Beyond Accommodation Fatigue? The European Court of Human Rights’ Inclusion of Religious Diversity in Education

Comments 1: The paper would benefit from a clearer articulation of its original contribution, as its overall approach appears to draw primarily on arguments and methodologies that have been well established in the literature for some time.

Response 1: I tried to edit the article in a more articulated way jointly with the other two reviewers’ comments so that the article’s argumentations align more with the original contribution. I decided to focus on certain arguments and methodologies that were well established years ago for the basis of my argument as those argumentations were focusing on reasonable accommodation and indirect discrimination in the workplace. However, several newer decisions in educational settings cited in the article I believe demonstrate inconsistency/oscillation in this regard. This has been changed throughout the text but specifically in the introduction (lines 24-60) and conclusions (lines 635-697). Having said that, thank you for your comment, and I hope the revised draft addresses more this issue.

Comments 2: The statement concerning the CoE at lines 58–61 would benefit from further clarification and the inclusion of appropriate supporting references. Likewise, the claim made at lines 61–62 relies on an older source and could be strengthened by engagement with more recent scholarship.

The main argument developed at lines 62–78 would benefit from a more robust legal, scientific, and academic grounding. In its current form, the line of reasoning is not entirely persuasive. While the Author later acknowledges certain limitations of this argument and offers a critique of it, the overall structure of advancing an argument that is subsequently criticised could be clarified in order to enhance logical coherence. In addition, the comparison between reasonable accommodation and indirect discrimination, as well as the associated criticisms, would benefit from greater conceptual clarity, precision, and more detailed elaboration

Response 2: I revised and edited the whole first paragraph involving the comparison between indirect discrimination and reasonable accommodation (lines 65-135). I have made a comparison of definitions and applicability of the concept supported by relevant more recent literature that would strengthen the arguments. I hope the revised paragraph enhances the coherence and helps with conceptual clarity. Of course, I’m always open to further suggestions or correction on how to enhance this explanation.

Comments 3: The statement at line 100 would benefit from the inclusion of a specific reference, while the claims made at lines 101–103 would benefit from further clarification.

Response 3: I added a specific reference to the legislation refering to the statement made in line 100 and I added further clarifications and citations regarding the claims made in lines 101-103 (lines 103-170) I hope it clarifies the statements and makes it more logical for the reader.

Comments 4: Given the limited clarity of the introduction and of the paper’s central argument, the analysis of the case law, although informative and well-documented, remains somewhat difficult to follow. In particular, it would be helpful to clarify the criteria for selecting these specific cases and to explain more explicitly which aspects of the case law are intended to be relevant to the discussion and to the paper’s main argument.

The paper may be recommended for publication provided that substantial revisions are undertaken in light of the comments above.

Response 4: Thank you for your comments and concerns. Given your statement, as it suggests a substantial lack of clarity on argumentation and selection criteria, I have tried to address this issue in the edited introduction as well as in the conclusion to make it more clear for the reader and try to address your concerns. I hope now it aligns more with the intended argument and its possible publication.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

5. Additional clarifications

Comments 1: This manuscript offers a timely and well-organized contribution to debates on how European public education systems manage religious diversity through legal standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Overall, the paper is well written and structured, and it successfully highlights the distinctive challenges of applying accommodation-style reasoning in schools, where pluralism, vulnerability of minors, curriculum aims, and institutional authority interact in especially complex ways

Response 1: I would like to start by truly thanking you not only for this comment but for the whole review and precise comments and suggestions. Is really appreciated when reviewers take time and effort in helping young scholars to improve their work and keep learning on how to address complicated issues in an academic and properly scientific manner. Having said that, I the subsequent comments I address the suggestions given. 

Comments 2: That said, several targeted revisions would strengthen the manuscript’s conceptual precision and broaden its analytical coverage—especially regarding the following related topics, at the end of “3. ECtHR’s approach to proportionality and differential treatment in Education - Exemptions in educational settings”:

discussing “soft/hard” cases of undue hardship, which would benefit from more impersonal language and stronger anchoring in scholarship and/or the author’s prior work:

Language: Replace first-person formulations (e.g., “Additionally, we can differentiate…”, “To my understanding…”) with impersonal, descriptive phrasing such as:

“A useful analytical distinction can be drawn between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ hardship scenarios…”

“This distinction is employed here to capture differences in institutional burden, conflict intensity, and feasibility of accommodation…”

Substantiation: The distinction should be explicitly supported by literature, or self-citation, if this typology originates in the author’s prior scholarship.

Response 2: Thank you so much for the suggestions on this. I do not have my own previous literature regarding these arguments but I included literature involving policy guidelines in the workplace in Canada as one of the first countries to acknowledge the principle of reasonable accommodation for disabilities and religious beliefs as well as the latest ECtHR guideline on differential treatment with an example that might help readers to understand the differences (lines 299-317). Although being brief, I hope it addresses the doubts about these concepts.

Comments 3: the role of normative majorities in proportionality reasoning (a paragraph defining normative majority assumptions, e.g., literature on minority religion claims and margin of appreciation: Fokas, E., & Richardson, J. T. (2017). The European Court of Human Rights and minority religions: messages generated and messages received. Religion, State & Society, 45(3–4), 166–173. The European Court of Human Rights and minority religions: messages generated and messages received a needed teacher/employment perspective alongside the student/parent perspective.

Response 3: I did not add a specific section regarding this, but I added throughout the text several ideas and suggestions regarding the difficulties of acquiring accommodation by minorities in comparison to normative majorities. I thought that for the sake of the article’s length I would not add a comparison of normative majority symbols, but I added a brief section on the the crucifix Lausti vs. The Islamic headscarf (a minority symbol) (lines 600-623).   

Comments 4: A key opportunity is to incorporate teachers’ positionality into the discussion of “exemptions” and differential treatment in education. Religious diversity governance in schools is not only about students’ access and inclusion; it also concerns teachers as employees, especially where teaching roles are intertwined with religious authorization systems (canonical mandates, confessional suitability requirements, or agreements between states and religious communities).

Two ECtHR cases are particularly relevant here:

Fernández Martínez v. Spain (GC, 2014) – non-renewal of a Catholic religion teacher’s contract after church authorities withdrew support; the Grand Chamber assessed the balancing between the teacher’s private life and the autonomy/rights of the religious community, emphasizing proportionality and margin of appreciation. FERNÁNDEZ MARTÍNEZ v. SPAIN

Travaš v. Croatia (2016) – dismissal following withdrawal of a canonical mandate after divorce and civil remarriage; the Court again applied proportionality reasoning within Article 8, noting the institutional framework requiring a canonical mandate and the employer’s efforts to consider alternative posts. Travaš v. Croatia

Why this matters for your manuscript: These decisions illustrate how “religious diversity in education” can be mediated through employment structures (state as employer; religious bodies as gatekeepers of eligibility). This adds a dimension that is often absent when analysis focuses primarily on student exemptions or curriculum disputes. They also provide concrete examples for the manuscript’s broader claim of inconsistency/oscillation: the Court’s rights reasoning shifts depending on whether the claim is framed as a student’s manifestation right, a parent’s educational prerogatives, or a teacher’s private-life/employment claim.

Response 4: Regarding this comment, I would like to take to opportunity to thank you because the suggestion I think has helped with the scope of the article and its relevance. I added a whole new section for teachers under the title of “Exemptions in educational settings for teachers”. In this section I tried to give a brief explanation of the case as well as addressing the helplessness of the teachers after their dismissal and the undue hardship and proportionality test that should be made under my understanding in these situations. I honestly didn’t have much time to properly address it and I could be a new article for itself and the length could not be too much, but I tried to included in a descriptive manner in the article. I hope I addressed what you were looking for to enhance this part of the article, and I’m always open for more corrections or suggestions on this manner.

Comments 5: Practical suggestion

Add a paragraph (or a short dedicated subsection within “exemptions”, e.g. “exemptions”, containing “students” or “contents”, and “teachers”) on religion teachers and employment-related accommodation/conflict as part of “Exemptions in educational settings”, thus balancing its extension with the following “personal symbols”.

Explicitly address the felt helplessness / institutional difficulty of relocation sometimes experienced by dismissed religion teachers when authorities struggle to move them into other humanities posts despite their qualifications—an issue that can be discussed as a practical constraint relevant to proportionality/“hardship” assessments in education employment contexts. This point aligns closely with the factual/legal framing in Travaš regarding consideration of alternative posts and consequences of dismissal.

Therefore, the Author should cite literature directly aligned with these issues, specifically suitable is a recent article in Religions discussing the Croatian framework and the legal status of religion teachers under agreements with religious authorities: Quirós-Fons (2024), Teaching Catholic Religion in Croatian Public Schools: Legal Frame and Challenges. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/9/1069

This reference is especially useful because it treats (i) the agreement-based governance model, and (ii) the professional status and vulnerabilities of religion teachers—both of which can complement your manuscript’s argument that legal standards alone are insufficient without institutional and societal practices.

The manuscript already argues that managing religious diversity in education requires more than legal accommodation and involves institutional practices and societal engagement. To make this claim more concrete, consider adding discussion of “additional teachers” or special staffing arrangements used in some systems—often grounded in agreements with religious communities (e.g., concordat-type frameworks, cooperation agreements).

A short addition here would fit the manuscript’s theme of law–policy–practice interaction: agreement-based staffing illustrates how states operationalize pluralism (or entrench confessional structures) in ways that shape rights conflicts and proportionality assessments. The Croatian example and its agreement architecture (Holy See–state cooperation) can be cited as a comparative reference point.

Recommendation: Minor Revision (depending on the extent of added teacher/employment material)

Incorporating the ECtHR employment-related cases and an agreement-based comparative perspective would notably enhance the paper’s depth and practical relevance.

Response 5: Thank you so much for the practical suggestion and I think in the way that I edited the article (as you said under the section of Exemptions in educational settings), is where it made more sense to add it. I would also like to thank you for the bibliography recommendation as they have been really helpful for including the religious teachers’ perspectives in the article. I tried to stick to the comments made and addressed the issues mentioned. Hopefully it aligns with the expectations that you had on the article and the additions.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:   No comments

5. Additional clarifications

Due to having 3 reviewers and adding the commentaries and new sections the length and structure of the article has changed substantially. Therefore, I would like to say that the scope remains the same but the article should be now more in accordance of what reviewers were expecting. Again, thank you so much for the review and and highly appreciate all the comments and suggestions. Of course, I'm always open to further suggestions on how to improve the article. 

Comments 1: 1) The main research question addressed: how the right to religious beliefs is respected within the field of education across European countries and how related cases are handled by the European Court of Human Rights.

2) The topic is original and relevant to the field because is it important to know how this

fundamental human right is viewed in the educational field in Europe and how the

European Court of Human Rights handles such cases. I think that such studies are

welcome and necessary today.

3) In comparison with other published material on this issue, I consider that it is well

structured and a good piece of work.

Response 1: I would like to thank you for your review and the positive feedback regarding my article. I also believe that usually papers involving indirect discrimination and reasonable accommodation in the ECtHR are usually somehow difficult to follow, and I highly appreciate your review, comments and suggestions. You will find in the uploaded text that there have been several substantial changes in the article to align with the reviews of the three reviewers. I hope still aligns with the perspective that you were looking for and the results.

Comments 2: 4) With regard to improvements, I would suggest:

a. Under the heading ”Reasonable Accommodation as Indirect Discrimination in the

ECtHR” briefly explain the content of articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention

on Human Rights to clarify the argument.

b. Under the heading ”Personal symbols”: it focuses only on the Islamic headscarf, but

under the heading 2, there is some discussion also about wearing a crucifix. Since

the heading uses the plural ”symbols”, I suggest incorporating the crucifix case here.

Additionally, the discussion of swimming lessons in this section conflicts with the

focus on ”personal symbols”; this case might fit better under heading 2.

5) The conclusion is consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the paper.

6) The paper is well-referenced from my point of view

Response 2: Regarding point A), I added a brief paragraph defining the grounds of what is understood as religion or belief for the ECHR and as well as brief mention to Article 9 and Article 14 (lines 65-84). I hope it aligns with what you were looking for.

Regarding point B) I moved the section regarding swimming lessons to the exemptions section as you recommeded and I added a brief mention to the Lautsi case regarding the crucifix (lines 600-623). I also changed the title to “Majority and minority religions in the ECtHR: Personal and static religious symbols in education". Thank you for the suggestion and I hope now it makes it more clear with the content that is including. 

Comments 1: The clarity and logic of the manuscript have certainly improved. However, an important reference that was already highlighted in the previous review (line 90, formerly line 100) is still missing. In addition, the new statement at lines 91–92 is incorrect.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. I have rewritten the paragraph and added the references required for the statements mentioned in line 90 (now lines 84–94). I have included the references that I deemed relevant, but I welcome any further suggestions or comments. Please see the revised paragraph below. In addition, I have deleted the statement in lines 91–92, thank you for pointing this out. 

"The concept of reasonable accommodation originated in United States legislation with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which aimed to combat discrimination in the labor market (de Campos Velho Martel, 2011, p. 88). However, it was not until the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 that the concept became more prevalent (Karlan & Rutherglen, 1996, p. 5).  Although both the United States and Canada can be considered to be the birthplaces of reasonable accommodation, the concept is interpreted more broadly under Canadian law than under American law (Bribosia et al., 2013, p. 139). In both countries, the duty of reasonable accommodation was initially recognized in the context of non-discrimination on religious grounds, later extending to cases of disability discrimination (de Campos Velho Martel, 2011, p. 89; Howard, 2013, p. 74)."