ABSTRACT
One of the most significant criticisms voiced against faith schools in current debate is the claim that they are ‘divisive’. Examples of this claim can be readily pointed to. Richard Dawkins, for instance, has argued that faith schools are ‘lethally divisive’ (Dawkins 2001) and Polly Toynbee claims that such schools ‘foil attempts at future integration’, ‘cause apartheid’ and (in the case of Catholic schools) leave some 10 per cent of their places empty rather than admit ‘unwashed heathen’ (Toynbee 2001). Harry Judge is not alone in questioning the wisdom of expanding the number of faith schools ‘in a contemporary British society already threatened by divisive strains’ (Judge 200la: 470). These are but three examples of a wide range of expressions of concern about the divisiveness of faith schools from many quarters. The charge of divisiveness is particularly damaging to faith schools because it alleges a tangible evil which affects society as a whole. The charge therefore constitutes a potential ‘trump’ over familiar arguments about the rights of religious communities and parents to not only establish and send their children to faith schools but also to enjoy the support of public funding in respect of these rights. The well being of society as a whole, it can be claimed, ‘trumps’ the well being of any particular section of it.
