The
email from the Technical University of Dublin (TU Dublin) chaplaincy
service on the occasion of Lent had asked: “Who is Jesus?”
“This
proselytising notice was unsolicited,” Ian Kilroy, a Buddhist priest
and journalism instructor at the School of Media, had submitted.
He
took a claim against his employer under the Equal Status Act, claiming
the university was failing to make available amenities for religious
minorities.
Discrimination
was denied by TU Dublin, which said Mr Kilroy’s claims about Catholic
control of the chaplaincy were “factually incorrect”.
Mr
Kilroy told the Workplace Relations Commission in May that the
university had five Christian chaplains and none from a minority
religious background.
He
said the €260,000-a-year chaplaincy service was subcontracted to the
Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, which “controls the chaplaincy, appoints
chaplains and invoices TU Dublin for the services provided”.
Mr
Kilroy said that the new campus at Grangegorman had a consecrated
Catholic church at the centre of its student hub — but that students and
staff of other faiths had “no such dedicated accommodation”.
“There
is clear inequality in the provision of space, which seems to be
illegal under equality legislation,” he said in his submission.
The “exclusively Christian” chaplaincy had led to “numerous instances of discrimination”, he said.
He
said the most recent example before his complaint was an email on
February 15th, 2021 from the chaplaincy service on the occasion of Lent
asking: “Who is Jesus?”
“This proselytising notice was unsolicited,” he said.
He
said the college’s chaplaincy was “exclusively Christian” and under the
control of the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin — which he said had not
given its approval for a proposal from the Dublin City Interfaith Forum
to provide minority faith services.
He
said that there was a weekly Mass offered on campus and regular
Christian services, including remembrance services for deceased staff,
but none for Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist staff or students.
Mr
Kilroy said the “grossly unequal and discriminatory” provision of goods
and services led him to close the college’s Zen Society because of the
“poor” accommodation shared by minority faiths.
He
said there had been “tensions between faith traditions” including
“anti-Buddhist remarks left in this shared space” and the vandalising of
meditation cushions and religious materials there, including material
being replaced with the Muslim Koran.
He
said the Dublin City Interfaith Forum made a proposal to make minority
faith services available, but this required the approval of the
Archbishop of Dublin, which had not been forthcoming.
“There
is something wrong when the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin has to
approve of, and controls, the provision of religious services to
minority faiths in an institution,” he said.
Adjudicating
officer Pat Brady wrote that Mr Kilroy had a “significant sense of
grievance arising from how the respondent addresses the needs of those
of his or other minority faiths” and gave numerous examples of concerns.
“There
is provision for dialogue which appears to be well established in the
university and the complainant has perhaps failed to develop a
sufficiently thought-out strategy to avail of the opportunity to engage
in that dialogue as effectively as he might,” he wrote.
Mary-Paula
Guinness BL, who appeared for TU Dublin, instructed by Holmes
Solicitors, argued that it actively listened to feedback and would
engage to find acceptable solutions in the area.
The college’s position was that Catholic staff and students had “no dedicated accommodation on campus”, she said.
“St Laurence’s Church is a multi-purpose space that is bookable for any event,” she said.
The
planning permission for the new campus had required that it remain in
use as a church, she said, and there was usually one Mass a week offered
there.
The
college also provided “dedicated neutral spaces in each campus for
reflection, prayer and moments of peace” with storage for any objects
required, Ms Guinness said.
TU
Dublin had put its pastoral care and chaplaincy service out to tender
most recently in 2020, with the Archdiocese of Dublin the only entity to
respond, it was submitted.
Ms
Guinness argued that the Archdiocese had contracted support from the
Dublin City Interfaith Forum, which “assists with providing multi-faith
representation”.
She said Mr Kilroy “appears to be under the misunderstanding that TU Dublin has an arrangement with the Catholic Church only”.
“This is incorrect,” she said.
Ms
Guinness also said Mr Kilroy’s claim that TU Dublin’s Pastoral Care and
Chaplaincy service exclusively supported Christian traditions was also
“factually incorrect”.
She
said Diwali and Ramadan had also been observed and that Mr Kilroy
himself had appeared in a video on the service’s social media marking
the Buddhist holy day of Vesak in May 2022.
“It would be impossible and/or impracticable to mark every event,” she said.
Ms
Guinness argued further that Mr Kilroy’s complaints regarding the
closure of the Zen Society in 2017 and proposals around an “associate
chaplaincy” fell outside the six-month statutory time frame for his
complaint.
The
college’s position was that as it did not ask its staff or students to
identify their faith and that universal emails were sent regarding
religious celebrations.
“Sending an email in relation to a faith to which the complainant does not adhere does not amount to discrimination,” she said.
The
adjudicating officer said the complainant had made a “reasonable point”
about the status of the Catholic church on campus, and that despite
being designated a “multi-purpose” space, it had been built as a church
and retained characteristics and iconography “which may be regarded as
uncomfortable or insensitive for those of a non-Catholic, or
non-Christian faith”.
“For others this will not matter, of course,” Mr Brady wrote.
He
said that the “optics” of the close involvement of the Catholic
Archdiocese of Dublin in the TU Dublin chaplaincy service were
“unfortunate” but that “no specific act of discrimination could be
discerned here”.
Mr
Brady wrote that Mr Kilroy’s case was limited to the email of February
2021 about Lent activities, and that he agreed with the respondent that
it was not a discriminatory act.
His
reasoning was that there had been no less favourable treatment by means
of an “act or omission” which put Mr Kilroy at a disadvantage compared
to another.
He
found that the use of a universal email list to distribute the notice
was “not much different from a poster being displayed on the campus to
the same effect”, but said there might be a case to provide for an
option to unsubscribe to such notices.
Dismissing
the claim, he wrote that the email had said to a “sense of general
historic grievance about the treatment of [Mr Kilroy’s] faith” and that
any issues he had would “receive a receptive ear if pursued”.