It was not the simple “presence” of a veiled student on the HEC site that Jean-François Lisée denounced in a Tweet relayed by the media, but the fact that the institution chose to take this photo and publish it to recruit candidates in Algeria.
In response to Lisée, a columnist from The Press challenges the young woman in the photo and gives her the floor by transforming her into the arbiter of a debate that has nothing to do with the fact that she has personally chose to adopt a religious dress code. In no way is the name of this young woman who appears in the publicity photo, nor even her status revealed on the HEC website. When a university asks a person to appear on its site for recruitment purposes, it is their image that interests them, not their person or their ideas. So she takes the trouble to anonymize it. It is not a question, in fact, of passing judgment on the appearance that a particular person gives himself, even less of making him the spokesperson of the institution.
Why does a columnist allow herself to plunge a mere extra into the fray? And what about the ethics of HEC which, presumably, transmitted the coordinates of the student to the media?
The way in which the institution reacted to the controversy is eloquent. Through its media relations manager, HEC argues that its site reflects its student population and that its home page is not an advertisement since it changes every two weeks (see Rima Elkouri, The Press, August 10). However, the photo in question accompanies an advertisement for the recruitment of female students from Algeria, which constitutes institutional advertising which, as everyone knows, has its exposure time. Why deny it? In an email to a journalist from To have to [10 août]the HEC representative, still mentioned the possibility for all members of her student community to be “highlighted” on her platforms.
Reflect, enhance its student population? With regard to recruiting in Algeria, a country where the hijab has imposed itself on women in a violent way, and where many young women still suffer from the pressure made on them to wear it, would it not have been more wise – and less tendentious – to include two figures in the promotional photo, one veiled seeking to join those who wear it voluntarily or not, and those who refuse to wear it? Why does HEC emphasize the choice of some to the detriment of the choice of others? And by favoring the only choice which, “internationally” (as the advertising says), has become an instrument of discrimination and exclusion of a majority of women? Do we realize that it will not fail to appear in the eyes of Algerian women or Muslim candidates that, far from opening up to diversity and equity, HEC has rather make his choice?