Secularism at School: A Teacher Warns of Self-Censorship and Community Pressures

Secularism at school is not limited to an abstract principle or to the ban on conspicuous religious symbols. It also plays out in everyday exchanges: when a student objects to a literary text, refuses a school trip or believes that a topic should not be addressed in the name of their beliefs.

A classics teacher in middle and high school for more than twenty years, Delphine Girard recounts in her book Madame, vous n’avez pas le droit situations in which students seek to set the boundaries themselves of what may be taught. Her testimony raises a central question: how can teaching freedom, debate and a shared framework be preserved in a school shaped by tensions within society?

When a student believes they can ban a subject

The title chosen by the teacher refers to a phrase she regards as revealing: “Madam, you do not have the right.” She sees it less as an isolated objection than as an injunction to remain silent. According to her, some students from families shaped by religious rigorism may believe that their personal prohibitions should be imposed on the class and on the school institution.

She notably mentions preparations for a literary trip devoted to Les Misérables, which was to include a visit to Paris’s Marais district. One student had expressed concern about the supposed presence of homosexual men and voiced fears based on stereotypes. When the teacher responded, the student described homosexuality as “haram.”

In her account, this kind of exchange is not limited to a difference of opinion. It involves perceptions of others, the ability to move freely in public space and the school’s capacity to correct prejudices without humiliating students. The teacher explains that she chose to open a discussion rather than avoid it.

Literature as a space for emancipation

Delphine Girard does not advocate teaching reduced to what she calls a “republican catechism.” Her primary role, she recalls, is to teach French, Latin and Greek literature. For her, education in universalism and humanism also comes through the works themselves: Victor Hugo, Voltaire, Enlightenment texts, mythology and artistic representations.

This approach means not removing from a curriculum a text that is critical of religions, a mythological painting featuring nudity or a question likely to offend certain sensibilities. In her view, the aim is not to deliberately provoke students, but not to abandon legitimate content in anticipation of a reaction.

The risk, when everything that might conflict with a group’s norms must be avoided, is that the range of accessible knowledge gradually shrinks. Delphine Girard puts this dilemma plainly: if only things that never offend anyone can be said, the lowest common denominator becomes silence.

Yet school also has the function of exposing students to ideas, narratives and worlds different from their own. This work requires a calm framework, but it cannot rest on the systematic removal of sensitive subjects. The difficulties encountered in schools add to other concerns about learning conditions, such as teacher shortages and overcrowded classes, discussed in our article on high school protests and school-related demands.

A perceived shift since the early 2000s

The teacher traces her first questions back to the beginning of her career, which started in 2004, the year of the law regulating the wearing of symbols or clothing conspicuously displaying religious affiliation in public schools, middle schools and high schools. She recalls discussions at that time with students who challenged certain passages from Voltaire criticizing religions.

During that period, she describes objections that could be forceful but often led, in her view, to substantial exchanges. She believes that the climate hardened after the January 2015 attacks against Charlie Hebdo.

Delphine Girard also attributes part of this shift to political positions on secularism, satire and the notion of Islamophobia. In particular, she takes issue with what she sees as a change in Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s position after the 2017 presidential election. This interpretation reflects her political analysis and assessment; it illustrates how national debates can, in her view, influence discussions between students and teachers.

She challenges the practice that, in her view, confuses criticism of a belief with hostility toward the people who hold it. This distinction is essential to the right to debate: respecting believers does not mean exempting religions, doctrines or institutions from all critical discussion.

After Samuel Paty and Dominique Bernard, the weight of self-censorship

The murder of Samuel Paty in October 2020, followed by that of Dominique Bernard in October 2023, deeply affected the teaching profession. Delphine Girard describes Samuel Paty’s murder as a turning point: the possibility that a teacher could be killed while doing their job, because of material taught, changed the relationship to risk.

She says that some ordinary lessons may now be perceived as acts of activism as soon as they address an issue liable to offend religious beliefs. She believes that some teachers then choose topics less exposed to objections, out of caution or fear of consequences that are difficult to control.

Self-censorship is not measured solely by the abandonment of a chapter. It can take the form of a text not studied, an image not shown, a debate not started or a historical clarification left aside. Over time, this restraint can weaken the school’s intellectual ambition and trust among staff, students and families.

Religious rigorism and the logic of “cancel culture”: a contested comparison

Delphine Girard draws a parallel between two phenomena that she considers socially different but comparable in their effects: on the one hand, objections based on religious rigorism; on the other, a sensibility influenced by Anglo-American references and a community-based reading of society, sometimes described by the term “cancel culture.”

According to her, both logics can lead to calls for the removal of a work, a word or a subject because it offends a group. Her criticism does not target the recognition of discrimination or the respect owed to everyone, but the idea that no content should be discussed if it risks troubling a community.

Debate about belonging, stereotypes and discrimination instead requires distinguishing people from the representations attached to them. This vigilance also applies in intimate life, as our article on racism and exoticization in relationships shows: reducing someone to an origin, a belief or an assumed identity fuels prejudice rather than understanding.

Support from the hierarchy as a condition for pedagogical authority

For Delphine Girard, the response cannot rest on teachers’ individual courage alone. A teacher can exercise their authority calmly on sensitive subjects only if they know they can rely on prompt, consistent and lasting support from their entire chain of command if difficulties arise.

Such institutional support is all the more important when objections begin in the classroom, extend to families or take on a public dimension. Without it, teachers may doubt their legitimacy, avoid potentially contentious subjects and gradually restrict their teaching practices.

Secularism at school therefore does not require indifference to students’ beliefs. It aims to ensure that those beliefs do not determine the content of knowledge or the shared rules. From this perspective, preserving teaching freedom, protecting staff and maintaining dialogue are complementary requirements.

FAQ on secularism at school

Does secularism prohibit discussing religions in class?

No. Religions may be addressed in an educational, historical, literary, artistic or philosophical framework. Secularism ensures, among other things, that school content is not subject to the prescriptions of any particular belief.

Can a student refuse a lesson in the name of their religion?

The testimony presented specifically highlights the difficulty raised by such objections. In the school setting, curricula and teaching are not determined by students’ individual beliefs.

Why is teachers’ self-censorship an issue?

When a teacher gives up a text, a work or a debate for fear of reactions, students’ access to certain forms of knowledge may be reduced. Institutional support is then presented as an essential lever for enabling staff to teach within a clear and secure framework.