The truth about Enoch Burke
Misconceptions and half-truths are obscuring the reality of what happened to the teacher who refused to comply with genderist speech codes.
Enoch Burke, the former teacher who objected to his school’s new policy of referring to a male pupil as ‘they/them’, has been returned to prison for a fourth time. Many of us will have been following this dizzying saga in a state of some confusion, not least because so many misconceptions persist regarding the complexities of the case. Many of Burke’s defenders claim that he has served over 500 days in jail for standing up against the genderist indoctrination of children. Many of his critics point out that he has been imprisoned solely for contempt of court, and argue that transgenderism has nothing to do with it. If you are finding it all a little baffling, you’re not alone.
Last week I wrote an article for UnHerd which outlined the pertinent details. (You can read that article here.) I pointed out that Burke’s case has been distorted in public debate, with both supporters and detractors simplifying the story to fit their narratives. While Burke’s behaviour has at times been questionable – particularly his continual insistence on returning to Wilson’s Hospital School in County Westmeath even after being suspended – the core issue has been obscured: a state-funded Christian school imposed an ideologically contested policy of social transitioning, compelling staff to use a student’s preferred pronouns despite ethical, pedagogical and religious objections.
Burke was of course right to challenge the policy. The school had overstepped its moral authority and ignored evidence that social transitioning is ‘not a neutral act’ (as per the Cass interim review) and may harm children. However, by continuing to appear on school grounds after suspension, Burke shifted the focus from the school’s actions to his own defiance of court orders. The case ultimately raises a wider question about civil disobedience in liberal democracies. In other words, how should we object to an unjust system while we are compelled to operate within it? In my article for UnHerd, I wanted to initiate a discussion about whether Burke’s chosen form of protest had advanced or undermined his cause.
Since the article was published, I have received numerous responses which point to two major misconceptions that are still widely held about the case. The first is that Burke was suspended from the school solely for publicly haranguing the principal, Niamh McShane. This incident took place at a chapel service on 21 June 2022, and critics of Burke have since argued that his unprofessional conduct in full view of students was the sole reason for his suspension.
This is untrue. Burke has long contended that his stance on transgenderism was a crucial feature of the principal’s justification for his suspension, and this was confirmed in a Court of Appeal ruling. For those who are interested, the relevant remarks from the judgement are here.
In particular, note the direct quotations from McShane’s disciplinary report which, the judge found, ‘would make little sense’ if Burke’s views on gender ideology were not relevant to the suspension.
The second misconception around Burke’s case is that his public confrontation with the principal was his initial reaction to being told to use ‘they/them’ pronouns for a male child. In other words, it is widely believed that Burke had overreacted without any effort to engage in dialogue in the first instance. In fact, his outburst at the chapel service was a last resort, coming after multiple emails were exchanged and a meeting was held between Burke and the principal. After the meeting, the school doubled down on insisting that Burke – as well as all staff and pupils – use language that promoted this divisive and highly contested ideology.
For the sake of absolute clarity on the issue, therefore, here is the timeline. The text is quoted directly from the Court of Appeal sentencing remarks.
‘9 May 2022, staff at the School, including the appellant, received an email from the principal of the School, informing them that a student would be making a social transition in their gender identity from the next day and stating that from then on the student would become known by a different name and that “they” should be used in place of the pronoun that had been used up to that point in respect of the student concerned.’
‘The appellant immediately objected to the principal’s instruction and there was an exchange of emails on 10 May in which he made his objection clear. Later that day, he again raised the matter at a scheduled staff meeting.’
‘On 19 May, there was a meeting between the appellant, the principal and the deputy principal to discuss the issue.’
‘On 27 May, the principal emailed the appellant. This correspondence concluded by recognising that while it may be challenging for him in light of his religious beliefs, the principal expected that the appellant would communicate with the student in accordance with the wishes of the student and the student’s parents. The appellant replied to this correspondence on 27 May stating, inter alia, that he had previously made his position clear at the meetings of 10 and 19 May.’
‘On 21 June 2022, a service was held in the school chapel followed by a dinner in the school dining hall commemorating the 260th anniversary of the establishment of the School. The chapel service was attended by some past students, staff, Board of Management members, parents, clergy and some sixth-year students. Towards the end of the service the appellant stood up and spoke, setting out that he would not accept what he called “transgenderism” and putting it to the principal to withdraw her instruction of 9 May 2022. At a point during or immediately after the dinner, the appellant again raised the issue with the principal in public.’
‘The appellant was dismissed from his employment at the School by a decision of the School’s Board of Management following a meeting on 19 January 2023.’
As the timeline makes clear, Burke had pursued various avenues before publicly challenging the principal (including contacting the Bishop of the diocese). The precise details of the incident on 21 June are disputed, but as a former teacher myself I am aware that any public confrontation between staff is unprofessional and a potential disciplinary matter. Nor do I accept that returning to the school premises following a suspension is acceptable given the presence of children. Peaceful protest is all very well, but this is clearly a safeguarding issue.
Had Burke simply refused to comply with the speech codes, he would have retained the moral high ground and his laudable protest against the imposition of gender ideology might have actuated real policy change. Unfortunately, the manner of Burke’s protest has ended up obscuring the injustice committed by the school itself.
A well balanced and clear account of all that’s happened, thanks Andrew. Whilst I agree that Enoch Burke was right to protest the forced use of ‘preferred pronouns’ his subsequent actions have made the protest about him rather than about the actions of the school. And let’s not forget those children caught up in the debacle, the children who are being forced to deny reality, to accept that someone can change sex. Not only is one child being placed on the road to medical harm, the rest of the children are having to participate, possibly against their will. They may also end up following the same route because of the element of social contagion. I’d like to have seen parents participate in the protest in order to protect their children from mental and physical harm.
Thank you for making this clear. I must admit, this case has been so puzzling that I no longer even read social media posts concerning it. Ireland is not the same country it was thirty years ago, when I last visited. And now there's the appearance of a new Republican-style armed 'movement' opposed to mass immigration and gender ideology in schools - which may or may not be a psy-op - and threatening, among others, Sinn Fein politicians, who have seemingly turned on a dime and are now opposed to an independent republic (support the EU), favour immigrants over their traditional working class base and cuddle up to blokes in frocks! What would Martin have to say, God rest his soul.