64
E
UR
A
MERICA
schools system.
32
The French ban, let us recall, was enacted after
consultations with many personalities during which sensitivities were
shown to different traditions and religions. “Significantly,” as Anne
Phillips recounts, “the [Stasi] commission [in charge of listening to the
many voices on this issue] did not recommend a similar ban for
universities” (2007: 118). So what was put forth as policy prescriptions
did not cover the wearing of headscarves, large Christian crosses, the
Jewish yarmulkes, or the Sikh turbans beyond the confines of public
schools. This difference of treatment “reflects the view that adults
should be assumed to know their own minds” (118). University
students, but not school children, are perfectly entitled to wear
headscarves and other religious dress. From one perspective, then, in
terms of context-sensitive solutions, what was proposed before the ban
is consistent with what is actually enacted by the ban, namely, that
children and adults be treated differently. Thus, for this contentious
case, working out a solution that is contextually wise and
deliberative-democratic has not yielded an appreciable improvement
upon the known and common legal practice of most liberal
democracies. It has only reinforced the status quo.
Second, regarding the best practices, democratic deliberation’s
most attractive feature seems to be that it confers the mantle of
legitimacy
33
on the solution generated by all-inclusive discussions that
attend to the specific details on the ground. Yet, for scholars like Okin
who prefer “democracy over liberalism” (2005a: 87),
34
this feature
32
For a particularly thorough examination of this case, see Laborde (2008).
33
Two specific arguments are advanced. First, deliberation serves to ensure that
women’s interests are “fully represented” (Okin, 1999: 24). Second, by attending
to women’s voices, the state shows “respect” to some of the most vulnerable
members of society and it encourages democratic, sensitive, and less dogmatic
solutions (Okin, 2005a: 86). On how legitimacy is sustained, see Deveaux (2006:
209). But legitimacy is played down in the alternative approaches of domination
minimization (Lovett, 2010); exit option (Kukathas, 2003: 93-103);
autonomy-enhancing education (Laborde, 2008: 116-124, 157-161). For reasons
of scope, I set these alternatives aside.
34
Okin’s account is based upon Monique Deveaux’s preliminary account. For my
discussion of this traditional practice of polygyny, I draw upon Deveaux’s