The Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960) Article 2
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/06/26
From the Convention Against Discrimination in Education in Paris, France December 14, 1960:
Recalling that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts the principle of non-discrimination and proclaims that every person has the right to education,
Considering that discrimination in education is a violation of rights enunciated in that Declaration,
Considering that, under the terms of its Constitution, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization has the purpose of instituting collaboration among the nations with a view to furthering for all universal respect for human rights and equality of educational opportunity,
Recognizing that, consequently, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, while respecting the diversity of national educational systems, has the duty not only to proscribe any form of discrimination in education but also to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for all in education,
Having before It proposals concerning the different aspects of discrimination in education, constituting item 17.1.4 of the agenda of the session,
Having decided at its tenth session that this question should be made the subject of an international convention as well as of recommendations to Member States,
Adopts this Convention on the fourteenth day of December 1960.
Rights form the foundation of an ethic to derive other ethics. In this exemplary sense, provide the basis for another form of meta-ethics. An ethic to permit other ethics. Formal metaethics deals with some issues.
This rights ethic derives from the foundation in international documentation. The means by which the global community does not come to total agreement on issues but, rather, comes to a consensus through mutual consideration, debate, discussion, and reflection on the issues of the day.
If rights to a belief or a religion, as an example, then the belief in the religious or non-religious ethic does not remain contained in the rights ethic. Instead, the rights derive consensus permission for the religious belief.
In consideration of the modern split in the world, the two sides split by a major partition in morals comes from a traditional conservative religious transcendent ethic inhered into the essential nature of a metaphysical being who either created the world or generated a world alongside its self-existence.
The other ethic instantiates in the universalist notions and consensus ethics with continual revisions and updates based on shared human values brought together through mutual respect in conversation about matters of value.
Documents including the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide some basis for the universalist conceptualization of ethics.
In the national and international acceptance of these values, though not by and large completely implemented, the transcendent ethic can flourish freely; same with the other non-religious ethics or non-transcendentalist ethics associated with the religiously unaffiliated, typically.
With only the transcendentalist ethics inculcated within the society, the religiously unaffiliated ethics garner little to zero implementation or consideration. Cases in points, the theocratic institutions in some nations working to restrict and repress those with lack of religious affiliation with adherence to a transcendentalist ethic in government and law while rejecting the universalist ethics.
Regardless, this all relates to the work for equality in provisions through these universalist and international consensus based ethics. In the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, the second Article talks about the equality of men and women.
In Article 2’s opening, it states, “When permitted in a State, the following situations shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination, within the meaning of Article 1 of this Convention…”
“(a) The establishment or maintenance of separate educational systems or in-stitutions for pupils of the two sexes, if these systems or institutions offer equivalent access to education, provide a teaching staff with qualifications of the same standard as well as school premises and equipment of the same quality, and afford the opportunity to take the same or equivalent courses of study…” the convention continued.
With separate educational systems or institutions for the students of either sex, and equal provision of education with relatively equally qualified teaching staff, the educational system amounts to an equal one. Equipment should remain the same. Identical rule with course provisions.
Section (b) states, “The establishment or maintenance, for religious or linguistic reasons, of separate educational systems or institutions offering an education which is in keeping with the wishes of the pupil’s parents or legal guardians, if participation in such systems or attendance at such institutions is optional and if the education provided conforms to such standards as may be laid down or approved by the competent authorities, in particular for education of the same level…”
That is, the religious or linguistic separation of educational provisions do not prevent the proper education of the child. While also respecting the rights of the parents or legal guardians of the child, the systems for the educational institutions, if kept to normal standards of curricula, should be respected as a possible choice.
The final part (c) states, “The establishment or maintenance of private educational institutions, if the object of the institutions is not to secure the exclusion of any group but to provide educational facilities in addition to those provided by the public authorities, if the institutions are conducted in accordance with that object, and if the education provided conforms with such standards as may be laid down or approved by the competent authorities, in particular for education of the same level.”
The purpose of education remains the equal opportunities, access, and provisions of education for all children and others regardless of the background. The public authorities cannot exclude groups from one another, so not abrogating the right to discriminate individuals identified as belonging to a group in the process.
The main, and echoed point, in section (3) comes from the (re-)iteration of the competent authorities and quality standards in education across all levels. For the women around the world prevented from education for transcendentalist ethical notions about women’s inherent inferiority or only place and capacities being in the home, or for the fatherless and modern technology addicted young men who feel rudderless and without purpose, this convention remains a foundational document, and in particular Articles 1 and 2, for equality.
—
One can find similar statements in other documents, conventions, declarations and so on. Based on the personal analysis in conjunction with a colleague (Sarah Mills) in other publications, I find the following documents with the subsequent statements of equality or women’s rights:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Preamble, Article 16, and Article 25(2).
- Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960) in Article 1.
- The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) in Article 3 and Article 13.
- The Istanbul Convention in Article 38 and Article 39.
- Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
- The Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women(1993).
- Beijing Declaration(1995).
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000).
- Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (2000).
- The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa or the “Maputo Protocol” (2003).
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 