In December last year, a little municipality in southern Sweden (by the name of Skurup, for whomever is concerned) politically decided to ban all manner of burkas, niqabs, hijabs, and so on, from their public schools. The principal of the school thought this was in poor taste, so when the federal agency directing the operation of schools in Sweden (called Skolverket) decided to chime in and call a hijab-ban unconstitutional, the principal linked the article through the school’s information board.
Which earned the principal a lot of heat from his employers at the local county administration, and he was forced to remove federally dispatched information from the school information board. Since, the principal has become the focal point of death threats, harassment, and a political schism between county and federal administration. In one camp, on the federal side, the argument goes that banning the hijab from schools goes against Swedish freedom of religion and freedom of expression, both articles of the Swedish Constitution. That it is discriminatory to ban ethnic and religious articles of clothing. On the other side, the county argues that the school is theirs, the principal is their employee, and the ban was ratified as a local political decision from an elected, democratic body.
It goes to note that this particular county’s largest political party is the racist, bigoted, Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna).
It is a valid debate. Both valid arguments. As you by now know, I’m no friend of the hijab (or its derivates) for reasons that I’ve previously explained. And it has been a hotly debated garment several times before. However, going against the Swedish Constitution seems particularly brazen (though something we in Sweden have come to expect from our southern municipalities, or anywhere that the Swedish Democrats have gained actual power). It is not as if an American is terribly surprised that a county makes racist, misogynistic, or otherwise bigoted rulings in, let’s say, Georgia. We’ve come to expect such abhorrent behaviour from these cretin.
But what is of particular interest here is that it starkly illustrates the precarious position that which a Swedish headmaster has. Being employed and working with the budget of one particular democratic body, and having their executive efforts dictated and ruled by a completely different democratic body. You see, in Sweden, public elementary schools fall under the purview of the counties. The budget and employment of teachers is done by the county. But what these teachers and principals are supposed to teach the children, how they’re supposed to teach the children, is decided by the federal government. By Skolverket. All in an effort to make all Swedish schools equivalent in quality.
So what you have here is a principal caught between his employer and his federal mission. Which oft-times, for all principals, is just an uncomfortable position to work from, but in Skurup has become a toxic hotbed of racism and Constitutional conflict.
So, what’s a headmaster to do? Well, in practise they can’t do much. They can deny the county its influence in the operation of the school that the county pays for, and most likely lose their job. Being replaced by someone who won’t be such a stickler for something so overly dramatic as a Constitution. But if he bends, he’ll catch hell from the federal government for violating the children’s constitutional rights. Most likely, the federal government will have him removed, and we’re back to the county being able to chose a new principal for the school.
Thirty years ago, the responsibility for elementary schools was left almost solely in the hands of the federal government. But as reforms often do, change came, and the management of schools was moved to the counties, though the federal Skolverket retained a role of oversight responsibility and operational command. Now, teachers and some politicians are barking for a return to federal rule over public education. It shouldn’t matter which county you raise your children in, they say. Their education should be the same no matter where you live. Because right now, that’s just plain not true. Different counties spend differently on different schools. At the other end, those that promote schools being left in the care of the counties claim that under the counties’ care, the administration of schools is closer to the control of local population, and is kept out of the draconian rule of some distant mandates in some far-flung capital.
Meanwhile, the headmasters, headmistress’, principals, are left to their own devices between two absolute authorities. Like a dog being pulled by two leashes. And most commonly, the leashes pull approximately the same direction. But sometimes, like right now in Skurup, those two authorities are tugging the leashes in opposite directions, tearing the dog apart. And that’s not a very sustainable way to walk a dog.
/Sebastian Lindberg 24/2-2020
WastedWords 