Whose betrayal? Our latest Rebuilding Trust story sparks internal debate.

The murder of French teacher Samuel Paty after he displayed satirical pictures of the Prophet Muhammad to his class shook the country. Our story delves into the sense of betrayal felt by the teachers toward students at the school. Might some Muslim students have felt a sense of betrayal, too?

|
Sabrina Budon/Special to The Christian Science Monitor
A memorial to Samuel Paty sits in a central square near the school where he taught. Mr. Paty remains a controversial figure for some.

An interesting thing happened as some of us at the Monitor were discussing this week’s cover story. We had an argument. Not an "I'm going to go away and write terrible things about you on social media" kind of argument. But the good kind – a sharing of perspectives.

Our cover story is about Samuel Paty, the French secondary school teacher who showed two provocative, satirical pictures of the Prophet Muhammad in his class and was later beheaded. Two students, in particular, played a role in the events – one by spreading lies about Mr. Paty's class and the other by helping identify Mr. Paty to the man who would go on to murder him.

The story is a part of our Rebuilding Trust project. Writer Colette Davidson delves into the sense of betrayal felt by the teachers toward students at the school. They are trying to reestablish the trust so crucial not only to education but also to the broader community. But it remains a work in progress – persistent struggles amid sparks of hope.

Our internal debate centered on this question: Might some Muslim students have felt a sense of betrayal, too? The question is not about justifying such a heinous and inhuman act. There can be no justification. But what might trust have looked like from all sides?

Before showing his class the pictures, Mr. Paty thoughtfully told students they could look away or leave. His goal was to have this debate exactly: Was the satirical cartoon an effective mode of free speech or beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior? But he was clearly having the debate on French terms – as a secular discussion. Might Muslim students have felt he was forcing upon them a discussion that was enormously offensive and fundamentally at odds with their cherished values?

The debate could spool almost infinitely. But to me, the point wasn’t really the debate. Society seems to have forgotten that the result of a debate is often much less important than how it can sharpen minds and broaden understanding. When that happens, everyone wins.

And that is the triumph of Colette's story. In focusing on trust, she unleashes layers upon layers of meaning. None of the questions she raises has easy answers, but all are crucial to how societies both maintain their historic distinctions and create space for diverse perspectives. In that way, Colette’s story isn’t just about France, but about virtually every country on Earth as the world shrinks and cultures collide with greater frequency and force. Colette examines both the powerful motives of French secularism and how it has caused stress within Muslim communities.

Trust becomes the prism for this larger story. And interestingly, the article itself is a product of trust. Colette needed to gain the trust of people in the community who had, for so long, distrusted the media’s motives in seeking out such a sensational story. This week's cover story is a model for why we chose to launch Rebuilding Trust in the first place. With so much of the news today, when you begin to understand trust, you begin to understand much more than headlines and hot takes.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Whose betrayal? Our latest Rebuilding Trust story sparks internal debate.
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/From-the-Editors/2024/0428/Whose-betrayal-Our-latest-Rebuilding-Trust-story-sparks-internal-debate
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe