Muslim students at fieldtrips

DO MUSLIM STUDENTS HAVE TO TAKE PART IN FIELDTRIPS?

Summarized: As a rule, participation in school trips is compulsory. The courts generally assume that religious commandments and prohibitions can also be observed on school trips, so that an exemption is rarely permitted. So far, however, it has not been clearly clarified whether an exemption is justified on the grounds that the trip is only permissible with a religious accompany (mahram) and that participation of the mahram is not possible or reasonable in the individual case. Irrespective of this, it applies that in exceptional situations in which the student cannot participate in the school trip due to a debilitating fear of disregarding any religious commandments.  

Admission to a public school establishes a relationship under public law, from which rights and obligations arise for the students.¹ Attendance at lessons and at ’compulsory’ school events is part of the student's duties.² 

Participation in school trips is usually compulsory. There are legal norms at the regional level that explicitly declare school trips to be part of compulsory education.³ The aim of a school trip is not primarily the imparting of knowledge, but the overall social upbringing and education of the child.⁴   

Nevertheless, it is possible in principle to apply for a leave of absence/exemption for special reasons. A written application must be submitted to the headmaster. The headmaster decides at his own discretion. If the application is successful, the student must attend another class for the duration of the class trip or will be given other class-related tasks. 

According to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, an exemption due to the ‘feared interference with ideas of religious upbringing’ could only be considered in exceptional cases, as otherwise the exemption could be misused as a ‘routine option for conflict resolution’.⁵ It is generally assumed that participation in a school trip does not prevent the students from complying with their religious behavioral requirements. The observance of food regulations, the observance of the prohibition of alcohol, the performance of prayer including ablution or the prohibition of premarital sexual intercourse should be possible within the framework of the school trip, so that these arguments should not regularly apply in the case of an application for exemption.⁶   

In individual cases, the situation could be different with regards to the religious obligation to be accompanied by a ‘Mahram’. According to case law, there is a reasonable, non-discriminatory possibility of participation in the fieldtrip while also preserving the religious conviction of the student concerned, for example by having the student’s brother accompany her as a ‘Mahram’ in the sense of the religious commandment cited. However, the accompaniment must also be possible and reasonable within the specific case.⁷ 

However, a justifiable exemption of participation in a field trip can be distinguished from this. In one case before the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, a Muslim student filed an application for exemption in order not to have to participate in a school trip lasting several days.⁸ It was her religion that prevented her from going. For one, she could not undertake a journey of several days without a mahram, i.e. without a father, uncle or brother.⁹ On the other hand, she was plagued by a constant fear, stating that she was constantly afraid that there might be pork in her food, which she was not allowed to eat for religious reasons.¹⁰ She also feared that she would not be able to perform the five necessary daily prayers and corresponding ablutions. Overall, she was subject to the psychological burden of not being able to comply with the rules of her religion. She was afraid of losing her headscarf and/or having to undress in front of her classmates. She also feared that her classmates might find her strange if she showered as her faith dictated. In light of these statements, the court finally came to the conclusion that the student concerned had fears so intense that they rendered her ill.. Her situation was comparable to that of a partially mentally disabled person who, due to her disability, could only travel with an accompanying person.  As a result, the court rejected the application for exemption, but on the grounds that it was not necessary. The student was already justifiably prevented from travelling.¹¹  

^{2 Again see Section 69 (4) 1 of the Hesse School Act.} 

^{3 See Section 55 (8) 1 of the Bremen School Act.}

^{4 Federal Administrative Court, decision from 17.10.1985, 7 B 157/85, margin 3.}

^{5 Federal Administrative Court, decision from 11.09.2013, 6 C 12.12, margin 25.}  

^{6 Coumont in: Muslimische Schüler und Schülerinnen in der öffentlichen Schule, page 309.} 

^{7 North-Rhine Westphalia Higher Regional Court, case from 17.01.2002, 19 B 99/02, margin 4.}

^{8 Administrative Court Aachen, case from 16.01.2002, 9 L 1313/01, margin 20.} 

^{9 North-Rhine Westphalia Higher Regional Court, case from 17.01.2002, 19 B 99/02, margin 4.}

^{10 See above, margin 6.} 

^{11 See above, margin 7.}