Request from York University male student not to intermingle with wome

[Bob Macadoo]

Was it right?

Doesn't matter. Just saying this isn't excessive accommodation, or even special accommodation, just everyday business unless you can make hey off the accommodation request.

The fact is, Toronto is a very liberal city, and York/Osgoode Hall is a very liberal university. They also have pretty aggressive affirmative action policies. The York admin has its priorities completely backwards, and this isn't "reasonable" accommodation.

There are religious accommodations Canada should accept, and some Canada shouldn't.

That ship has sailed and you were at the wrong pier. This would be due to York's liberalization, which allows open personal choice, you get this situation. In addition segregation by all kinds of factors is alive and well, gender is no different.

[Guest]

Doesn't matter. Just saying this isn't excessive accommodation, or even special accommodation, just everyday business unless you can make hey off the accommodation request.

It matters to me. Different for others, I guess.

[Guest]

If so, did the scholars tell the school that this is a really ridiculous "religious belief"? What religion is this anyways?...we don't even know, because the student never told the prof.

The fact is, Toronto is a very liberal city, and York/Osgoode Hall is a very liberal university. They also have pretty aggressive affirmative action policies. The York admin has its priorities completely backwards, and this isn't "reasonable" accommodation.

There are religious accommodations Canada should accept, and some Canada shouldn't. If you live in Canada, you shouldn't have a right not to associate with female classmates. Are we going to allow this in public elementary/high schools as well? I think not. Welcome to Canada, where males and females associate with each other on a daily basis, and if you don't like it too bad.

I believe both Muslim and Jewish Orthodox scholars both stated that there was no requirement for segregation. The student was pretty decent about it, withdrawing his request. Only the University admin were idiots here.

[Michael Hardner]

Are we going to allow this in public elementary/high schools as well? ... if you don't like it too bad.

Those two sentences contradict each other, and I agree with the second one.

[TimG]

So how would the university react if someone asked that they not be required to do group work with gays?

Edited January 13, 2014 by TimG

[Boges]

The request really isn't the story. It's the fact that the administration of a publicly-funded university instructed a professor to accommodate a sexist request that bothers people.

In Ontario, where there's a Catholic school board, the government told the board that they weren't allowed to ban "Gay-Straight" Alliances.

Yet in the Public school board in Toronto where Prayer rooms were made available women were instructed to sit in the back of the room.

http://www.torontolife.com/informer/features/2012/03/21/allah-in-the-cafeteria/

I know the term "slippery-slop" is often derided but what precedent does this set? Will accommodations be made if students don't want to interact with someone of another race or religion? What if a group of students decide they would prefer women not present in their class at all and if they are present they have to sit at the back?

Where is the line drawn? before it was when a freedom infringed on the rights of others, now I'm not so sure.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Boges

[Argus]

I don't personally care about the issue; if the university thinks they can reasonably accommodate it then it's fine with me. There may be issues that will push me into the outrage zone but this isn't close. An HR department might well accommodate such a requirement too.

What if he decided he didn't want to work with a Jew because it was against his religion?

[Michael Hardner]

What if he decided he didn't want to work with a Jew because it was against his religion?

I don't know... is there such a religion ? Are you asking me if I would be shocked ? I doubt it. I was shocked to find out that certain sects won't touch women because they may be 'unclean'... but that was decades ago.

[Boges]

I don't know... is there such a religion ? Are you asking me if I would be shocked ? I doubt it. I was shocked to find out that certain sects won't touch women because they may be 'unclean'... but that was decades ago.

Does it have to be a certain religion? I think it has been demonstrated that misogynistic characteristics are far more cultural than religious. Anti-semitism seems to be a common cultural characteristic across the world.

[Michael Hardner]

Does it have to be a certain religion?

Well, yes. You couldn't just ask to engage in such activity without a religious reason and expect to be granted an exemption, obviously. Why are you asking such an obvious question ?

[Boges]

Well, yes. You couldn't just ask to engage in such activity without a religious reason and expect to be granted an exemption, obviously. Why are you asking such an obvious question ?

Because it can be repeatedly determined that the treatment of women in Islam is completely cultural. Also the reasons given by this student as heard by the professor on the radio last week was that he didn't want to deal with women to "avoid temptation".

Edited January 13, 2014 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

Because it can be repeatedly determined that the treatment of women in Islam is completely cultural.

If somebody wanted to make a claim based on their culture's treatment of women it wouldn't go far legally.

And I wouldn't be shocked if somebody made that claim.

Also the reasons given by this student as heard by the professor on the radio last week was that he didn't want to deal with women to "avoid temptation".

I'm not shocked. Should we continue ?

[Boges]

.I'm not shocked. Should we continue ?

To what? That's what this thread is about.

"Should we be shocked about what York did here?"

Clearly you're fine with it. Many from both sides of the political spectrum are not.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

To what? That's what this thread is about.

The line of questioning you're adding to was started by Argus, in response to a statement I made:

"There may be issues that will push me into the outrage zone but this isn't close."

Clearly you're fine with it. Many from both sides of the political spectrum are not.

I understand. I'm wondering about what type of griping this is. There isn't much, if any, public input into these decisions, so our discussions on the topic when it surfaces seem to amount to pond ripples and not much else.

If I cared more about this issue I would push for a standard process for considering such questions, which would involve the input of some public, stakeholders, or what have you.

[Boges]

If I cared more about this issue I would push for a standard process for considering such questions, which would involve the input of some public, stakeholders, or what have you.

That would be reasonable considering York is a public institution, receiving lots of government funds. Which is part of the reason why people are outraged. A university like this shouldn't be making accommodations for people that are exhibiting clearly misogynistic traits.

I said in an earlier post that the request in itself isn't terribly troubling but the precedent is set.

[Michael Hardner]

That would be reasonable considering York is a public institution, receiving lots of government funds. Which is part of the reason why people are outraged. A university like this shouldn't be making accommodations for people that are exhibiting clearly misogynistic traits.

The idea of "should" is a reflection of personal morality in this context. So people are outraged and that will happen from time to time if the administration is following principles rather than following the crowd.

Yes, it would be reasonable to have a process with consultation but it doesn't mean that this would have ended any differently.

I said in an earlier post that the request in itself isn't terribly troubling but the precedent is set.

Right. And even a more accountable process will not stop the news media from making a bigger deal of these things than it needs to.

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't know... is there such a religion ?

Nazism?

[cybercoma]

The idea of "should" is a reflection of personal morality in this context.

The university has a right to institute a code of conduct for its students. Brigham Young University requires students to adhere to the tenets of the Mormon faith, but that's an extreme example. Take the workplace as a better example. An employer has the right to require staff to follow a code of conduct. The university could easily deny his request on the grounds that the code of conduct requires students to respect and work with others regardless of their gender, cultural, and religious differences. I doubt when the code of conduct was written they could have even foreseen that they would have to write it in that students can't opt out of group work because they don't want to work with women; however, there probably is a discrimination clause in there. In this way, the university could require him to complete his course work without discriminating against his peers. Essentially, it was a bad decision by the administration; further still, it side-stepped the opportunity for the student to learn and grow from the experience by reinforcing his socially damaging views.

[Michael Hardner]

The university has a right to institute a code of conduct for its students. Brigham Young University requires students to adhere to the tenets of the Mormon faith, but that's an extreme example. Take the workplace as a better example. An employer has the right to require staff to follow a code of conduct.

Except... if my employer's code of conduct says that I have to eat meat on Friday I'm not going to be a happy Cathy.

The university could easily deny his request on the grounds that...

The idea of "could" represents personal speculation.

Essentially, it was a bad decision by the administration; further still, it side-stepped the opportunity for the student to learn and grow from the experience by reinforcing his socially damaging views.

And most importantly, failed the bureaucrat's ultimate prime directive - stay out of the pages of the Sun.

[cybercoma]

Except... if my employer's code of conduct says that I have to eat meat on Friday I'm not going to be a happy Cathy.

Eating meat on Friday is not a reasonable requirement of the job. Working with your peers without discriminating against them is.

The idea of "could" represents personal speculation.

It does, but what I'm outlining is how they could have defended such a position against your argument that they need to defend his freedom of religion.

And most importantly, failed the bureaucrat's ultimate prime directive - stay out of the pages of the Sun.

Hah. I think everyone should stay out of the pages of The Sun.

[Michael Hardner]

Eating meat on Friday is not a reasonable requirement of the job. Working with your peers without discriminating against them is.

Says who ? It's always "it depends","what will people put up with"... The employer has a right, the citizen has a right... but who would want to work somewhere where people are always asserting their rights ?

It does, but what I'm outlining is how they could have defended such a position against your argument that they need to defend his freedom of religion.

I don't think I said that they need to do that. I don't care much either way, but if I did I suppose I would ask for a clear and standard process with some capacity for consultation with publics.

[RB]

My feeling is students will do anything to get away with not doing project work etc. This student however thank the professor for being "reasonable". This is even when the professor refused his request to not work with women - I would not consider this reasonable for an issue I am adament about, like all those demented women, uncleaned wreches and all the other womenly imaginings that circle around in men's head - it woud definitely need more protest.

So, It is hard to say whether the student pulled a "fast one" or it was a bona fide claim to be separated from the women. I only said this because it was easy for him to continue the course without much more protest - so it begs the question of how sincere the person is to this religion.

[RB]

Continuing from above - what I meant is there could have been more investigation by these heads when granting individual accommodation that affects groups as a whole. For example hiding information from the "girls" is analogous to putting up the glass ceiling. Offering accommodation to separate from women, can also mean you can accommodate "non-negotiables" like separation from gays, blacks, visible minorities on the religious group basis of course. I mean you'd think that a University in Western society would have some policies on legal exception rule when it comes to education and the gender....

Edited January 13, 2014 by RB

[bush_cheney2004]

Except that in the case of labour law and common usage in Canada, the very term "visible minority" is used to identify and segregate people based on "race" and/or "ethnicity" to the point of making accommodation(s). It remains unclear why York would be held to a different standard when making such "accommodations".

[Argus]

Well, yes. You couldn't just ask to engage in such activity without a religious reason and expect to be granted an exemption, obviously. Why are you asking such an obvious question ?

What does it matter if your ignorance is inspired by religion or not? Why should we make excuses for ignorance?

Unless, of course, we're paternalistic bleeding heart liberals...