Using Crenshaw’s (1991) lens, this blog focuses on how Muslim women (MW) navigate social and academic spaces, both from a worldview perspective and that of social identity. The hypervisibility of MW via the hijab and niqab materialize assumptions about disempowerment within the faith and culture of Islam and therefore promote the idea of MW’s lack of agency. Despite the Advance HE (2018) recommendations, which includes the promotion of ‘inclusive environments’ and ‘greater awareness of attainment gaps between different groups,’ UAL (2025) attainment data do not consider the intersection of religion as a characteristic.
Religion is marginalized by secularism (Rekis, 2023, p.782), and the 19th Century division of religious and scientific epistemologies in the West– created a positionality through which religion is classified, however, in much of the world, this separation has not occurred (Appiah, 2014). The conceptualization of a list of paradigm religions and their sub parts, as Appiah (2014) suggests, was the construction of Europeans, who, upon discovering people who were not Christians – to describe what ‘they have instead of Christianity?’ The Equality Act 2010 includes. within its definition, the paradigm religions, but also smaller faiths, providing they have ‘clear structure and belief system’ (McKeown and Dunn, 2021, p.121).
Rekis (2023, p.784) maintains injustice occurs both when social identity is at stake, and, when ‘a person’s worldview is at stake.’ The conflation of two or more social identities can wrongly create assumptions about how they intersect. However, underestimating the connections potentially denies individuals the credibility to speak on those ‘specific theologies,’ placing individuals at a conceptual disadvantage i.e. MW in the contemporary West (Ibid, p.789).
The hijab and niqab are problematized through the frame of a highly gendered- Islamophobia emphasizing ‘incompatibility of aspects of Muslim identity with western values’ (Ramadan, 2022, p.34). This discourse designates MW’s ‘radical otherness’ associating it with religio-cultural oppression and backwardness. Participants, in Ramadan’s (2022, p.108) study, disclose the strategies that they employ to mitigate and recalibrate colleagues’ perceptions, wanting to show them that they are ‘like any other person,’ by chatting and joking with them ‘along the corridors to show them that I am not what you see in the media. We are normal people …’ This is an instinct echoed by Simran Jeet Singh:
When I walk onto an airplane and people are looking at me with fear and funny looks – I strike up conversations – and smile and laugh and eventually pull out pictures of my daughters – so that they can see that I’m just a normal person.
(Trinity University, 2021)
In the video, we can see that he is wearing Sikh head covering, part of difference which, along with his beard and brown skin, signify the ‘radical otherness’ which he senses he must diffuse in the context of the post 9.11 world, where these racial and religious signifiers are enough to stimulate the described reaction. Significantly, he is not a Muslim, although the signifiers of his faith, just like the hijab for MW, are effective in focusing the attention and prejudice of the hegemonic white gaze. Also significant, he is a man, so his agency, in respect of choice of the signifiers of his faith, are assumed.
Jawad (2022) explores the intersection of gender and faith in the context of sport. The notion of women being excluded from participation in Islam is challenged, through the hermeneutical interpretation of the Hadith text as evidence of ‘equality and support for women attaining and maintaining physical capability,’ substantiating the ‘Accept and Respect’ declaration which claims Islam is a religion of enablement and not of prohibition towards women in sport; the onus being on sports educators, administrators, and organizers to ‘incorporate greater awareness of faith-based principles’ and create more inclusive spaces for female Muslims in sport (Ibid). This suggests that adjustment can be made in the hegemonic world to accommodate faith-based differences and (perhaps) highlights the tensions that exist within the perceived need for MW to prove that they are ‘just like’ their colleagues in the dominant culture where their social identity is at stake (as in Ramadan’s 2022 study), and the need to validate a worldview as compatible with the secular world’s claim on gender equality.
Although not having the same lived experience, my approach (and philosophy) regarding discourse around faith and culture, aligns with that of Simran Jeet Singh: ‘no community is a monolith’ – and I try to foster an environment where the differences within each community can be demonstrated, through developing an understanding of ‘where people are coming from – with empathy’ (Trinity University, 2021).
Applying intersectionality to awarding gaps helps to understand how identity and social location influence outcomes (Banerjee, 2024, p.35). The current UAL (2025) data for the student population shows that nearly 60% of the cohort would identify as secular (i.e. no religion) and of those declaring religious membership – Christian (12%) followed by Muslim (4.2%) are the largest groups (see fig 1). However, whilst data is presented regarding attainment and gender (see fig 2), and ethnicity (see fig 3), there is no data on religion, or for that matter, data that helps illustrate the relationship between intersecting identities (e.g. religion, race and gender) and attainment, ultimately a (quantitative) KPI of EDI.
Figure 1: Student Profiles – Characteristics: Religion (UAL, 2025)
Figure 2: Attainment Rates by Profile: Gender. (UAL, 2025)
Figure 3: Attainment Rates by Profile: Ethnicity 5 ways. (UAL 2025)
References:
Advance HE (2018) ‘Religion and belief: supporting inclusion of staff and students in higher education and colleges Section 3: Student inclusion: access, experience and learning’ Advance HE
Appiah, K.A. (2014) Is religion good or bad? (This is a trick question) Available at: https://youtu.be/X2et2KO8gcY (Accessed on 15.05.25)
Banarjee, P. (2024) ‘Connecting the dots: a systematic review of explanatory factors linking contextual indicators, institutional culture and degree awarding gaps,’ Higher Education Evaluation and Development Vol. 18 No. 1, 2024 pp. 31-52 DOI 10.1108/HEED-07-2023-0020
Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.’ Stanford Law Review 43 (6), pp.1241-1299
Jawad, H. (2022) Islam, Women and Sport: The Case of Visible Muslim Women. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2022/09/islam-women-and-sport-the-case-of-visible-muslim-women/ (Accessed on 15.05.25)
McKeown, P., and Dunn, R.A. (2021) A ‘Life‑Style Choice’ or a Philosophical Belief?: The Argument for Veganism and Vegetarianism to be a Protected Philosophical Belief and the Position in England and Wales,’ Liverpool Law Review 42:207–241 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-020-09273-w
Ramadan, (2022) ‘When faith intersects with gender: the challenges and successes in the experiences of Muslim women academics,’ Gender and Education, 34:1, 33-48, DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2021.1893664
Rekis, J. (2023) ‘Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account.’ Hypatia 38, pp779–800. doi:10.1017/hyp.2023.86
Trinity University (2016) Challenging Race, Religion, and Stereotypes in Classroom Available at: https://youtu.be/0CAOKTo_DOk (Accessed on 15.05.25)
UAL (2025) Active Dashboards. Available at: https://dashboards.arts.ac.uk/dashboard/ActiveDashboards/DashboardPage.aspx?dashboardid=99b2fe03-d417-45d3-bea9-1a65ebc250ea&dashcontextid=638773918741985949 (Accessed on 15.05.25)
2 replies on “Inclusive Practice_Blog Post Two_Religion”
This was an interesting read. Highlighting that through using the UAL data records, we cannot see how religion plays a part in attainment gaps, therefore we also cannot know how to best act on improving the experience and learning for those with marked, or even unmarked indicators of practicing faith if it is needed. We must instead listen to the voices of those who ask for help in this, and encourage them to speak up on this, which is a big ask. Quoting Ramadan (2022) helps to contextualise how that even MW at the top of their academic game can be subject to set-backs and added workload by taking on the role of spokesperson for their entire culture and / or race for the educational benefit of others. Using this text in your wiritng, for me, and pinpoints how this can be a positive but also a negative role to assume and more can be done at UAL to celebrate and acknowledge those who do, or find a better way to platform their voices and experience with effective change and support.
Including your positionality on the subject, it is positive to hear that even those who are not impacted by these characteristics can adopt and implement a fair, welcoming, and supportive learning environment, with guidance on which mindset to utilise taken from a solid reference on how to foster an empathetic environment based on respect, and relative ipsative direction.
I wonder if there is any local data or information (possibly anonymised) that surrounds your own work that could help bring to life this intersection, and ways you can rectify it in your own practice / area of work?
Hi Leila – thanks for the comment. Yes I think there may be possibilities for data gathering that could shed some light on this – however, I’m not sure how this would be done – via student records or by surveying the students themselves – but something worth thinking about.
Generally my philosophy is to employ empathy on a human level – being cognizant of differing world views and trying foster a space where these world views can co-exist – and even inform each other.