AROUND a year ago, I attended a certification program for English language teachers in the UAE. Our group of trainees consisted of several women who wore Hijab: an American revert, a European Muslim and a lecturer from Iraq. Our class was a motley mix: musicians from Spain, students from Cuba, an office boy from Bangladesh, an Indian concierge, an Egyptian security officer, an Iranian housewife, a Russian barista and a Filipino caterer – the aim was to make the teaching experience as varied and inclusive as possible and expose trainees to a variety of learner challenges. An important part of the course consisted of assessing peer performances – not just by commenting on positive aspects of co-trainees' classroom manner – but also by giving them (what we diplomatically called) “things to think about.” Besides, hawk-eyed assessors observed all classes vigilantly, ruthlessly noting distracting personal and verbal tics, and jotting notes on the trainees' performances, to see how closely we corresponded to an exacting checklist of criteria provided by the University of Cambridge. Not once did ‘Hijab' come up on anyone's list of “things to think about,” not once did it interfere with teacher-student bonding and interaction, not once did it negatively affect a course assessor's impression of a candidate's professionalism or ‘employability'. Which is why, the ban in 8 of the 16 German states on teachers wearing Hijab in classrooms – and its wider social implications – has always struck me as singularly inexplicable. What can the ban possibly hope to achieve, besides the marginalization of Muslim women? What outcome is expected if Muslim women are given a Kierkegaardian choice: your Hijab or your career? Recently, Human Rights Watch publicly called out Germany – home to 3 million Muslims – for its blatant violation of the rights of Muslim women in its report, “Discrimination in the Name of Neutrality: Headscarf Bans for Teachers and Civil Servants in Germany.” The 67-page report analyzes the human impact of the ban on the lives of Muslim teachers, and cites instances where women teachers who wear Hijab have been told to remove it and have been subject to disciplinary action if they refused. The report states: “If a teacher refuses to remove her headscarf and subsequently is unsuccessful in court proceedings, she runs the risk of losing her civil servant status and of being removed from her teaching position. Muslim trainee teachers cannot find employment as public school teachers after successful completion of their education unless they remove their headscarves. State officials justify the restrictions on the basis that teachers have a duty to ensure that schools remain neutral on questions of religion and ideology. But there is no evidence that the teachers' conduct violated that duty. Instead, the bans are based on the notion that merely wearing the headscarf places neutrality at risk.” Some of the teachers told Human Rights Watch that their offers to wear more “socially acceptable” alternatives to the headscarf, such as large hats, or to tie the scarves in atypical styles, were rejected outright. As a result of the bans, some of the women left their home states or Germany altogether, while others felt coerced to remove their headscarf to keep their jobs. They complained of feeling alienated, pushed into a corner and excluded, even though many have lived in Germany all their lives. Bizarrely, proponents of the ban argue that it “protects women from oppression” and “empowers” them, despite the women taking great pains to point out that they wore the headscarf as a matter of personal choice. And far from “empowering” them, the bans blocks their access to employment and would eventually lead to their economic deterioration, certainly not “empowerment” by a long stretch. In the words of one woman: “As long as we were cleaning in schools, nobody had a problem with the headscarf.” HRW has recommended that the eight states where the ban is in force should repeal the laws: “State governments should ... ensure that their legislation and procedures are compatible with Germany's international human rights obligations, guaranteeing in particular that these do not discriminate on grounds of gender or religion. The regulations are not abstract concerns. The restrictions have a profound effect on women's lives.” For proof, one only has to go through the poignant personal accounts replete in the report, which is available online: “On the first day I ‘disguised' myself in the school toilet. When a colleague spoke to me, I broke down in tears. My son asked me: ‘What is more important, Allah or work?, “ said one woman identified in the report as Rabia. This is a wrenching choice no one should have to make – certainly not to appease the small-mindedness and irrational bigotry of a select few.
