Aishah Azmi, 24, was asked to take it off in class after pupils said they found English lessons hard to understand because they could not see her lips move....
"The children themselves were complaining. It is about what's best for the children."
October 14, 2006
"How can you teach English to young children with a veil over your face?"
Firing a teacher for her religious garb. Do we believe the justification?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
Impedes communication.
Teaching English to Brits?
I thought Brits came out of the womb speaking high King David vernacular.
Anyway, this Gal needs not only to be fired, but deported, and/or converted, ASAP !
Peace, Maxine
Do we believe the justification?
I do. I can't imagine having taken French and Arabic without being able to see the teacher's mouth.
I just read somewhere that the students themselves are mostly Muslim and are therefore used to it. I'm not sure of the veracity of that claim.
Molecules of oxygen are simply too small, and thread too thick, for oxygen to be blocked by any type of cloth or textile
So it's impossible to smother someone with a blanket, then?
Yes, quite shocking.
She should have been in a burka. All Muslim women should be in burkas (it's in the Qur An).
Also, she should have been at home, taking care of her family, instead of mixing with the men and boys in a public school.
Also, she shouldn't be allowed to vote, or drive.
We just shouldn't let Muslim women run around in society like this, doing whatever they please.
I'm quite sure that CAIR is up in arms over this women being allowed to appear in public without the full burka.
"Do we believe the justification"
That English lessons are hard if you can't see the lips? I believe that 100%
I have been teaching English to Taiwanese of all ages for the last 6 years and I am constantly telling my students that people listen with their eyes.
It is not so apparent when both speaker and listener are native speakers but if one or both are not then its so easy to see.
If a student is reading to the class and holding his book in front of his face 1/2 of the other students cannot understand him. Drop the book and most of them suddenly do.
Teaching English in a veil would be like teaching ballet in suit of armor.
That being said I think we are starting to finally see the "backlash" Cair has been whining about for 5 years. Kill enough people and even europeans and liberals will start to notice that most of the terrorists are named mohammed.
First of all, the linked newspaper article says that local muslim leaders said she was not required by Islam to wear the veil among children. It was thus her personal, not religious, choice.
Second, it the veil did impair the kids' learning experience, it's hard to see a reason to complain about her treatment.
Finally, the question Ann asks is not really very easy to answer (do we believe this?). Who knows? It probably depends on how close the veil was to her lips, and whatever the sound deadening properties of the fabric were. Of course, it's possible the kids decided to gang up on her, but the kids were said to be between 7 and 11, and many were from backgrounds where English was not their first language. So this sounds at least plausible to me.
JohnF: The fact that her group doesn't require it doesn't mean her decision is not religious. A religious practice can be individual. For example, a Christian teacher might choose to wear a cross. If the school were to forbid it, her complaint that it impinged on her religious freedom would be serious.
"The fact that her group doesn't require it doesn't mean her decision is not religious. A religious practice can be individual. For example, a Christian teacher might choose to wear a cross. If the school were to forbid it, her complaint that it impinged on her religious freedom would be serious."
Well, this is of course true. However, where a religion does not require a practice I think any argument that the practice ought to be allowed, despite its interfering with the job of the practitioner, is quite weak. If the cross you talk about was being worn by some one operating a lathe, I'd be surprised if the law did not allow an employer to ban it on the grounds that it could get caught in the machinery.
On the other hand, if a religion required a practice--e.g., afternoon prayers--I can see the law being more "understanding"--though I still think the test should be interference with the job (cf. the muslim taxi drivers who reject fares for a variety of reasons compelled by their religion).
Of course, I have no idea what the English law is on all this (and not too much of an idea what the U.S. law is).
Is that what you really think of women--that they're so stupid as to do something which inhibits breathing?
No, of course not.
Freeman Hunt: That's flat-out brilliant.
I like the way your minds works.
Hey, I'm a lip-reader! The teacher needs to take that darned thing off -- let those kids learn!
Burkean Reflections
Why don't they just require a uniform for the teachers or something like that? Or a simple dress code. The decision to wear a crucifix or a burka is a choice. If they don't like it - then get another job.
Bravo, Freeman.
On the other hand, if a religion required a practice--e.g., afternoon prayers--I can see the law being more "understanding"--though I still think the test should be interference with the job
If non-religious people can't wear goofball outfits that interfere and distract in the classroom, then religious people shouldn't be able to either.
That students did say she was hindering their learning is all that needs to be said - take off the veil while in the classroom or go work somewhere else.
But even if the kids hadn't said the teacher was hindering their learning, I'd still not think schools should have teachers dressed like that. She looks insane. She's making a fight of it because she wants to push the twisted cult views she's been brainwashed by on little kids when all she's supposed to be doing is teaching English. A school allowing her to look like that would be impliedly teaching kids that those veils and everything they stand for are respectable.
they found English lessons hard to understand because they could not see her lips move....
I believe it. I find it easier to listen to slurred/indistinct speech if I'm also watching the lips.
This is common sense, really. More sensory information will always help comprehension.
Dave: "Is that what you really think of women--that they're so stupid as to do something which inhibits breathing?"
Women wore corsets that made it hard to breathe. It's not proof of stupidity, but a sign that something is valued more highly than ease of breathing. Why does anyone ever run? That makes it harder to breathe. Is running proof of stupidity? People do all sorts of things for religion that make ordinary life harder, and demonstrating a willingness to take on the difficulty is one reason for doing it. To call this "stupid" is to fail to understand religious thinking. Even if you think religion is wrong, you should understand how wrong thinking can still be intelligent.
Freeman Hunt: I'm just seeing your Wikipedia link.
Very good, Freeman.
"For men, corsets are more customarily used to slim the figure"
I don't own a corset, so, I guess that explains the beer belly.
WV: ktclyrzs
Meaning: The sound one makes when the corset is pulled tight.
"cultural violence is driving people to more strongly embrface the artifacts that give them solace."
Isn't this missing the point? Should we be more concerned about
1) whether the teacher feels sufficiently consoled by her religious garb, or
2) whether she can effectively perform as a language teacher.
Her students say she can't. That should settle the question, unless the school is ready to abandon its educational role and redefine itself as a sort of cultural support and consolation center.
Maybe that's what Ms. Azmi is actually trying to accomplish.
I think the standard usually applied in the states is "reasonable accomodation." Assuming a religious practice is legal, employers are asked to make reasonable accomodation, assuming that the practice does not interfere with job performance.
By this standard, the teacher should be fired. There is no question that a veil disrupts learning. The psychology is indisputable.
Let's say that you are buying a used car. Would you be more comfortable if you could see his face as he made his pitch? We collect huge amounts of data from facial expressions, eye movement, tone of voice.
The veil would need to come off in my school.
Shanna: I'm not saying the woman needs to be allowed to cover her face during class, only refuting the statement made by a commenter that her decision to do so was only "personal" and not "religious." I think it is not fair to children not to be able to see the teacher's face. Whether it makes learning language harder or not, it is important for children to be able to see a human face in the classroom. It's not just about the ease of learning specific things, it's about the emotional atmosphere of a classroom and the deprivation of human warmth if the face is hidden.
I fail to see what religion has to do with this. She was hired to teach English. The students have trouble understanding her because of her veil. The administration requested that she not wear it, and she refused.
She placed the veil above her students. She shouldn't be allowed to teach in any classroom for that reason.
"She must protect her spiritual and physical privacy and dignity from the sinful prying eyes of males who are not her family members."
This is the lesson that the veiled teacher conveys to her students. (What she is NOT conveying is, apparently, effective instruction in English).
"That way the nice Muslim teacher would be able to continue teaching without having to fear that men are going to be staring at her."
"Nice" is hardly the word to describe someone who believes that teaching language skills is of lesser value than demonstrating female submission to gender apartheid.
A little late here but listen to her speaking here...
http://www.solpics.com/muslimteacher.mp3
Post a Comment