Jonathan A. Alua@abotiwine
This GeyHey case is quite sensitive for obvious reasons, but in true fidelity to the law, the likes of Achimota School, which is a fully fledged government institution, cannot be viewed as similarly situated with Wesley Girls and other mission schools. Schools in the latter category are government assisted.
Do I agree that public schools should not entertain religious restrictions? Yes, absolutely. The only issue here is that these are not exactly public schools. The fact that a school receives funding from the state does not alter its fundamental character. What we may be losing sight of is that the establishment of these mission schools is itself an expression of the institutions’ Article 21 rights.
Perhaps it is time for the state to acknowledge how much we have failed as a nation. We should have enough fully public schools, and good ones too.
It is perfectly fine if you disagree with me. I understand how sensitive this matter is, but if you are willing to dig deeper, please look up the First Amendment Establishment Clause for comparative purposes. There is a long list of U.S. Supreme Court cases that affirm how constitutional it is for religious institutions to teach their doctrine to the exclusion of others. Of course, our context is peculiar. For example, some students are posted to these schools and do not always choose to go there. In light of this, the state, in its broader mandate to uphold secular governance, should allow students to reject such postings on religious grounds. The state should also commit to building more public schools and elevating them to the same standard as these now prestigious mission schools.
Beyond these reservations, the state cannot secularize mission schools simply because they receive public funding on a non discriminatory basis. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted curtailment of the Article 21 rights of these religious bodies.