The article offers a socio-legal analysis of the recent case on freedom of/from religion in Italy, the Coppoli judgment of the Italian Supreme Court, which grants public schools the autonomy to manage religious symbols. The new ruling is discussed in the shadow of the Lautsi case, examining the shift from the discourse of “passive religious symbol” to the framework of “respect of different sensibilities” in pluralistic classrooms. In doing that, first, we provide a sociological framework for the study of “passive religious symbols” from a multiculturalist and religious freedom perspective. Second, the Coppoli case is contextualized within political, normative and judicial Italian contexts following the Lautsi jurisprudence. Third, we revise the model of “secularism as a method of dialogue” considered by the judges as important in claiming individual freedoms of/from religion in the multicultural classroom. The final part of the article provides a discussion and critical considerations about the Coppoli case, problematizing the future challenges of managing religious diversity in Italian public schools. We argue that the dynamic of freedom of/from religion’s jurisprudence in the Coppoli case endorses an additive model of accommodating diverse cultural and religious identities in public schools.

The article discusses the role of “vulnerability” in the legal and political discourse of today's Europe as a dual-mode dispositive. On the one hand, “vulnerability” allows the legal formalism to incorporate the precarious subjects that the traditional language of “rights” risks to exclude. Compared with the human rights language, “vulnerability” better articulates the relationship between legal categories and rapidly changing social and ecological landscapes. The “vulnerability language” captures intersectionality. On the other hand, however, through examples taken from the EU normative production on irregular and mixed migrations, with a focus on refugee “screening” and reception and on managing identification and referral procedures of persons victims of human trafficking, this article shows that the assignment of an individual to a “vulnerable group” has the effect not only of expanding and intensifying their protection under normative human rights regimes, but also of accentuating some risks already inherent in human rights discourse, namely paternalism and essentialism. Paradoxically, a possible outcome can be fragmentation of rights protection frameworks, and exclusion. Vulnerable migrants may have to face additional challenges stemming from their inability (coupled with objective difficulty) to decodify communications and instructions concerning their status. Divergent ways of conceiving vulnerability, depending on subjective assessments, public policy standards, the legal framework, and the political agenda on welfare, contribute to neutralizing the potentially emancipatory impact of the vulnerability language.