The victims of school segregation must speak out!

Last evening at Central European University (CEU) in Budapest, Legal Studies Department organized a debate on Roma school segregation. The CEU Rector and President Professor John Shattuck, a former US diplomat and a civil rights lawyer, delivered the opening speech. The panel moderated by Professor Uitz included Orsi Szendrey, Lilla Farkas and myself.

Rector Shattuck offered a brief description of the tools used by the Civil Rights Movement to overcome racial segregation in US making remarks and comparisons with the current situation of Roma in Europe. Orsi presented the policy developments in Hungary and the efforts until 2011 in promoting school desegregation through policy underlining that no predictions could be done regarding the results due to the new reforms introduced by the current government. Lilla talked about the issue of data protection and the lack of official data in arguing segregation cases in courts, showed the difference between US and European anti-discrimination law and practice and emphasized that the most important aspect of litigation is to impose a positive duty on the state to desegregate the education system. Lilla did not see the lack of a definition of segregation as an important impediment in promoting desegregation as segregation is covered by the Race Equality Directive and the challenge remains to define properly the Roma.

As the first speaker, I had to say few words about Ten Years After and then I presented my view on the challenges in arguing segregation cases before courts. In my view, the most important challenge is the lack of an internationally agreed definition of racial segregation which impedes application of law to particular cases. Judges as well as activists work will be eased by such a definition. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in spite of the efforts to unify the European legal standards as regards discrimination (European Convention of Human Rights, Race Equality Directive and soft laws) does not bring clarity to the issue. Is segregation of direct or indirect form of discrimination? What is the most effective way to argue? In my opinion segregation is a special form of discrimination and should be specifically defined (like harassment, victimization or incitement to discriminate) as it could be both direct and indirect discrimination. What standards should be applied when deciding such cases? Again, ECtHR jurisprudence is ambiguous as the standards applied in different cases are inconsistent. The provisions of the international law as regards parental choice and best interest of the child is another source of ambiguity in understanding the litigation in segregation cases. The remedies provided to the victims of segregation are rather symbolic and thus, litigation failed to bring justice to the victims.

One question raised during the debate was if there is any chance that the ECtHR would regard segregation as an inhuman and degrading treatment. Lilla was more skeptical than Rector Shattuck and I was. I indicated that there is such a possibility but additional studies have to be conducted so cases could be argued also on the bases of sufferings of the victims. Rector Shattuck reminded us that in US, in the Brown case, the US Supreme Court took into consideration such studies when it ordered desegregation “with all deliberate speed” in Brown II. He supported the idea to conduct such research and to make the voice of the victims heard.

As a follow up to the debate, today I found out about the open letter of Roma children addressed to the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and to the Education Minister calling for equal access to education for all.  I believe their voice must be heard as they are the ones to talk about their feelings and sufferings in segregated education. By exposing their thoughts and experiences to the public, they will make others understand that segregation inflicts a trauma on the victims that dehumanizes people and that such practices are unacceptable in a democratic society.

Below is the open letter…

Open letter to the Prime Minister and Education Minister

STOP the indirect discrimination of Romani children in the Czech schools! Let’s make equal access to education real

Dear Mr Prime Minister, Dear Mr Minister,

As civically active young members of the Romani national minority living in the Czech Republic, we would like to express our support for inclusive education and the necessary measures which the Government of the Czech Republic and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic should adopt to ensure equal access to education for all citizens in this country. Here we are primarily referring to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic, Article 22 (1), section IV, where it says everyone has the right to education, and the Education Code, Section 2, which sets forth the aims and principles of education, i.e., equal access to education and consideration for the educational needs of the individual.

The Anti-Discrimination Act of the Czech Republic, adopted in 2009, defines the right to equal treatment and the prohibition on discrimination in access to education and its provision in Section 1 (i), first part. Many international treaties also declare the right to equal access to education:  The Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 28), the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms (Article 2), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 13). The Czech Republic is also a party to the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes the right to education and access to professional and other education in Article 14, section II.

The Czech Republic was condemned in 2007 by the European Court of Human Rights for its indirect discrimination of Romani children in education through their incorrect placement into what were once called “special schools”. Five years have passed since that judgment and the existing Czech legal order continues to involve the inappropriate distribution of pupils into several categories. Assigning a pupil with special educational needs into a particularly legislated category of disability is a significant determinant of his or her future educational career and restricts his or her equal opportunity.

Currently Romani children continue to be disproportionately enrolled into ‘practical primary schools’ educating pupils according to the primary education program’s appendix for pupils with light mental disability. One proof of this is the thematic report entitled “Process of transforming the former special schools in the 2011/2012 academic year – Czech School Inspectorate” (Postup transformace bývalých zvláštních škol České školní inspekce za rok 2011/2012), which found that 26.4 % of Romani pupils are educated according to such an educational program,  a disproportionate number considering that the Romani minority constitutes only 2 % of the entire population in the Czech Republic.

As young citizens of this country, we want the state to prosper. According to research by the World Bank, better-educated Romani people can expect to make 110 % more money than their less-educated counterparts and thereby contribute more to the state. Joost de Laat, a World Bank economist who studies human development in Europe and Central Asia, presented the study to the International Steering Committee of the Decade of Roma Inclusion in Prague and said the following: “If Romani people of productive age (16-64) enjoyed equal opportunity in access to work and to salaries equivalent to those of their non-Romani counterparts, the country would have billions of euros more annually in its budget. If this were to occur in all of the countries of Central Europe and the Balkans, equal opportunity on the labor market would general a total of EUR 10 billion annually.”

Let us therefore make it possible for the Romani people living in this country to become equal citizens on the labor market. The Government and the relevant bodies of the Czech Republic should ensure equal access to education in mainstream elementary schools for all.

With respect,

David Tišer, member of the Crisis Committee

Crisis Committee open letter translated by Gwendolyn Albert

Source:  romea.cz

Debate on Roma school segregation at CEU – March 18, 2013, 17:30-19:00

Dear friends,

The Legal Studies Department of the Central European University is organizing a debate on Roma school segregation on March 18, 2013 starting 17:30. The panel includes Lilla Farkas, Orsi Szendrey and myself.  Opening speech is given by the CEU Rector and President – Professor John Shattuck – and the panel is chaired by Professor Renata Uitz, the Head of the Legal Studies Department. The announcement with all details  is below. Hope to see some of you there. Please feel free to share the info.

Best,

Iulius

http://www.ceu.hu/node/34621

The Struggle for Equality in Education: Combating Roma School Segregation Through Litigation

HOME » EVENTS »

Date:

March 18, 2013 – 17:30 – 19:00

Building:

Nador u. 9, Monument Building

Room:

203

Event type:

Panel Discussion

Event audience:

Open to the Public

CEU host unit(s):

 Department of Legal Studies

Racially-motivated segregation in education is one of the most serious human rights violations faced by the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. Since late 1990s, human rights activists have been challenging in courts the discriminatory practice of separating Roma from non-Roma pupils. From 2007 to date the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg issued 7 judgments in cases related to Roma school segregation in the Czech Republic, Greece, Croatia and, most recently, Hungary. At the national level, courts and specialized national equality bodies have also reviewed a few dozen cases of Roma school segregation.

CEU Legal Studies Department convenes a panel discussion on this issue. The discussion is part of a series of debates organized worldwide focusing on Roma school segregation and launched after the publication of Ten Years After: A History of Roma school desegregation in Central and Eastern Europe, by CEU Press and Roma Education Fund, Budapest 2012. Similar debates organized in 2012 took place in Skopje, Bucharest, Prague, Boston, New York, Washington D.C., and Cadiz.

This panel strives to assess the progress, to date, in challenging school segregation through litigation and answer few challenging questions.

Such questions are:

• What are the challenges in arguing segregation cases before courts?
• Is there a common understanding of segregation as a legal concept?
• Which aspect should prevail: parental choice or best interest of the child?
• Is there a tension between minority rights and human rights approach to education?

The invited panelists will also present their views on the future of Roma school desegregation in Europe.

Opening remarks:

John Shattuck, President and Rector

Chair:                        

 Professor Renata Uitz, Head of the Legal Studies Department

Panelists:

Lilla Farkas is an attorney registered with the Budapest Bar Association. She works for the Chance for Children Foundation on public interest litigation aimed at desegregating Hungarian schools and for the Migration Policy Group as a senior legal policy analyst. She is the race (Roma) ground coordinator for the European Network of Independent Experts in the Non-discrimination Field. Between 2005 and 2011 she served as president of the Hungarian Equal Treatment Authority’s Advisory Board.

Orsolya Szendrey is an advocacy consultant promoting Roma integration in EU structural funds programming in Hungary. She has supported the litigation of two education segregation cases of the Chance for the Children Foundation as an expert. Ms. Szendrey is a former policy consultant of the Roma Education Fund and former policy adviser of the Hungarian Ministry of Education. She was program manager of Hungary’s first public education development program promoting equal opportunities for Roma. She took part in the elaboration of the system of equal opportunity conditionality in public education development and worked as a supervisor of equal opportunity experts.

Iulius Rostas is the editor of the Ten Years After: A History of the Roma school desegregation in Central and Eastern Europe and serves as consultant for the Roma Education Fund.  He is a Roma researcher specialized in education, antidiscrimination, and social inclusion policies, who previously coordinated the international advocacy unit of the European Roma Rights Center and served as the Director of OSF Roma programs from 2005 to 2008.

Going back to the ground zero: notes on the Czech Government plans to implement DH decision

The Czech Government is really bizarre when it comes to Roma school desegregation. It did not prepare any announcement for the fifth anniversary of the DH judgement ( on November 13), when the human rights community did expect some government measures to implement the European Court of Human Rights judgement. For its policies of segregating Roma children by redirecting them towards special schools for mentally disabled, the Czech Government was widely criticised by the human rights community, most recently during the fifth anniversary of the DH judgement. The Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner was astonished by the inaction of the Czech Government to implement the DH decision and to desegregate the education system.

However, two weeks after the anniversary of DH that attracted the attention of the human rights community once again to the school segregation in the country, the Czech Government decided to announce its intentions to address the issue. According to the Prague Monitor, citing Czech News Agency CTK, on November 17 the Czech Ministry of Education announced its plans to tackle Roma school segregation. The intended measures will aim at preventing placement of children from socially-disadvantaged groups into practical schools by more frequent testing of pupils and data collection on ethnicity.

Through this statement, the Ministry of Education recognises that the amendment of the education law in 2005 lead only to a renaming of the “special schools” for mentally disabled into “practical schools”. It also proves that it never had the intention to desegregate the schools but rather to cover up for the shame of maintaining an ethnically segregated school system.

The announced measures seems to follow the same logic. Instead of closing down the whole practical school system and integrate all children into mainstream schools, the Government prefers to maintain a segregated system where those pupils attending practical schools will be disadvantaged only by the fact that separation means inequality. How will the Government ensure that the tests will be culturally sensitive towards minorities and, especially towards Roma? Let’s not forget that one of the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in DH was that the tests were culturally biased and disadvantaged Roma pupils.  What checks are against possible abuses from the side of those administering and interpreting the tests results? Why spend money on testing  pupils performances to separate them? Everybody knows that pupils will perform depending on  social, economic and cultural determinants. Wouldn’t be wiser to use the resources for identifying each child needs and address those needs? I think this is a much better option.

But most importantly is how will the Government ensure the realization of the best interest of that child?  By placing a child in a so-called practical school limits significantly his/her socialization with children from mainstream schools, an important component of the education process. Thus  assigning a child into a practical school limits his/her right to education. The 1994 Salamanca Statement (UNESCO) makes clear that the best way to ensure access to quality education to everyone is to integrate pupils with special needs into mainstream schools, only those with severe disabilities being offered separate educational opportunities.

It seems obvious that the Czech Government vision on school desegregation is worrying for those waiting for the implementation of the DH decision. There are pretty high chances that Roma children will be still overrepresented in the schools for mentally disabled as long as these will exist due to the procedures in assigning children to special schools and the strong anti-Roma attitudes among people in the Czech Republic.  The Government methods on data collection by ethnicity remains a mystery as it intends to do so by next academic year applying aggregate methods without  aiming at identifying the ethnic origin of individual pupils! Using such methods, one should not be surprised if by the end of the next academic year the Czech Government will be able to “prove” that its education system is ethnically neutral.

Testing pupils more frequently does not say much about integration. In fact, the Czech Government fails to address this specific issue: how to integrate pupils from practical schools into mainstream school. It prefers to keep a separate system of education for mentally disabled, expensive and inefficient, instead of transforming its education system into an inclusive one that delivers for the needs of each child.

 

UPDATE

According to Romea, the social democrat shadow minister of education is also supporting the existence of practical schools. It seems that there is a large consensus among politicians in the Czech Republic to avoid schools desegregation. When it comes to discrimination against Roma, there are no ideological differences among parties. Not a lot of hope for inclusive education in the near future in Czech Republic.

When wrong ideas about Roma lead to wrong policies: notes on a recent interview with Romanian PM Advisor on Roma issues, Damian Draghici

I read today an interview with the Advisor to the Prime Minister of Romania on Roma issues, Mr. Damian Draghici, which intrigued me. I know Mr. Draghici for more than five years and we had some interesting discussions on Roma. In this summer he was appointed in this new position and I could see that our ideas diverge in many respects. In his first interview in a Romania newspaper he denied the existence of discrimination against Roma in Romania and preferred the denomination “Tigan” over “Roma” in reference to his own ethnic group. That being his first public appearance I abstained from any comments. the text of the interview, in Romanian is here .

After reading the interview he gave to Czech Radio I am questioning if my lack of reaction not sanctioning his speech was a wise attitude. In this interview, Mr. Draghici makes two statements that I find controversial:

“If you give someone a chance, then you’ll see it work, but you must have great patience and expend a lot of effort. That has been confirmed by the case of an organization that has started working in the worst ghetto in Bucharest. At the same time, it must also be said that there is a problem as far as Romani people’s mentality is concerned. We must change the way they think,” said Romanian official Damian Draghici.

“In Romania we have an old saying:  Anyone can do something to consecrate a place no matter where he lives, but only if he wants to. It is solely up to you whether you will become a responsible person or a victim. Naturally, Romani people have many problems, but no one gets anything for free – except God. You must earn everything through work,” says Mr Draghici.

These statements are just partially true and also dangerous. The first one implies that the Government has to change the way Roma are thinking. The second implies that Roma do not want to work and that poverty is a matter of choice. Let’s see what are the consequences of this type of discourse on policies towards Roma.  Mr Draghici is the coordinator of the national Roma strategy and is the contact point in relation to EU. Recently he became a politician, running for a Senate seat on behalf of the governing coalition in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Definitely he is a central figure in policy making towards Roma in Romania.

It will be difficult for anybody to argue that Roma do not have to change their way of thinking. I argued in support of this change in a book chapter I published recently. I made the statement as a Roma individual and as a scholar on Roma issues. Mr Draghici statements, on the other hand, were made on behalf of the Government and as a top official responsible for policies towards Roma. It seems that Mr. Draghici did not learned anything from history. Attempts to change the way Roma think were made by others as well. Maria Teresa and Joseph II in the XVIII century adopted strong assimilationist policies towards Roma in their quest to change the way Roma think and live.  Most recently, the Communist parties have adopted policies towards Roma that intended to transform their way of thinking and their way of life into a proletarian identity.  In spite of the efforts and coercion used both attempts failed. Will the Romanian Government advised by Mr. Draghici succeed in changing the way Roma are thinking?  I have serious doubts…

Besides historical arguments, I base my opinion on the fact that any successful integration of Roma requires changes not only on their side but also on the side of the majority and on the side of the government. Thus, the solution is not to make Roma think like the majority. It  is rather a negotiation process that leads to a situation when everybody wins, a positive-sum game. If any part is dissatisfied and does not agree with the result, the changes will not be sustainable. In fact, the concept of integration is wrong to describe the required changes. I prefer instead the concept of accommodation to describe the societal changes needed to create an inclusive society.

The implications from the second statement above – that Roma do not want to work and the poverty is a matter of choice – reproduce the strong negative societal prejudices towards Roma. While one might agree that SOME Roma do not want to work hard to improve their situation, the same could be said about Romanians, Hungarians, Czechs etc. Mr Draghici made that statement without verifying whether the Government did offer possibilities for Roma to work and to earn a decent living. Had he done that, Mr Draghici would have found out that in fact Governments policies on job creation, especially for low skilled work force (very few in place),  stimulates social assistance instead of stimulating  employment. Moreover, poverty among Roma and other vulnerable groups has multiple causes and it is not a matter of the individual choice. In the case of the Roma, past history of discrimination and oppression played a significant role in the current difficult situation the majority of Roma find themselves. The irony of this statement is that Mr Draghici position is more compatible with that of conservatives, though he is running for a social-liberal coalition representing the leftist group!

A sad day for Roma rights in Europe

Today is the fifth anniversary of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision on the case DH vs Czech Republic concerning school segregation of Roma children by placement in schools for mentally disabled. Five years ago, many human rights activists thought that the DH would be the Brown vs Board of Education case of Roma. Today, the enthusiasm and optimism from 2007 vanished and were replaced by disappointment and sadness in many Roma rights activists.  Instead of celebrating a victory for human rights we rather “celebrate” a failure of the Czech authorities to respect the human rights of Roma.

From a legal point of view, DH was a breakthrough case as it defines legal standards on the prohibition against discrimination. To cite the lawyer that build the case – James Goldston – “the D.H. judgment clarifies for the first time that the Article 14 prohibition against discrimination applies not only to specific acts, but to systemic practices; that racial segregation which disadvantages members of a particular racial or ethnic group amounts to discrimination in breach of the Convention; that Article 14 bars the “indirect discrimination” of a general policy or measure which, though couched in neutral terms, generates disproportionately prejudicial effects; that the intent to discriminate is not an essential element of a claim of discrimination; that while they are not required, statistics can be used to establish discrimination; and that, where an applicant alleging indirect discrimination establishes a rebuttable presumption that the effect of a measure or practice is discriminatory, the burden then shifts to the respondent State to show that the difference in treatment is not discriminatory.”[1]

Some Roma rights activists perceived the ECtHR decision as the beginning of the end of school segregation. Limited attention was paid to the follow up and even less on how to use the ECtHR decision to desegregate the schools in other countries.  In the book I edited –Ten Years After: A History of Roma School Desegregation in Central and Eastern Europe – in the chapter I wrote on judicial power making I analyzed not only the decisions of the ECtHR in school segregation cases but also the impact and the changes these decisions brought on the ground where they originated and also in other countries.

There are a number of factors that explains the dissatisfaction of human rights activists with the implementation of the ECtHR decision in DH but also in Sampanis and Orsus. First, it is the position of the ECtHR regarding segregation.  In no decision ECtHR uses the word segregation to describe the situation of Roma children within the educational systems in spite of the references to research and reports prepared by NGOs and international organizations throughout the decisions. Thus, ECtHR send a message to the authorities that the facts alleged by the applicants do not equate segregation, although they breach the convention provisions. The inconsistencies in applying the reasoning tests in the five decisions on the three school segregation cases over the four years since the first judgment are difficult to comprehend. In the end neither decision clarified the position of the ECtHR on segregation nor did the Court clarify what exactly constitutes racial segregation. Even the understanding and consequences of this phenomenon seems to be misunderstood by the ECtHR as the compensations awarded by the victims are not at the level to have a deterrent effect on the perpetrators.[2]

And here comes the second factor: the compensations awarded to the victims do not have a deterrent effect, an important principle in the anti-discrimination law theory. It is obvious that the victims and people on the ground did not receive just satisfaction for their suffering. Four thousand Euros could not compensate also for the failure prepare the victims as good citizens and the competences they acquired to be competitive on the labor market. Thus, one should not be surprised that the DH victims are out of school, without jobs and living in poverty. The authorities did not receive a message that segregation is something serious that has to end.

The third factor has to do with the message authorities received from the ECtHR judgments. Not only that the fines imposed lack a deterrent effect but also the ECtHR did not require the authorities to bring an end to school segregation. Thus, should one be surprised that almost nothing happened on the ground? Looking at the changes on the ground in the five countries under investigation and analyzing the role the ECtHR decision had on the jurisprudence in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, I concluded that the impact of the ECtHR decisions was very limited. A detailed account could be found in Ten Years After.

This is one of the bitter lessons Roma rights activists learnt to date:  the changes do not occur at international level but on the ground where ordinary people live and struggle with human rights violations. Litigation will bring changes only if it makes sense to the people on the ground.

Let’s see the positive side: in US the changes did not come immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court in spite of the Brown II injunction on desegregating the schools” with all deliberate speed”. Not even the Little Rock 9 action brought an end to school segregation. It took some time to desegregate the schools in US and it was a combined action of authorities, civil society and top politicians. Let’s hope that in a decade the results would be visible

PS  It seems that November 13 will become the Roma rights day of the European Court of Human Rights. ECtHR just issued its decision in the case IG vs Slovakia on forced sterilization of Roma women.

---

[1] James Goldston, Ending Racial Segregation in Schools: The Promise of D.H., Roma Rights, No 1/2008, p. 4.

[2] The compensation awarded by the ECtHR to each plaintiff varied: 4000 Euro in DH, 4500 Euro in Orsus, and 8,000 Euro in Sampanis.

De-ethnicizing the issue not a solution for EU Roma strategy: some comments on Livia Jaroka’s ideas

I just read on some news bulletin a quote from Livia Jaroka on the lessons learned from the policy implementation targeting Roma and the new approach of the EU Roma strategies. Her statement was: “We’ve been trying to set up a framework that draws from the lessons of the past 10 years’ mistakes in Roma strategy, de-ethnicizes the issue and considers it as a micro-regional poverty problem instead, while chasing politics out of it”. It could be found an an article wrote by Veronika Gulyas for the Wall Street Journal on May 4, 2011 available at http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2011/05/04/incidents-drive-hungary-to-finally-address-pressing-roma-issue/#

It is clear that Jaroka and her team got the wrong lessons from the previous attempts to improve the situation of Roma: national strategies/programs for Roma and the Decade of Roma Inclusion. While de-ethnicizing the problems might have some benefits, ignoring the ethnicity and its role in the current situation of Roma is not the solution. Ethnicity in the case of Roma is an important social determinant of the current under achievements in education with direct influence on employment opportunity and poverty. Roma children are segregated in schools because of their ethnic background and not because of poverty, their living areas or other causes. Even if social stratification of pupils is done also along poverty lines, it is striking the under achievement of Roma in percentages as regards national average or even children belonging to other vulnerable groups. Segregation in education represents a structural factor that reproduces the inequalities among Roma and non-Roma in society. Thus, ignoring ethnicity in education might lead to maintaining the status quo, a recipe for failing other generations of Roma and keep them in a lower strata of society.

Roma should be proud of their ethnic background and should communicate their ethnicity in the public space. An educational system that ignores this aspect by de-ethnicizing Roam or assimilating them is not a performing educational system as the quality of education should include ethnic relevance to the targeted group. If after passing through an educational system a pupil denies his/her ethnic identity as a Roma, something is not right with that specific educational system. An inclusive educational system should make pupils proud of their ethnic background and also confident that they could succeed in life. The recipe in this case seems to be to include in the curricula a strong Roma ethnic related subjects that will strengthen the social identity of the Roma children. De-ethnicizing the issue of education might rather lead to assimilationist policies.

Moreover, while in Hungary Roma are concentrated geographically, making thus possible an approach based on micro-region, this is not valid in other countries where Roma live throughout the country and such an approach will not lead to targeted approach to the problems faced by Roma. What should these countries do? What approach should they have to issues faced by Roma? Jaroka’s solution seems rather foolish. One might even accuse her of playing the right wing card of her party. Whatever etiquette one might put to Jaroka, it is very probable that her suggestions do not represent feasible solutions to issues faced by Roma.