismarck as he united Germany in the 19th century, some would refer to some German Emperors/kings of the Middle Ages. I personally would suggest Willy Brand who initiated and masterminded the Neue Ostpolitik and who truly and honestly began the process of reconciliation between Germany and the nations east of us. I see his foreign policy as the beginning of reuniting Germany.

In a move that has sparked protest across France, the French government in February passed a law banning public school students from wearing Jewish skullcaps, large Christian crosses, Sikh turbans and, most controversially, Muslim headscarves. The 276-20 vote in the French Senate forbids religious apparel that shows a student’s religious affiliation. Furthermore the legislation also includes a lengthy preamble that demands that public schools guarantee total equality, including "coeducation of all teachings, particularly in sports and physical education." Schools, it said, are "the best tool for planting the roots of the republican idea. "The preamble and the law make clear that religious beliefs can not be used as an excuse to avoid gym or biology classes, and that questioning the veracity of the Holocaust would not be tolerated. Mr. Ferry also said the law "will keep classrooms from being divided up into militant religious communities ( quoted according to the New York Times, February 11, 2004) The French President, Mr. Chirac, a strong supporter of the law justified the French move by pointing out: “School is a republican sanctuary that we must defend in order to preserve equality during the acquisition of values and knowledge in girls and boys; in order to protect our children; so that our youth is not exposed to the bad winds that divide, separate and bring us into conflict with one another.” (Jacques Chirac: School must be a secular sanctuary" From a speech by the French President on the banning of Islamic headscarves in Schools; The Independent, 18 December 2003 ) One of the main aims of education according to him is to unite the French behind “the values that have constituted and that still constitute France. It is in this way that we will remain a confident, assured and cohesive nation.” ) ( see above) The situation in Germany is a bit more difficult and at first sight slightly confusing: Headscarves are seen with increasing frequency on women in Germany's major cities, and they have become an expression of identity as well as of religious devotion. Muslim officials say that many more women in Germany wear the headscarf now than they did 10 years ago. The reasons for the headgear are no longer only religious; for some, the scarves have evolved as an emblem of confidence and identity for Muslim women. Fereshta Ludin, a 31-year-old Afghanistan native was banned from taking up post to teach English and German teacher in primary and secondary schools in 1998, because she insisted on wearing her headscarf, or hijab as it is known in Arabic, in the classroom for religious reasons. The board of education in the state of Baden Wuerttemberg argued at the time that her headscarf would violate the state’s neutrality on religion. Since then Ludin, who became a German citizen in 1995, has seen her case move through a string of German courts -- from the municipal level all the way to Germany's highest court. In January, the constitutional court stressed in its ruling that though Germany’s constitutional law did not explicitly forbid the wearing of headscarves in the classroom in state-run schools in the first place, the possibility remained for states to legally enact such a ban. The court stressed that the German state’s neutrality on religion shouldn’t be understood as a strict separation of church and state. Thus, if federal states didn’t want to employ teachers wearing a headscarf, they would first need to create unambiguous laws that expressly forbid religious symbols in the classroom, the court said. In Ludin’s case, such a legal ban wasn’t in place in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, it noted. Ms. Ludin and the Muslim communities in Germany welcomed the ruling and saw it as a victory, but a string of German states have now issued statements saying they plan to introduce legislation that would ban Muslim teachers (teachers only, the students are and will be allowed to wear the hijab)from wearing the headscarf in the future in state-run schools and thus preserve the state’s neutral stance on religion. The new laws would only apply to Muslim dresses and symbols Christian and/or Jewish dresses or symbols would still be allowed in state-schools. But there are also opposing views: famous women formed a group, which sees itself working independently of political and religious considerations, which signed an "appeal against a headscarf law." Initiated by Federal Commissioner for Integration and Foreigners, Marieluise Beck, the protest initiative includes politicians from across the party spectrum, scientists and leaders from the church and media. Former parliamentary president, Rita Suessmuth (a member of the CDU= Christian Democratic Union), minister for Consumer Affairs and Agriculture Renate Kuenast (The Greens), Federal Commissioner for Human Rights Claudia Roth and popular actresses Katja Riemann and Renan Demirkan have all lent the petition their support. The group resists equating Muslim women wearing headscarves with fundamentalism. Though they admit that the headscarf can be a visible instrument used by Islamic fundamentalists to portray the repression of women, it insists that not all women wearing the headscarf are religious fanatics. The protestors emphasise that many Muslim women don’t view emancipation and the headscarf as contradictory. Ms. Ludin has always stressed that she wears the hijab out of her own will and that it is part of her religious and ethnic identity which she wants to keep even though she has become a German citizen. In contrast to Mr. Chirac the German President, Mr. Rau, strongly opposes forbidding Muslim teachers to wear a hijab. In different speeches he demanded that Islamic headscarves receive equal treatment with symbols of other faiths such as Christianity or Judaism. "State schools must respect each and everyone, whether Christian or pagan, agnostic, Muslim or Jew," Rau said on television. If the headscarf is an expression of religious faith, a dress with a missionary character, then that should apply equally to a monk's habit or a crucifix." (the crucifix still can be found in Bavarian state-schools; the right to display it is encoded in Bavarian law) In addition to religious education for Catholics and Protestants in German state-schools Rau expects state-schools to offer religious education for Muslims, which he sees as a palliative against students’ being indoctrinated and manipulated. If someone wants to teach in a German state-school he/she has to swear an oath of loyalty to the German constitution thus accepting it and its principles especially the Human Rights and the democratic system of German. I think the first round of the debate should concentrate on the situation and different positions mentioned above. I personally think that the debate about the veil is only one aspect of a larger issue, namely integration of immigrants and/or ethnic minorities. A second round could refer to the following questions: - how do we define “ integration” - would we prefer “ assimilation”? - how much multiculturalism, ethnic and religious diversity are we/our societies willing to or able to accept without losing its own identity - what do we expect from the immigrants/ethnic minorities living in our midst? Mr. Chirac does not mince words and has a very clear definition of what he expects from those who want to be French: “Everyone must be proud of France, our country. Everyone must feel a guardian of her heritage. Everyone must feel responsible for her future. Let us transform today's problems into tomorrow's assets by resolutely pursuing the unity of the French people. By confirming our commitment to an open and generous secularism such as we have been able to create year after year. By improving equality of opportunity, the spirit of tolerance and solidarity. By fighting resolutely for the rights of women. By uniting behind the values that have constituted and that still constitute France.” (see above) I think the “musts” of the German President sound different: he expects every immigrant and/or member of an ethnic minority to learn the German language, to accept and follow the Basic law- our constitution – to accept the rule of law and the German laws and legal system.