A Muslim teacher has been banned from teaching in England after a professional conduct panel found he made discriminatory and inappropriate comments to pupils about Ukraine, homosexuality and transgender people during a history lesson.
William Garwood, a supply teacher at St Mary’s Menston Catholic Voluntary Academy in West Yorkshire, was prohibited from teaching after the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) concluded that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and brought the profession into disrepute.
The allegations stemmed from a Year 11 history lesson on October 5, 2023, during which pupils alleged Garwood made a series of controversial political and social statements.
The panel found it proven that Garwood told pupils that “Ukrainians are Nazis” or “evil”, described Ukrainians as “Satanists funded by banks and billionaires”, claimed that “gay and transgender people are mentally ill”, said that “billionaires are the cause of transgenders and they print it in the media and influence people”, and made comments justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
However, the panel did not find sufficient evidence to prove an allegation that he claimed the 9/11 attacks were planned by the U.S. government.
The panel ruled that the comments were inappropriate, discriminatory and failed to demonstrate respect and tolerance for people with different beliefs.
It concluded that Garwood had breached the Teachers’ Standards by failing to uphold public trust in the profession and by undermining mutual respect and tolerance.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
Garwood’s defence
Garwood denied the allegations and argued that his views had been misrepresented by pupils.
In written submissions to the panel, he maintained that his comments reflected his Islamic beliefs and his opposition to Nazism rather than prejudice against any group.
Addressing the allegations concerning homosexuality and transgender people, Garwood wrote that his “Islamic stance on trans” issues had been wrongly portrayed as making him “a psychological threat to children’s wellbeing”.
He insisted that he had not expressed an opinion about gay people, stating: “I did not give an opinion on gays, but asserted that I am a Muslim and that the position is known.” He argued that pupils had misunderstood his comments and created what he described as a false “caricature” of him.
Garwood also argued that he was entitled to hold and express his religious beliefs as a Muslim, together with what he described as his philosophical belief of anti-Nazism, both of which he said were protected under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
Regarding Ukraine, he contended that the proceedings were politically-motivated and that he had merely expressed views about the presence of Nazi elements within the Ukrainian military. He maintained these were legitimate political opinions capable of being held in a democratic society and protected under the Equality Act.
The panel acknowledged Garwood’s right to freedom of expression and accepted that it was not its role to determine whether his beliefs were true or false. Instead, it said its task was to assess whether his conduct as a teacher met the professional standards expected in a classroom.
It concluded that Garwood’s comments amounted to a prolonged, one-sided monologue rather than a balanced educational discussion, and that he failed to encourage debate or present alternative viewpoints. The panel also found that he had shown insufficient regard for the impact of his comments on pupils, including a Ukrainian student who was present during the lesson.
‘Our compassionate brother in Islam’
The panel also criticised Garwood’s response to the allegations, finding that he demonstrated only “very limited insight” into the seriousness of his conduct.
It said his written representations focused largely on criticising the school’s handling of the matter and alleging that the TRA proceedings were politically-motivated, rather than acknowledging the potential impact of his comments on pupils.
Although Garwood offered to apologise to the Ukrainian pupil who had been present during the lesson, the panel concluded that he showed only limited remorse and no real understanding of his professional responsibilities.
Editorial credit: Photographer RM / Shutterstock.com
The panel also considered a petition signed by 20 people describing Garwood as “our compassionate brother in Islam” and stating that they did not believe he posed a threat to British society. The petition praised his 25-year teaching career and his ability to work respectfully with people of different beliefs.
However, the panel gave the petition little weight, finding that it did not address the central issue of whether it was appropriate for a teacher to express personal political and social views to pupils during lessons.
The panel originally recommended a lifetime prohibition without the possibility of review, citing the seriousness of the misconduct and what it considered to be a risk of repetition.
However, the Secretary of State’s decision-maker disagreed on that point, concluding that although the misconduct was highly concerning, it did not meet the exceptionally high threshold required to deny any future review.
Garwood has therefore been prohibited from teaching indefinitely but will be entitled to apply for a review of the order after six years, from June 23, 2032. Any return to the profession would depend on him demonstrating full insight into his conduct and convincing a future panel that the risk of repetition is negligible.
