The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in Gaza have repercussions even in an artistic activity in a Montreal elementary school. The controversy arose from the disclosure of a concert program for young second and fourth graders that included pieces in Hebrew, but none in Arabic.
The school first considered removing them all following a parent’s questioning, then it modified its plan to reduce the place taken by the language used in Israel in the concert. A song referring to a “valiant” and “courageous” soldier was eliminated; another was hummed; two other pieces, one musical and the other sung in Hebrew, remained intact. The program also included a piece delivered by a sixth-grade children’s choir, which was ultimately performed in English. It will be performed again in two weeks at the graduate concert.
The dispute shows that the entire education network, from primary school to university, can find itself entangled in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Campuses across the continent are overheating due to the war in Gaza. Several universities in the United States have been occupied for days by supporters of the Palestinian cause. Tents appeared at McGill.
The Montreal controversy also raises fundamental questions about educational intention and freedom, parents’ right to review the content of programs and the legal and ethical guidelines governing (or not) education.
“When it comes to handling sensitive topics, a standard of professional ethics says that teachers should refrain from using their position of authority to promote a particular point of view. Almost all agree on this principle of impartiality supported by case law,” says Professor Bruce Maxwell, of the University of Montreal.
“In this case, perceptions and real intentions are also important,” says the specialist in handling sensitive issues at school.
Did the musical program and its Hebrew songs, in the context of the conflict in Gaza, constitute a breach of normative obligations? “It depends on the intention of the teacher who chose the songs,” replies the teacher. If the goal is to directly or indirectly communicate the idea that Israelis are somehow the only or main victims of the conflict, it seems clear to me that this is a breach of impartiality. If, on the other hand, the goal is to make a gesture of solidarity with the Israelis in the conflict or to promote peace in general, it is a little less problematic. »
The main person concerned says it frankly and clearly: she had no political intention in choosing to have her young students learn Hebrew songs. “I don’t do politics. I make music, said the teacher. For me, it becomes political if you want to make it political. It’s not my case. I chose beautiful songs that talk about peace and I didn’t think at all about the conflicts happening around the world. »
The programmatic musical choices had also been made before the Hamas attack perpetrated on Israeli soil on October 7, 2023 and the response of the Jewish state in Gaza which has continued since. Some Hebrew songs have been rehearsed in the school for years.
In her 28-year career, this is the first time that the teacher has experienced such a situation. “It’s censorship, downright. I make children sing, and I don’t think about “satanic messages” when selecting what I teach them. »
The duty has chosen not to disclose the name of the establishment at the heart of the controversy in order not to inflame a situation in which children are already unwillingly involved.
Censorship and freedom
At primary and secondary level, freedom of education is not the same as at university. Rather, teachers enjoy limited pedagogical freedom, linked to professional autonomy, but also to the obligation to respect a school program. They must also follow ethical standards under the governance of the right of management of the school management.
“There is a right of management to intervene and make choices, as we saw in the case of songs,” summarizes Professor Maxwell. We must show compassion towards management, who are torn between the demands of parents, employees, teachers. It’s a very delicate situation, very difficult to navigate. »
Parents have also seen censorship in the form of altering their children’s school concert. “Let us be clear: we are unconditionally empathetic and in solidarity with all those suffering from this terrible war, and all other conflicts beyond. But we cannot resign ourselves to accepting that sometimes it is acceptable to cancel a cultural object on the basis of ethnic origin,” wrote the four signatories (Véronique Bugeaud, Francis Clermont, Olivier Demers and David Bishop) of a letter denouncing the situation sent to the school management, then to the Duty.
The school administration refutes this position. “Our role is not one of censorship, but of education,” replied the director in a note sent to parents on April 12. “From the moment a situation affects the values of several individuals on both sides, it is my duty to act and make a decision that takes into account the needs expressed and the values of inclusion, respect and diversity that characterize our beautiful school. »
The director of the governing board defends the same position.
The Montreal School Services Center (CSSDM) was made aware of the controversy and is equally brushing aside the accusations of censorship. “In education, when subjects affect the values of individuals on both sides, it is important to approach them with sensitivity and taking into account respect for diversity, openness to others and empathy », written to Duty Alain Perron, press relations manager for the CSSDM. “Moreover, it is not our mandate to exercise any form of censorship on educational or artistic content or their origin. We focus on our mission: to educate and help our students succeed, while respecting our common values. »
The CSSDM intervened at the start of the conflict in Ukraine to support students affected by this war and suggest resources to establishments and teachers. In June, it will also offer training on educational freedom and sensitive subjects at school. It will focus on “the professional position to adopt in relation to the fair and responsible treatment of sensitive themes in teaching”, explains Mr. Perron, citing religion, racism and sexuality.
This training will also be given by Professor Bruce Maxwell, who has just co-written a guide intended for teaching staff and management of establishments entitled Educational freedom and sensitive themes at school. The Marie-Victorin School Service Center has produced its own guide to support reflection on the relevance and way of approaching certain themes with students. A very simple checklist reminds us that we must ask ourselves if the theme is in harmony with the program, if the treatment is impartial, if it can be done without unnecessarily shocking the students and if it is adapted to their age.
Professor Maxwell recalls that Quebec is the only place in North America, all states and provinces combined, which has not adopted a code of ethics for teachers, who also do not have professional here. Quebec actually deviates from the world standard in this area.
“There is a serious consequence to this gap,” says the specialist. We find ourselves in great uncertainty around the duties of teachers, both among members of the public and among teachers. But it is not enough to put a code in place: it must be published and mechanisms created to apply it. In the absence of a code, it is the Ministry of Education which receives and processes complaints. This is an unusual and unfortunate situation which goes against the model of professionalization of teaching. »