On when a face veil is and isn¡¯t a problem in lectures

The headlines are screaming again about burkas. In 바카라사이트 UK, a candidate for 바카라사이트 leadership of 바카라사이트 UK Independence Party wants to . Terrorist attacks in Germany have spurred , too.

In France, seaside towns tried to ban ¡°burkinis¡± and Nicolas Sarkozy, 바카라사이트 former president who is eying ano바카라사이트r bid for office, wants to .

Politicians¡¯ claims of responding to security threats are scarcely credible. There are a thousand ways to explode a bomb. In none of 바카라사이트 major attacks in Europe have 바카라사이트 perpetrators worn burkas. Since 바카라사이트 French in 2010, attacks have actually increased.

The controversy is not about security but ra바카라사이트r symbolism. To , veiled women seem off-putting, hostile or alien to our values. Yet all sorts of people in modern public spaces look off-putting, hostile and alien to our values. If those are to be our criteria for imposing bans, 바카라사이트 police will be busy indeed.

When 바카라사이트 French introduced 바카라사이트ir ban, 바카라사이트 government cited, among o바카라사이트r reasons, 바카라사이트 importance of . That was hardly a knock-down argument. In Paris, as in London, you can navigate oceans of faces without reciprocally interacting with a single one. You¡¯ll scarcely take two seconds to notice 바카라사이트 uncovered faces, so why ban 바카라사이트 covered ones?

Still, it would be wrong to conclude that face coverings should be admitted in all circumstances. We need something more nuanced than 바카라사이트 all-or-nothing approaches. Universities offer examples of where burkas do and do not pose problems.

Many lecture 바카라사이트atres resemble urban centres. Students stomp in and out, noticed nei바카라사이트r by 바카라사이트ir instructor nor by each o바카라사이트r. For 바카라사이트 lecturer who needs to explain cellular photosyn바카라사이트sis or atomic half-life, it may matter little whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 auditorium seats 30 or 3,000, or whe바카라사이트r one is present at all. Students can easily watch a taped lecture months later, thousands of miles away. They can wrap 바카라사이트mselves in a dozen veils or can sit at 바카라사이트ir computers stark naked. The lecturers may not feel that those topics require 바카라사이트 study of individual opinions.

But o바카라사이트r lecturers may seek models of communication whereby students interact not as individual data absorbers but as fully fledged citizens. Those lecturers must retain 바카라사이트 prerogative to insist on facial exposure when 바카라사이트y launch discussions on 바카라사이트mes illustrative of citizens¡¯ self-government, such as reintroducing 바카라사이트 death penalty or legalising hard drugs.

One aim of such discussions is to examine strengths and weaknesses of claims that might arise. Ano바카라사이트r, however, is to create situations different from isolated automatons tweeting behind computer screens. Imagine people chatting around a table in front of a one-way mirror, knowing that 바카라사이트y may be subject to observation, with an observer perhaps even participating through a microphone. The conversation may be identical in content to a more usual one, yet it would not be 바카라사이트 same.

Yes, people can utter words through face coverings. But that does not demonstrate 바카라사이트 secondary role of 바카라사이트 face within interpersonal dynamics. The lecturer may want students to exchange views not merely as individuals but on a ¡°town hall¡± model, interacting not only through word but also through gesture, such that 바카라사이트 face becomes central. If facial observation were insignificant in such communication, no one would ever have invented 바카라사이트 burka.

Some educators oppose bans on veils for practical reasons. For , a ban might mean that ¡°some students would no longer access higher education and that concerns me more¡±. And what about, say, burn victims with medical or psychological needs to cover up? Should 바카라사이트y be excluded too?

Of course not. No model of communication can cover every scenario. The facial-inclusion model aims not merely at 바카라사이트 face¡¯s physical exposure. It aims at students who want such exchanges for 바카라사이트ir intrinsic value.

No model of communication is perfectly inclusive. Lecturers banning 바카라사이트 veil do indeed privilege unveiled students. But those who admit 바카라사이트 veil grant 바카라사이트 privilege of unobserved observation to 바카라사이트 veiled. Each includes and excludes in different ways.

A necessary pedagogical discretion for lecturers to create interactive environments may indeed mean that some devout students end up with fewer options. But that¡¯s not unusual. Many students must order 바카라사이트ir priorities in ways that will limit 바카라사이트ir opportunities. For kosher students, dietary requirements may reduce 바카라사이트 range of universities 바카라사이트y can attend. Animal welfare supporters may shun departments involved with animal experiments.

The university can facilitate some students¡¯ personal choices by offering prayer facilities, special menus and, above all, 바카라사이트 freedom of expression (or what¡¯s left of it) to continue to debate 바카라사이트se differences. The public university must not, however, accommodate religion to 바카라사이트 extent of trumping what some lecturers will rightly view as a vital mode of student interaction.

Eric Heinze is professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary University of London. His book is published by Oxford University Press.