[article originally published in Le Figaro under the title “ Does Pap Ndiaye want to deconstruct the council of wise men of secularism?"]
Article one of the 1958 Constitution explains that the Republic is indivisible, secular, democratic and social. Secularism is therefore one of those principles that require, above all, a legal organization. Founded on the principle of separation (public sphere, private sphere) which guarantees freedom of conscience and worship, it is weakened today by the conjunction of politics and religion under the auspices of a galloping wokism that agrees with people like Norman Ajari in declaring that it is at the same time a measure of "apartheid"[1], or even "Islamophobic, discriminatory, unfair and far-right". At the same time, a paradox is emerging in society: on the one hand, we want to abolish the boundary between the public and private spheres through religious demands within public services (the canteen, prayer, the separation of men and women, etc.) and at the same time, companies are demanding its application when it has no place there. The educational institution is at the heart of the tensions that are obviously shaking the adult world. Teachers are increasingly torn between the organizing principle to which they are subject and the social aspirations of the public users of the public service: their students and their parents. The odious murder committed in the most barbaric way that Samuel Patty was the victim of should in itself be enough to understand that it is essential to resist by reaffirming the organizing principles of the State. The latter partly depend on the Institutions that define the extent of the identity of the French nation: the language, its culture and literature, its school. The Council of Elders of Secularism, currently chaired by Dominique Schnapper, is an institution that was founded in 2018 to be both the essential consultation body for all questions related to secularism in schools and in the administration of National Education, as well as an active circle of colleagues always on the lookout ready to go to all areas to meet, discuss and advise teachers, heads of establishments, academy inspectors, rectors, chiefs of staff or ministers upon simple request. They have produced numerous works, such as the valuable Vademecum "Acting against racism and anti-Semitism"[2] written jointly with the Dilcrah of 2018 where one will read with profit the last chapter devoted to the essential distinction between racism and anti-Semitism, for example; or the excellent box set "Guide Républicain" which, starting from numerous listed cases, provides each school actor with a concrete response. A discreet but effective institution, it has rendered countless services, anticipated many unfortunate approximations and prevented many tragedies... It has never been a fashionable gadget: on the contrary, it is one of the last salutary ramparts against the madness that seems to be taking hold of society, and to tell the truth: a (real) lookout. Jean-Louis Bianco, as chairman of the late Observatory of Secularism – considered too lenient with Islamism – had a seat there and whatever his personal positions or whatever the erroneous definition he had of a secularism with epithets: he never, except perhaps once, found fault with, contradicted or qualified the decisions of the council. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that secularism, in the mind of the designer of this institution, was a vector of unity, a point of convergence that weighed heavily on reality. This is the case with these discreet institutions that function well under the leadership of the right people. They end up arousing the covetousness of a few who, not having the power to do well, arrange things so that no one can do better.
It is in this difficult context that we recently learned of two events that considerably change the institutional situation. First, the Areopagus is extended to new personalities upon simple nomination by Mr. Minister NDiaye. There is nothing particularly surprising about this and this is the custom of the courts that authorizes people from the high aristocracy to distribute perks to those of their friends who undoubtedly deserve it. And among these nominations, not all are to be judged with the same severe eye, quite the contrary, and we can only collectively rejoice to see the entry of lawyers specializing in the Disputed Territories of secularism, for example. The nomination of Alain Policar, for its part, undoubtedly "touched by the ovation and who impatiently awaits [...] the time when he will be able [...] to mingle with the notables" is interesting for the portrait it paints of success in France in the 21st century and for the political inflection of which it is the symptom.
Gifted with a visionary spirit that allows him to probe the ministerial loins and hearts, he recently declared in an interview with l'Express that "the minister's idea was to diversify the sensitivities within the Council, which until now had been rather monochromatic."[3].What does the adjective "monocolor" mean to someone who knows the ministers' ideas? Because anyone who knows the workings of the Institution knows how many green and unripe ones are seen there. And it would be very clumsy to assign them a political "color", a racial "color" or even a spiritual "color". But actually: what "color" does Mr. Policar claim to be? That's another story. Indeed, Minister Pap NDiaye intervened to change the council's mission statement by modifying not only its composition, but also its scope and prerogatives. From now on, the council will no longer be able to be consulted directly by field actors but all requests will have to go through the rector himself, and upon referral from the minister himself. Can you imagine the principal of a provincial college consulting his entire hierarchy, right up to the rectorate, to get an answer on the local management of after-school activities? It is, in fact, a sterilization of the council that is contained in this reorganization of the means of consultation. Without doubt, in order to know the members, most of them will make themselves available: but this will be in a way that derogates from their status. And what will happen to the next promotions? Who does not see that the corporatization of the council occurs at the same time as the question of "discrimination" comes in the decree itself to correct the issue of "secularism" which is that of the council?
Replacing the question of secularism with questions related to discrimination actually amounts to revising the essential nature of the council of wise men who had never claimed to know as much about questions of "gender and race". Secularism is a technical, legal question, which organizes for the Republic, the separation between the private sphere and the public sphere. By extending the prerogatives of the secular question to discriminatory questions, it gradually shifts into a form of woke relativism carried by theories of gender and race. Alain Policar is, what a coincidence, a recognized promoter of it, he who wrote: "There is violence based on the construction of "racial" differences"[4]. But his appointment obviously has nothing to do with it... Whatever happens, the placing under supervision of the Council of Elders of Secularism, perceptible in certain articles of the new decree, inevitably comes up against the reality of the audience of its members within and beyond the educational institution. Honestly, can we imagine Pap Ndiaye curbing Dominique Schnapper's expression?
