Rhea Saran: In the midst of heated debate about whether practicing Muslim women should be allowed to wear full veils in Britain– and what that means for integration – came an article in the New York Times, titled “Islamic Schools Test Ideal of Integration in Britain” (October 15th). It seemed a natural branch out from the central issue of integration, except that, after reading the piece, one felt that a more apt headline would have been: “Fear and Resentment put Islamic School Funding in Jeopardy” — if only the writer had acknowledged that as being the main issue surrounding the debate.

To his credit, the reporter included this sentence in the piece: “It is a debate shot through with fear and resentment after terrorist attacks by Muslims and alleged plots in London, leaving the British government to ponder how it can properly deny state financing to Islamic schools that teach the core subjects of the national curriculum when it provides money for much more numerous schools of Christian, Jewish or other faiths.” However, this tidbit is buried in the 10th paragraph and there is no further examination of what this means in the rest of the story, showing that the reporter glossed over what should have been the backbone of the piece.

The idea that the British government is pondering “how it can properly deny state financing to Islamic schools” is explosive. Especially when you consider that it’s unlikely the government would be pondering any such thing if it were, say, a Christian or Jewish or even Hindu school. In fact, a story in The Independent last November about government funds being granted for a Hindu school in Harrow was remarkable in how un-fear-filled and un-resentful it was. The contrast with the Times article is startling.

In fact, consider that, a year ago, this was said, in the Independentstory, about faith schools in Britain:

It is no surprise that the Government has given the school its backing and money, in view of its rhetoric in favour of faith schools. There is recognition in Downing Street that faith schools are very popular and often characterised by better-than-average standards of behaviour and achievement.

Well then. What has changed in a mere year? Why does funding for a faith school in Britain now warrant a long article in the New York Times about how these schools might hinder integration? When did the “rhetoric” change? Could it possibly be that there are double standards – one for Islam and another for any other faith? Surely not!

And if there are double standards, then both the press and the government concerned should admit it. The dishonesty that lies beneath it all is what makes one gag. An article on how fear of terrorism (read Muslims) is making the British government pause before handing out funds for Islamic schools would be, at least, the truth, however unsavory it is. And however politically incorrect that might be.

Instead, the press is hiding that idea behind quotes from converted Anglican priests about how Islamic schools will impede integration because “Islamic values are not compatible with Western values.” Surely he means Islamic values are not compatible with Christian values, seeing as “Western” is less a religion than a geographical location. And if that’s true, why isn’t there more trouble with Hindu schools or Sikh schools or Greek Orthodox schools – or even Jewish schools? Besides, integration isn’t the same as assimilation. And as long as these schools aren’t fomenting anti-British feeling, there should be no issue. And the Times story does acknowledge that there is no evidence that these schools produce religious radicals.

Ultimately, the Times reporter got all the facts and reported the story pretty thoroughly within a certain word-constraint. The problem with how the story was reported was that it downplayed the key issue, pushing it aside to make way for a more politically acceptable argument.

Rhea Saran is a graduate student at New York University.