that the Koran does not specificallynordain the wearing of a head shawl,nsince the crucial 23 rd Sura (Verse 59)napplies to the wives and daughters ofnthe Prophet and the “wives of thenfaithful” — thus excluding unmarriednschoolgirls — and refers furthermore tonthe wearing of the full-length haik,ncovering not only the head but thenentire body down to the ankles.n”Why” asked Courtellemont, “donpeople always forget to refer to the lastnsentence of this verse? If not becausenall fundamentalists, and this in all religions,nonly draw from holy texts thatnwhich interests their extremism?”nThe same hostility to the wearing ofnthe hidjeb in French classrooms wasnexpressed by Gisele Halimi, an ardentlyn”progressive” lawyer who for yearsnboldly defended the cause of Arabn”rebels” and of an independent Algeria.nShe announced her resignationnfrom Hadem Desir’s S.O.S.-Racisme,nknowing only too well from personalnexperience what the wearing of thenhidjeb means for the downtroddennmothers and daughters of Islam. Asnone of them, Fadela Ben Asmar, wrotenin a letter published by Le Monde: “Inwas born in the Meghreb. After spendingnmost of my life in France, I tried ‘tongo home’ to find my family and myn’identity.’ I could not endure it evennfor one year. Faced with the constraintsnof the Moslem woman’s inferior statusnand the rise of Islamic movements, Inpreferred to return to France.”nOf all the articles I have read on thisnsubject, the only one deserving to benregarded as an “anthology piece” camenfrom Alain Finkielkraut, a youngnFrench philosopher who once againndisplayed his flair for coming to gripsnwith fundamental issues. In an articlenentitled “The Holy Alliance of thenClergies,” he took issue with thenGrand Rabbi and came out unequivocallynin favor of the “lay” school in thenname of cultural tradition. The socalledn”Islamic veil affair,” he argued,nresembled the tumult aroused by SalmannRushdie’s Satanic Verses in that:nthey are two aspects of one andnthe same attitude, which can bensummed up thus: ‘I supportnyour demands in order thenbetter to advance my own.’ Inndemanding the authorization ofnthe veil in classrooms, thenRabbinate preventivelyndenounces and intimidates everynattempt to forbid the kippa ornthe punishment of studentsnwho do not come to school onnSaturdays. As for the CatholicnChurch, now engaged in annenthusiastic and grandiosenproject of new evangelization, itnhas been more and morenopenly asserting the monopolynof religion over spiritual life.nThere was a time, Finkielkraut went on,nwhen French schoolchildren used tonturn up in simple blouses or workmanlikenaprons. Today they have been donenaway with. Instead — “Long live thentchador and modernity! In the name ofntolerance, of individual freedom and ofndemocracy on the march, social inequalitiesnand communitarian loyaltiesnexhibit themselves violently therenwhere it was formedy possible to suspendnthem, in order to think of othernthings.”nThe consequence of this intellectualnabdication in the face of “ethnocentric”nmodernity has been to turn thenclassroom into a “juxtaposition ofntribes.” The old-fashioned notion ofn”knowledge” having been subordinatednto the dictates of cultural pluralism,nschoolteachers in the field of the humanitiesnfrom now on have the missionnof teaching each and every onenthe difference of the other.nInstead of initiating students tonthat part of culture whichntranscends customs, theynundertake to describe thosencustoms. Instead of speaking ofnworks that enlighten mankind asnto its condition, they will talk ofnthe kippa to those who wearnthe veil, and of the veil to thosenwho wear the kippa; and fornthe combined joy of imams,nrabbis, the Pope, and DaniellenMitterrand, the common woddnof human beings will thus bensacrificed to the highest valuenrecognized by our waningncentury: respect of the Other.nThe final “solution” to this problemnproposed by Lionel Jospin, the Frenchnminister of education, and reluctantlynadopted by Prime Minister Michel Rocardn(who happens to be a Protestant),nnnhas been to kick the issue under thencarpet in the hope that it will lie dormant,nsince only a handful of schoolgirisnhave so far shown themselves determinednnever to dqff their veils in public.nBut it remains to be seen if this opportunisticnside-stepping of the issue willnwork, at a time when fundamentalism isnon the march in,North Africa and innother areas of the Moslem wodd. Onenthing, at any rate, is certain: sixty yearsnago the kind of incident that occurred atnCreil would have been settled in anquarter of an hqur, and there wouldnhave been no further talk of the foulard.nBut it is true that France then controllednan empire, and television had not yetnbeen invented.nAs for the “Carpentras affair,” it toonwas inflated by the media out of allnproportion to its real significance, as annalarming indication that the Frenchnwere turning into anti-Semitic racists.nThe very speed with which Pierre Joxe,nthe minister of the interior, hied himselfnover to Carpentras in a helicopternduring the afternoon of May 10 — thenday on which the desecrated graves innthe Jewish cemetery were discoveredn—was curiously reminiscent of thennewspaper campaign he helped to fannagainst Defense Minister CharlesnHernu during the tumultuous “Greenpeacenaffair” (autumn 1985). Thisntime the primary object — to link thenCarpentras profanations to some uncharitablenremarks just made by Jean-nMarie Le Pen about Jewish influencenin the press in a direct cause-and-effectnrelationship — failed, for simple reasonsnof chronology. But Joxe’s successnin unleashing a tidal wave of indignation,nculminating in the most massivenstreet demonstration Paris has seennin several years,’ may have exceedednhis fondest expectations.nAnd the truth’in all this? Well, onenanswer, I think, was provided severalndays later when three young “skinheads”nwere arrested in a town nearnNantes for having desecrated somentombs in a Christian graveyard. No onenin his right mind could have accusednthem of anti-Semitism. What had motivatedntheir despicable action wasncleady the kind of mindless Schadenfreudenyouths are prone to exhibit,nfurther stimulated by what might bencalled a “Stavroghin complex” — thendesire to scandalize for the heady thrillnof scandal — and the realization thatnNOVEMBER 1990/43n