More Active Posts
Front Page
Is Harvard sexist?
 |
 95 Comments |
Last month Harvard began testing a new women-only gym policy after Muslim women expressed concern about exercising in front of men. For six hours each week, one of the university’s gyms is closed to men, allowing Muslim women the freedom to dress in exercise clothes without concerns of modesty.
The policy is already unpopular with many on campus, including some women who consider it sexist.
“I think that it’s incorrect in a college setting to institute a policy in which half of the campus gets wronged or denied a resource that’s supposed to be for everyone,” said student Lucy Caldwell, who also wrote a column in The Harvard Crimson newspaper critical of the new hours.
Student Ola Aljawhary, who is Muslim and works out elsewhere on campus but is not one of the women who requested the change, rejected that argument.
“The majority should be willing to compromise,” she said. “I think that’s just basic courtesy. We must show tolerance and respect for all others.”
Is Harvard’s policy sexist, or is it a fair and reasonable compromise?
 |
Topic: Featured, WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Off-key
It is not just sexist, I doubt any other religious group would have been accommodated this way.
I concur.
It seems like a reasonable compromise, but I have one problem with it. When I was in college, my schedule was so tight that I might literally have had only a certain hour free to go to the gym. If it had been closed to me at that hour, I would have felt pretty frustrated.
Muslim’s don’t have to go to college here. Let them apply and go in a country that can accomodate all of their needs. I am tired of accomodating everyone and their brother. These are the gym hours. Go if you want to. Don’t go if you don’t want to. I am waiting for men to rise up and start demanding their rights again.
No problem at all, really. Left-handed people will have the gym on Tuesdays from 12-3; Brunettes will get it on Thursday from 9-1; People with size 12 or larger shoes will get the gym on Saturdays from 1-2; and anyone 5 feet 5 inches or shorter will have it on Mondays from 5-7 PM.
No, really, it’s fair.
Oh, and conservatives will have it from 2:15 - 2:20 on Wednesdays.
“Oh, and conservatives will have it from 2:15 - 2:20 on Wednesdays.”
Is that AM or PM?
How could it be sexist? Just men were excluded.
But seriously, setting aside the presumed Muslim factor, I support reasonable efforts for giving women a time and place to themselves for pursuing fitness concerns.
Well, I’m of two minds on this.
On the one hand, I’m as wary of encroaching Sharia as the rest of you.
OTOH, this request in itself is not unreasonable. Consider that only one of multiple gyms on the campus is involved, and that there may be young women other than Muslims who are modest enough to appreciate being able to work up a sweat without being looked over by all the guys.
Co-ed gym classes are a comparatively recent innovation in American history, anyway, and according to another WV post this week, the return to boys-only and girls-only classrooms is a growing trend. Perhaps we shouldn’t get all up in arms about this request for a ladies-only workout space.
I don’t think it is a bad idea, I just think six orthodox Jews or six fundamentalist Christians won’t have been sent on their way with a couple of lectures on diversity and tolerance and maybe even evolution.
Kyle A at #3: It seems like a reasonable compromise, but I have one problem with it. When I was in college, my schedule was so tight that I might literally have had only a certain hour free to go to the gym. If it had been closed to me at that hour, I would have felt pretty frustrated.
The gym is closed to men only six hours a week, which I gather means one hour a day for six days, and it’s apparently only one of several gyms on campus. I don’t think that poses much of a hardship.
It’s the women who are out of luck if they can’t get free at the appointed hour.
I think RR is right that it’s not just Muslim women who might appreciate this. A lot of women I know complain that the public health clubs they use are just meat-market situations where they can’t do anything without being ogled from a dozen directions. The gym company Curvers is single-sex by design to give women a way to avoid that.
Curves, not “Curvers.”
SteveG, if there are other gyms on campus, then it doesn’t pose a problem for men with tight schedules. You’re right.
What bothers me still is that the special time is based on religion. As others have pointed out, it seems a bit hypocritical to fulfill such a request by Muslims when they would most likely deny such a request by any other religious group.
If the women-only policy were set for any and all women who happened to want to work out in such an environment, then it seems more consistent and more fair. In fact, if there is more than one gym, I would think that women-only and men-only gyms would be a good idea.
Curves is a private company, not accepting federal dollars.
This “problem” did not exist at Harvard until Muslims asked for separate accommodations. Kim is quite right that Jews and Christians would have been sent away if they had made a request like this. In making this “accommodation,” you are saying to Muslims that they don’t have to assimilate into our culture. You are formally setting up a society within a society.
It’s a small thing for sure, but there are small accomodations being asked for by them all over the place. They add up, and what they add up to is that the Muslims do not want to be Americans. They want to be separate and apart. If that’s so, let them do what the Amish do — separate themselves from the rest of us — but even the Amish accept our laws.
Is there anything about being an American that the liberals think Muslims should accept?
I agree with KBells, NJL, and some others. But it seems to me that the protesters are only trying to make it the way it was back in the 1950’s. We never thought of co-ed gym classes then. It was the feminist movement that changed all that.
Kyle A - I had the same thought about women-only & men-only gyms. As a woman who has struggled with her weight, I would feel very uncomfortable working out in front of men.
And I’m sure there are men with weight problems who feel the same about working out in front of women.
NJL - My answer to your question at the end of #13 would be - welfare & other gov’t hand-outs.
#13 “They add up, and what they add up to is that the Muslims do not want to be Americans. They want to be separate and apart.”
NJLawyer,
Attending a large university like Harvard and requesting such accomodations is not being separate and apart, it’s trying to be part of the mainstream while maintaining personal standards.
Many conservative Christians go to Christian colleges, where they do not need to ask for any special accomodations because the entire program is designed for Christians, from chapel services and dorm prayer meetings to strict standards regarding dress code and contact between male and female students.
If Muslims are discouraged from attending large universities because such accomodations are not available and they feel their standards will be compromised, they will most likely set up more of their own institutions. Then they will be separate and apart.
I would go work out in a women’s gym, I would not go work out in a coed gym. Did they ask as Muslims or as women who happened to be Muslims? It is also restrictive to only offer an option to people willing to display their bodies to the opposite sex leaving out those of us who do not care to do that. Or I could choose a different business to patronize but then so could those who want a gym open to all at all times.
I’m actually coming out against the gym policy. And I think it should be tested whether Harvard would accomodate a group of religious men with the same concerns. The community does not have an obligation to create a male free space for ANYONE. And in a public environment, I don’t think it even has that right.
NJLawyer I will accept the agreement but I think you meant to agree with KBells. I am the one that was being snarky about: go somewhere else. While I would not describe myself as a FemiNazi I do want equal pay for equal work. Therefore I can’t demand that men not be allowed somewhere just because I am female. For three or four weeks I worked in a room full of men. One of the males (not yet a man) is only 20 and is still in that arrested development stage where he thinks bodily functions are quite humorous. Whenever he felt the urge to “express” himself I would say Edward! One day you will have to work with more than one woman! Then I would get up, leave the door open and go get another cup of tea or coffee. Eventually the other men ganged up on him and explained what was proper and what was not, but I didn’t go in demanding they all change just because I showed up. Now there are two other women working in the department and he doesn’t try to be quite so humorous.
As with issues of this sort, it is important to note that a precedent is trying to be set upon which to build. IOW, the issue of gym use is the tip of the iceberg for an incrementalist approach to gain other accommodations of other rules.
Every time you make an exception to any rule, you are opening yourself up for future exceptions until the rule becomes the exception.
I would hope that the individuals at Harvard responsible for making these kinds of decisions are wholly aware that this will be the first (or maybe it isn’t) of many concessions that will be expected.
How is this different from alcohol-free dorms, or for that matter, same-sex dorms?
Or for that matter, providing space for a Christian club?
Something like the right of free association is involved here — broadly, people ought to be able to construct their social lives in ways that they see fit. Were there harm to another (say the men’s fencing team is shut out of a space), then perhaps there is a case of discrimination. But as I read it, this is a case of free association. So where’s the harm? That Muslim women will plot devious acts while working up a sweat playing volleyball?
The freedom to create particular programs that match needs in a community strikes me as pretty straight-up American.
Thank you, Harris.
I agree with the policy simply because it is being kind. However, I also know that this is a one way street. The howls from the feminists on campus display their rigidity. Sadly, kindness has taken a back seat to ideology in our day.
These women asked as Muslims. It’s not as if they asked other women of other faiths or no faith at all to join in with their request based on a general claim of modesty (not that I’m not for modesty). I find this hard to believe myself, but I’m going to concur with Luke in that a community can’t accommodate each and every group. There is a thing called community standards, or would you have your tax dollars pay for Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish accommodations? Aren’t these expenses more properly picked up by the particular religion.
All of us as Christian women understand modesty and don’t want to be considered “meat.” As a Christian, I would dress modestly to exercise in public anyway. It’s not as if these women are being forced to wear spandex.
Can someone explain to me why others (the men who were formerly included, but now formally excluded, not to mention the women who don’t care one way or the other) are to be prejudiced to accommodate a religious sensibility for modest dress? This isn’t really a free exercise issue as far as I am concerned. How did the previous gym situation infringe on the Muslim right to freely exercise Islam?
Pauline at #17 has it right.
NJLawyer, if a group of Christian women requested a time they could work out without men around, so that they could maintain Christian standards of modesty when around the opposite sex and dress as they needed to for exercise, you’d applaud that. You’d be pleased that they were concerned about immodesty in mixed company. And if the university denied them that accommodation, you’d be upset.
But because it’s Muslim women, suddenly it’s a problem, and it’s an example of “they” not wanting to “be American.”
Your double standards are obvious to everyone but you.
This isn’t really a free exercise issue as far as I am concerned. How did the previous gym situation infringe on the Muslim right to freely exercise Islam?
If they follow the rules that women are supposed to be just about completely covered in the presence of men … well, you try exercising while covered head to toe and see how effective it is. Bare arms and legs at least are necessary for freedom of movement and the ability of perspiration to be effective at keeping the body from overheating.
While I was typing Metanoia made this excellent point:
“Every time you make an exception to any rule, you are opening yourself up for future exceptions until the rule becomes the exception.”
That’s what I think is really at stake here.
I’m not interested in being unkind, but I don’t think this is like alcohol-free dorms. Alcohol affects all the residents — male or female. Nor is this accommodation being sought solely on the basis of single-sex concerns. It is clearly based on a religious sensibility, and it clearly seeks to slowly but surely make it acceptable to keep Muslims separate, not assimilated. Can you really see a Catholic nun asking for this? I don’t.
In a country that is trying to promote fitness, and encourageing people from other cultures to come and partake of the educational opportunities, it would seem sensible to address some of these things. A lot of American women do not go to gyms for this very reason. Take advantage of it, offer a time where the women can get comfortably started on good exercise habits. Let them have women coaches to help them get started correctly. Seems like good stewardship to me.
“if a group of Christian women requested a time they could work out without men around, so that they could maintain Christian standards of modesty when around the opposite sex and dress as they needed to for exercise, you’d applaud that.”
Except that Christians don’t make requests like that because they know full well that the liberal establishment would never make those concessions for them. How about you, Steve? Would you feel as generous towards Christians making a request like that as you apparently do toward the Muslims? Of course not–no double standards in you, huh?
Maybe the Muslim men will now request some hours when it’s only open to them so they can exercise freely without temptation being forced upon them. Yeah right–that’s gonna happen soon.
Unless you go to Curves, when you go to the gym, are the majority of people there men or women? Men seem to be more willing to work out like that than women. Though many women are happy with that, a good number are not and are not outspoken about it. They just let it go and try to find other ways to be active or give it up entirely. I applaud these women for speaking up. Wasn’t there a situation with a swimming pool in the past couple years that had this same conflict going? Something about closing a public or university pool so only men swam for an hour and then only women.
I took the liberty of looking up gym availability at Harvard. They have several gyms and gymlike places so this should not be such an inconvenience. On the other hand, in citing local gyms for student use, they also mention a very nice exclusive for women gym complete with trainers, sauna, massage, etc. It is available at certain hours to women students at a student rate. So maybe it is just a Muslim ploy to dominate the world through exercise.
From Kristin’s original post: “Muslim women expressed concern about exercising in front of men.”
I have problems exercising in front of buff people. Can I have “fat people only” gym hours. Oh yeah, I’m sorry we call that the YMCA.
I guess I don’t see what the fuss is about. If, as a trial thing for this semester, one of the gyms on the Harvard campus wants to have women-only hours for six of the 70 hours per week that they are open, and the gym is open at that time to any woman who wants to use it, why is that a problem?
If it were open only to Muslim women during that time, excluding other females, or if it were the only gym on campus, then it might be a bit of a problem. As it is, I don’t see why this is a big deal.
Metanoia,
I had to laugh when I read your proposed gym schedule near the top of the thread–it would work for me as I am a petite (5′1″) brunette who is left-handed!
KYLE: What bothers me still is that the special time is based on religion. . . . it seems a bit hypocritical to fulfill such a request by Muslims when they would most likely deny such a request by any other religious group.
Once again, secular humanists demonstrate their moral superiority to religious folks, treating them not as they treat others but as the secular humanists would themselves like to be treated.
NJLAWYER: Can someone explain to me why others (the men who were formerly included, but now formally excluded, not to mention the women who don’t care one way or the other) are to be prejudiced to accommodate a religious sensibility for modest dress?
In a word, because we give humane consideration to people who are constrained by conscience or religious obedience, even when doing so places more burdens on everyone else. We do this because it reflects well upon us and honors our tradition of respecting custom and equity. Also, the exception sometimes reinforces the rule.
Ree at #30: Except that Christians don’t make requests like that because they know full well that the liberal establishment would never make those concessions for them. How about you, Steve? Would you feel as generous towards Christians making a request like that as you apparently do toward the Muslims? Of course not–no double standards in you, huh?
Heh … if you’re going to ask me a question, how about letting me be the one to answer it? I don’t need you telling me what I think, thanks anyway.
I think what Harvard is trying here is a good idea, IF the segregation is by sex and not religion. That is, if Christian women who also want to be able to exercise without feeling immodest (or even any other women who just doesn’t want to be leered at) can join the Muslim women, then I don’t have a problem.
And if the Muslim women objected to that on the grounds that they only want to be among people of their faith, at that point I would tell them, sorry, but in America you do have to mix with people of other cultures, so no, you can’t have that much accommodation.
Regarding NJLawyer’s and Metanoia’s concerns about making one exception leading to making more -
If it is a reasonable accomodation, in terms of why they ask for it and its effect on others, you grant it. If another request is not reasonable, you don’t grant it. You are not obligated to grant the second request just because you granted the first one.
Do people, in practice, tend to find it more difficult to deny a second request after granting a first one? Yes. But that doesn’t mean it has to be that way. If my son asks for something and I say yes simply because it’s not a problem at that time, I may have difficulty denying another request. But if I evaluate whether the first request is reasonable and decide on that basis and tell him why, I can deny the next request if it is not reasonable and tell him why.
A university is supposed to promote good thinking. They may not always live up to that goal, but I don’t stop expecting that of them. They can accomodate this request because it is reasonable without being obliged to agree to the next one also. I don’t know whether they will make the right decision next time, but I’m not willing to say they should turn down a reasonable request because I’m afraid they won’t have the backbone to turn down an unreasonable one.
Of course, Steve, I didn’t expect that you would now say, “No, exclude the Christian women–only the Muslim women should have this accommodation.” But ask yourself this. What if this request had never come up with Muslim women, but a group of Christian women made the request? I have no doubt that most of the non-Christians who are happy to affirm the right of the Muslim women to have this accommodation would not have responded the same way if it came from Christians.
And incidentally, you already said that this should be allowed for them for the sake of the free exercise of their religion, so why are you putting a different spin on it now?
Pauline’s point about the university’s role prompts another aspect to explore: Harvard especially is a school that draws students from around the world. An accommodation like this simply makes it easier for the university to attract top flight students from around the world, be it Saudi Arabia or Nigeria.
While many on this list have objected to what the action might signify domestically, the same action may serve to advance the University’s pre-eminence in other nations.
Think of it as marketing, just like this Walmart.
I think this is a fine idea, no matter who suggested it. Over on Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint, they’re discussing something truly disturbing in the male/female privacy issue: http://tinyurl.com/yrzdyr
Pauline: the nature of precedence is that it emboldens the next petition and petitioner. This particular situation does not seem to be one where the Muslim girls are asking for gym time because of modesty, but they are cloaking their request with a “reasonable” reason.
It’s sort of like a 16 year old who want to get his driver’s license so that he can help mom with the grocery shopping when in reality it has more to do with having a venue to hand with his friends.
Ah, the nature of deception
Ree: I’m not going to debate or discuss with someone who insists on dictating to me what my positions must be.
Safe travels.
Michelle at #41:
Over on Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint, they’re discussing something truly disturbing in the male/female privacy issue:
And lying about it, as usual.
Breakpoint says: A lot of other women in Montgomery County, Maryland, are upset over a new law that demands co-ed locker rooms and bathrooms in all public accommodations.
Montgomery County, adjacent to Washington, D.C., passed the law last November to accommodate “transgendered people”—that is, men who perceive themselves to be women, and women who perceive themselves to be men. The law adds gender identity to the list of protected classes to the Montgomery County Code banning discrimination.
In effect, it means men will have full access to a woman’s restroom and locker room. A woman taking a shower after her aerobics class might look up to find a man turning on the shower next to hers. A little girl using a movie theater restroom will now have to worry that a strange man might walk in.
The truth:
The law will prohibit discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service. For example, under the new law, a restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve someone because of that person’s gender identity.
While hailing the intent of the legislation, Council President Knapp also wanted to clarify its effect on public accommodations, such as bathrooms and locker rooms.
“We have heard some people are confused about the effect of this new law on how the operator of a public accommodation controls the use of a public bathroom or locker room,” said Council President Knapp. “Bill 23-07 did not change the law in this area.”
Opponents of the legislation have circulated petitions to send the law to referendum, telling potential signers that the legislation requires men to be allowed in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.
This is not accurate, Knapp said. The law still allows the operators of public bathrooms and locker rooms to continue to separate their facilities based on gender identity or biological gender. For example, a restaurant owner can require a biological male presenting as a female to use the men’s bathroom. The new law does not require a restaurant owner to allow biological males access to women’s bathrooms, or vice-versa.
“The misinformation being put out about this law really troubles me,” said Council President Knapp. “We guaranteed that certain people in our County will have the same rights as other residents—and that is all we did. Those who intentionally mislead people about what this bill means will have to explain what is behind their actions, but we want everyone to know exactly what this law is about.”
So, in summary, Chuck Colson is still a liar.
By the way, the above took me all of 30 seconds online to find out. How about applying some basic skepticism to these wild claims and verify them before spreading them around?
Is that too much to ask? Really?
The anti-muslim crowd comes out in force during questions like these.
Luckily Christians don’t actually follow any laws on modesty or sabbath day worship or health codes or prayer times otherwise the US might have to make many more exceptions.
The Muslim women are trying to adhere to codes of modesty while remaining healthy and fit. This is a bizarre desire to many Christians who give little thought to either personal fitness or modesty.
If anyone wants to see obese Christian women wearing immodest clothing just visit the predominately Christian states of Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, or Arkansas. Fattest states in the USA.
So, Harvard is discriminating.
discriminating tastes for discriminating folks
SteveG wrote; ” the above took me all of 30 seconds online to find out.”
So, you bleieved the first site that flipped up? 30 seconds is a little shallow for verification purposes.
Unlike SteveG, I won’t claim to have the final truth on this, not even after 60 seconds of research and deliberation. But I will encourage honest readers to reserve judgment. I have found Charles Colson’s integrity to be of the highest order. If he actually is wrong, one will need only to check back with his site and find a retraction or clarification. But I don’t expect that will be necessary. Meanwhile. calling him a liar is obviously ill-advised and untoward.
“NJLawyer, if a group of Christian women requested a time they could work out without men around, so that they could maintain Christian standards of modesty when around the opposite sex and dress as they needed to for exercise, you’d applaud that. You’d be pleased that they were concerned about immodesty in mixed company. And if the university denied them that accommodation, you’d be upset.”
First and foremost, SteveG, when you tell others that you won’t debate them because they tell you what your position is, you ought not to tell me what mine is.
(Just sayin’)
You are quite wrong. I would tell a group of six Christian women to get a gym set up at their church facility, or, in the alternative, tell them to workout at home. More people are put out in this than are accommodated.
I also disagree with the comment made about the anti-Muslim people coming out of the woodwork. It’s a thread about Muslims, and I disagree with this. This does not mean that I am anti-Muslim, just that I disagree with them on this request. There are reasonable accommodations, and then there is this desire not to adapt and impose sharia law.
I do agree with Metanoia about the nature of deception.
How far are you guys prepared to go? I know I read an article regarding new swimsuit designs for Muslim women which cover everything but the face, hands and feet. Why can’t these women working out at Harvard just wear clothing which meets their modesty requirements? They do it for swimming.
And consider an article in the DailyMail today. Over there in England, they can’t find 33 kids — for more than a month, they haven’t been in school. They suspect that these kids (14 year olds) have been taken to Bangladesh for forced marriages. They are running 14 other similar investigations. Check it out.
It amazes me how those here who usually argue against anything Christian claiming that we live in a secular society now bend over backwards to accommodate something like this. Christians DID complain about modesty issues when things were going co-ed in dorms and gyms, etc. during the past 30 years or so, and it didn’t work. We were called prudes. But now it does work. What does this have to do with free exercise now that it didn’t have to do with free exercise then? Why has your position changed all of a sudden?
#42 “This particular situation does not seem to be one where the Muslim girls are asking for gym time because of modesty, but they are cloaking their request with a “reasonable” reason.”
Metanoia,
What is your basis for believing that their real reason is different from their stated reason?
Theo: It’s not all about being “anti-muslim.” It’s a matter of where do you draw the line to accommodate individual or needs for small segments of the population.
And to suggest that there might be an ulterior motive is consistent with this particular “minority” group. It’s a sign of the times. Every “minority group, whether it is racial, religious, gay, lesbian, financial etc. expects to be accommodated.
I weigh more than I should. I’m not proud of it. I work hard at trying not be “out of control.” But I get a kick out of advocates for fat people’s rights.
While there may be a small percentage of people who are glandularly challenged, the vast majority of us lack some basic self-control in a world with far to many options and opportunities to overeat.
I don’t expect sports stadiums or airlines to accommodate my big butt. I don’t expect McDonalds to change their menu. I don’t expect Penney’s or Wal-Mart to carry 2XL clothing. It’s nice when they do, and I may ask to be accommodated as an exception, but I don’t believe it is societally necessary to accommodate everyone for every thing.
That’s okay,Steve, I’m not looking for a debate on this with you. Just hoping you’ll engage in a a little self-reflection.
NJLawyer: First and foremost, SteveG, when you tell others that you won’t debate them because they tell you what your position is, you ought not to tell me what mine is.
Well, that’s embarassing.
Touche.
Regarding sex definition, consider this:
According to Greg Crosby in an op-ed (Feb. 22, 2008), on October 12th, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law California Senate Bill 777. It eliminates Education Code 212, which defines “sex” as “the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being.”
Crosby wrote, “In effect, the bill redefines the term ‘gender’ for all schoolchildren by adding Educational Code 210.7, which will read: “‘Gender’ means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.’”
Crosby continued; “In other words, it is a redefinition of gender that says you are whatever you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up. It tells kids that just because you are born a little girl or little boy, that doesn’t mean you are.”
The ridiculous law can also effectively ban the use of the terms “mom” and “dad” from California schools. Why? Those terms may promote a discriminatory bias against alternative lifestyle parents.
Crosby continued: “Officials with the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center already have outlined what they believe to be nondiscriminatory treatment in the school system. ‘If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so,’ the groups advise. ‘Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible.’”
Time for parents to pay close attention.
NJLawyer,
I’m glad that you were able to get the point through. Congratulations.
Joel Mark at #49: The information I posted came directly from the County legislators who wrote and passed the law.
From what I’ve read since posting that originally, it appears there was some debate and one earlier version of the bill might have done what the Breakpoint piece describes, or at least made it possible. But the version that did pass had been revised and no longer contained the problematic provisions.
Thank you, Ree.
I have another question. I was elsewhere reading news just now and saw a cute little Muslim girl covered in a black chador. (It would be really hard for me to dress a cute little girl that way, especially when I compare it to seeing a patron at the grocery store earlier, a little girl in her tutu carrying a wand of some sort.)
Why are you Americans so interested in preserving this absolutely appalling Islamic treatment of women? Why won’t you argue for their freedom — at least at Harvard!?
Go to the Palestinian peace thread. It’s the same picture.
Later on in the day I am feeling more lenient to Harvard’s position.
Actually, no I’m not. Because it’s flat out heterosexist even if it isn’t sexist.
FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLKS:
Schools accept prince’s money
by Charlotte Martin
Yale Daily News
January 9, 2006
The issue is not about fairness or any of the other things so far discussed on this thread.
Harvard has been bought and they are now merely bowing down to their new Islamic owners.
Nobody is arguing against their freedom, they are welcome to go to the other gyms or any of the other hours, we are trying to offer a choice.
Kim is quite right that Jews and Christians would have been sent away if they had made a request like this.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh yeah, Jews never, ever get special accommodations.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I knew it wasn’t smart concurring with Luke!
I’m sorry, Mumsee, but when you back up this sort of thing in this country, you are encouraging bringing their controlling nonsense here. It should never gain a foothold. Would you want this for your daughters?
Britain did it, and they are paying for it dearly. Be as wise as serpents….
Night Train, whatever do you mean about Jews?
kbells, #1,
That’s exactly what I would have said.
This isn’t really about sexism. It’s about political correctness on steroids.. or pro-Islamic policies. But, conservative Christian women would have been told to take a flying leap.
NJLawyer,
Yes, I would like my daughters to be able to exercise in a pleasant environment conducive to a good workout without that kind of pressure. On another thread, education, yes, I would like my children to be able to go to class without the distractions. In third grade it is all about the girls in love with our son. In fourth, daughter comes home regularly with reports of being bullied by a boy in her class. They are there, against our preference, to get an education but not on those things. By stating these things, I am not saying that I think all women should be covered from head to toe and isolated from all males but their relatives. But reasonable accomodation should not be such a stretch.
If we don’t want Muslims in our country, we should close the doors to them. If we are going to welcome them, normal hospitality would indicate we allow them to be them. If they want prayer mats put down for them, I would suggest not but they are making a reasonable request that a lot of your fellow American sisters would appreciate but we had taken from us over the years. No, I do not want to go back to the days where women were not to exercise.
When you invite a known vegetarian to your house for dinner do you serve roast beef and tell them to get over themselves? When your aunt Susie, allergic to cats, comes over at your invitation, do you ask her to sleep in the cat room and tell her to get over it? Hospitality would indicate trying to accomodate your guests needs and by inviting people from other cultures, to be consistent, we try to accomodate a bit. Okay, I will shut up. Until one of you people riles me again.
Mumsee, I’m talking in a broad sense. When I ask you: Do you want your daughters to wear the burkha or the chador?, I am asking you to get beyond this particular exercise thing and take a hard look at the way the Muslims treat their women, and I am asking you to take a long hard look at Metanoia’s posts, too. This isn’t about exercising. This is about establishing a foothold one small concession at a time for a larger something that you don’t really want here. One concession seems harmless, but I would urge you to also read Michael Martin’s post above. I’m sorry that you don’t see the danger, especially when it is buying a major university in your country — but you should. That university produces people who get jobs in high places in government. I will be dead in 30 years or so, I don’t have kids to worry about, but you do. And you are encouraging a major university to bend its knee to Islam and sharia law.
What you want for your children in school — I’m all for it. But I am not for it via the imposition of sharia law. That’s not how we do things here. I’m sure your son is the cutest boy there, but get together with some of the other mothers and go to the school board with your concerns. I remember bullying in school, but it sounds totally out of hand today. I asked my high school teacher sister about bullying and her response was she’d get stabbed if she tried to stop it, so it’s up to the parents of the younger, non-armed kids to stop it earlier. Sometimes you have to fight with the other parents to get the school board to listen. I know it isn’t easy, but sharia is not the answer.
This “sounds” good because we as Christians also believe in modesty — but we don’t impose it. Don’t be misled. What is behind this is not good for your kids in the longrun. As the old judge would say: find another way. (Though I have to admit that after reading Michael Martin’s post, my heart dropped.)
And just so you know, the high school in Portland Maine has set aside a room for the prayer mats.
The liberals who are always so anxious to control every aspect of our lives are buying into this citing “diversity.” They don’t see how they are being controlled by organizations like CAIR and the Saudi prince and his money. A little here, a little there.
How do you think the devil works? The devil I know works slowly, but surely. One step at a time.
SteveG #57,
Thanks for revealing that an “earlier version of the bill might have done what the Breakpoint piece describes, or at least made it possible,” and that the version that did allegedly pass had been revised.
So your accusation that Colson is a “liar” was ill-founded. I knew that already but I respect the fact that you cleared it up.
NJL
Oh, I am well aware of the dangers. I was raised in a university town and we could see this coming fifty years ago, but we allowed it. Like I said, if we are going to allow Muslims in, knowing what we know about the belief system, we need to not be afraid to allow the incsonsequential things. In the OT, the Hebrews were to slaughter the foreigners when it looked like their gods were going to seep in, but were there not times when they were allowed to live alongside? Our belief system is such that it is individual so I can stand between a Hindu and a Muslim and still pray to the One Who hears. It is a different concern if we are saying we, as Americans, do not want the Muslim influence. If that is the case, then close the doors. Stop inviting Muslims and their dollars over. I have no problem with that either.
NJ Lawyer: The liberals who are always so anxious to control every aspect of our lives are buying into this citing “diversity.”
Ah, the Goldberg influence delightfully understood and revealed.
So, you want a special all-girl gym so you can work out in private? Then enroll at all girl school next time.
Immaterial whether you want special concessions because of your religion, your sex, or just your general inadequacy about the shape of your body when wrapped in spandex. Either suck it up or move along.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Compromise yourself sister Ola, then give me 20 sit-ups. And don’t forget to wipe your sweat off the bench on your way out the door.
Harvard sucks. Go Yale.
Signed - A fed-up liberal who ain’t buying into this.
Just got off the phone with daughter. Asked her if she prefered working out in all girl or mixed environment. She votes all girl. She is not Muslim. Just a girl that is not comfortable doing certain exercises in front of guys. She likes Golds (Goulds?) as they have a set aside area for women.
We are individuals and one way we separate out is by sex or gender or whatever it is called. Another is interest in astronomy. Then there is basketball, I sure hope we don’t have girls basketball and guys basketball, that would be so wrong. And girls or guys football? I hope not! How sexist.
Joel Mark at #73: So your accusation that Colson is a “liar” was ill-founded. I knew that already but I respect the fact that you cleared it up.
How do you figure that? The Breakpoint piece assumes that the version that passed would require allowing men into women’s restrooms and locker rooms. It would not.
The fact that a version that was discarded might have led to that is irrelevant; the version that became law does not. Saying that it does is not true.
Peter Leavitt: you don’t think I follow your reading advice? Of course, I do!
Mumsee, I always had girls’ gym, too, through high school, and I wouldn’t be caught dead in a mixed gym today — but that’s my choice. You don’t have to be religious at all to have the feeling that you’d rather not exercise in front of the boys. But that’s not the boys’ fault, as Travis points out. Don’t wear spandex. These are grown women who have options, and they’re playing the “religion card.” If they really want a girls’ gym, then the way to do that would have been to get signatures of all sorts of women who feel the same way. We employ different methods in this country to accomplish things. What they are trying to do is establish their religion as something special. It’s not. Not here.
Mumsee, I cannot resist: anyone allergic to my cat had better be prepared to take allergy shots. He was here first. It’s his home.
The saying is when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
SteveG,
Colson’s account spoke of women who have already actually experienced intrusions of males into women’s locker rooms (at the Rio Sport and Health Club in Gaithersburg, Maryland) and found that they cannot stop them due to this new law. At least it is being interpreted thusly, to the chagrin of the women who desired privacy. The intruding man in one case was wearing a blue ruffled skirt and make-up.
According to Colson, Montgomery County (adjacent to Washington, D.C.), passed a law last November to accommodate “transgendered people”—that is, men who perceive themselves to be women, and women who perceive themselves to be men.”
Perception can be made of mental jello and lawyers can make it stick. The conclusion that transgendered people can go into the restroom of their perceived choice may well be a ramification that applies to this law.
Colson added, “The law adds gender identity to the list of protected classes to the Montgomery County Code banning discrimination.”
Thus, it is entirely possible that the law could be construed by lawyers and others to invite and legalize the intrusive scenarios Colson cited and more.
In light of the recent bill also signed by California’s governor (see #55), I have no doubt that Colson is on target. I think you may have read someone who is trying to spin away the ramification of this law. Perhaps you bought the spin. I trust Colson.
Colson explained, “In effect, it means men will have full access to a woman’s restroom and locker room.”
Colson’s article continued:
“Michelle Turner, who leads a citizens group opposing the law, says, ‘Any biological male who is willing to wear a dress and who is feeling transgendered at that particular moment can enter the ladies room or locker room.’”
Colson claimed; “In effect, transgendered persons are demanding that Montgomery County erase the distinctions between males and females. Make no mistake: This is not about the need for co-ed bathrooms. This law is simply being used to normalize gender identity disorder—much in the same way the gay lobby uses laws to normalize homosexuality.”
Colson says that citizens have gathered enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot in November to reverse this.
Joel Mark: Everything that I’ve read about the law since it was mentioned here earlier (which was the first I’ve heard of it) is that it does not require businesses to make that kind of accommodation.
That comes from the County Council itself, it comes from a Washington Post article and elsewhere. There are people who are opposing it on the grounds that it does require this, but they appear to be wrong.
It may be that a business owner was under the impression that he had to allow that and misinformed the women. But the people who actually wrote and passed the law are saying otherwise.
I will retract the word “lie”. It may be the Colson is likewise misinformed, and it may even be that some businesses in the county have an incorrect understanding of what’s required. But if the people who wrote the legislation are saying it doesn’t require that, then I have to defer to them as the ones best positioned to know.
For the record, if the law did require business owners to allow men to use women’s facilities, (1) I would oppose it and (2) I would expect everyone on the council who voted for it to be out of office by the next election.
NJL,
If they are playing the religion card, I partially agree with you. If they are simply saying they personally, beyond the religion, do not want to exercise in mixed company, they are free to speak up, this is America after all, and the school is free to yea or nay. As I mentioned, there is a gym there that is exclusively for women though they would have to pay a fee. My understanding is that there are students barely there who could not afford the gym fees but I doubt anybody from an Arab country with oil is in that boat.
As far as Aunt Susie goes, you (knowing she has allergies) would tell her upfront when you invited her that the cat was not going anywhere and that is fine. So, when people are coming to America, we can tell them there is not going to be a separate gym hour. But in reality, we tell them this is the land of the free and the voice of the common person will be heard. So they express their voice and we tell them to shut up?
NJL,
As far as when in Roma, we were in Torino and did as the Torinese did but it certainly was nice to be able to go to the grocery store and buy a familiar thing once in a while and it was great going to church with a bunch of people who at least spoke the same language though they were from over twenty different countries. I am glad they went out of the way to tell me where I could find a turkey for the American holiday of Thanksgiving (can you imagine? the Italians don’t celebrate it or the fourth of July!)
Interesting thread to read.
Normally I abhor the demands of separation but I’m going to have to support the Muslim women. I’m quite surprised Harvard doesn’t have women only times in their gyms already but if religion was the necessary wedge to change policies so be it.
Across the road, the local indoor public swimming pool has hours for women only, adults only, families only and seniors only. They also have reserved times for women’s aqua fitness classes. Such segregation is quite common in public facilities in the area. Although I agree with NJL that the preferable method is to petition and lobby, religious requests usual get the door open faster.
As an middle school teacher charged with maintaining the dress code, I’m happy to teach in a school where a third of the girls are Muslim making the dress code easier to enforce. Due to their presence, other girls are also more modest.
NJL needs to learn to make her point without exaggeration. There’s no need to discuss the chandor or Bengali child brides as they are not pertinent to the issue. The former is a rarity as even the hajib is more a cultural symbol than mandatory dress. The popularity of the hajib has become an expression of pride and defiance to western secularism rather than submission. Most girls prefer modest dress ie baggy pants, logn sleeve shirt which covers their rear and high neck. Of course, all generalizations have exception and my worst dress code offender this year is a Muslim girl.
The child brides is a case of cultural oppression rather than religious. East Indian arranged marriages are a frequent cause of dispute among Indo-Canadian families of all religious stripes.
HRW, you have to learn how to look down the road. People (liberals) who think the way you do are always saying “that won’t happen here.” People who think the way you do slide down the slippery slope.
I can’t speak to Canadian law. I don’t really care what you do across the street in your local pool, but I care what we do here in the US, especially at a major university such as Harvard. What matters here is the relevant Massachusetts antidiscrimination statute and how it defines a place of public accommodation. These people are attempting to undo decades of antidiscrimination law in order to carve out an exception that no other religious group has. And this isn’t the only case. Whether you want to view this as cultural or religious, I don’t think they will prevail in the US.
If you were a middle school teacher in the US, you would be dealing with children, with minors. Under US law, we treat people in elementary and secondary school with a very different legal standard than we do people in college. People in college are ADULTS. Your comparison to your middle school carries absolutly no weight. It’s a completely different situation because of the age of the people involved. For example, the free speech rights of students in a university are very different than the free speech rights of a child in a school setting.
I suspect our anti-discrimination statutes will be upheld in the US, but I don’t know if anyone is challenging Harvard’s rule in court. You can’t have two sets of laws. That’s the problem the British are experiencing because they let this sort of thing get out of hand. You have blinders on if you look at this case and this case alone. The Muslim cab drivers also want exceptions, which would change not just decades, but centuries of law regarding common carriers.
Maybe in different in Canada, but we have this thing called equal protection here and it applies to places of public accommodation with respect to race and gender. So far, we in the US are under no obligation to accept any form of sharia law.
Mumsee, I can’t imagine no 4th of July, and I suspect if I were in any other country in November, I would want to celebrate Thanksgiving. I suppose those holidays, among others, have no meaning for our friends elsewhere, but I get “einselm” — homesick.
My time in “grocery stores” in Italy is limited to a bakery in Florence as well as a small, private shop where I met a most wonderful Italian mama/grandma who understood the word “Coca-Cola” and took care of my needs with a can, a straw and a big hug as well as much laughter. It was a great experience being a momentary “bambina” (I think that’s what she called me). She made my day, and I would try to find that store again if I ever get to go back.
The child brides is a case of cultural oppression rather than religious.
The two are not related? Have you heard of Sharia?
Muslim law has separated Muslims from all other peoples for centuries. Islam is both a religious and a cultural movement. The link is stronger than in just about any other movement in history. Your separating them makes me think that you don’t understand either one of them.
If I didn’t know better, I would take from this thread that if a Muslim does something it is wrong so we should not do that. There are a lot of things they do that I do not agree with but that does not mean I will pattern my life to not do whatever they do. I am told to pattern my life after Christ. There is no indication that He went to the gym during His time on earth so we have to look at His teachings and go from there. He seems to be interested in people putting themselves out for others and if there is a group of people who would feel more comfortable exercising for one hour in a more private environment and we can easily meet that desire, what is the problem?
Mumsee writes: “If I didn’t know better, I would take from this thread that if a Muslim does something it is wrong so we should not do that.”
I don’t believe that everything a Muslim does is wrong. It’s just that the good things they do don’t make the news.
The “problem” is that in our secular society, the law is the way we as Americans become “one.” It’s neutral, not favoring one religion over another. We have this equal protection clause in our Constitution, and a lot of case law that says in public places, we don’t segregate by race and gender. This sort of thing attempts to undo that. In situations like this, if Muslims want to be Americans, they have to learn to share our common values.
NJ
You can have two sets of laws. English common-law applies to the nine provinces of Canada whereas Roman civil law applies to Quebec. Native law and tradition are also held to have equal standing in the territories, native reserves and non reserve areas with a high native population. Until recently, religious law could be used in the family and civil court system in Ontario. Conflicts do arise but the very success — over 250 years — speaks to the ability of balanced and reasonable accomadation.
Not every act of accommodation is part of a slippery slope to sharia law. Allowing for single sex use of public facilities is a reasonable accommodation for a need of modesty. My comment on dress code reflected the influence Muslim women have had in the public sphere in creating a movement towards modesty something most Christians on this blog would applaud if the origin wasn’t Muslim.
Child brides are a culutral problem among in the Indian sub-continent as all religous groups practise it. Sharia law has nothing to do with it. Sharia law is a reflection of the Koran and the cultural forces which created it — Arab culture not Indian culture.
NJ Lawyer:
Taking your argument in 91 to its logical extension, we really shouldn’t have unisex bathrooms or unisex dorms, because those are both segregation. We as Christians really should be in favor of options that encourage modesty, no matter who comes up with them. We may be headed toward a culture that doesn’t allow single-sex anything; let’s encourage a hint of putting on the brakes.
No, we shouldn’t bend over backward for Sharia law–we should have no respect for it whatsoever. But American law has long recognized that the state can accommodate non-religious elements of religious requests–and we tend to say it doesn’t go far enough in showing respect for Christian principles. Well, on this one, as long as the school doesn’t say that the gym is open only to Muslim women, we really should be able to find common cause. I’d hope, in fact, that Christian women would take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to work out at the same time as Muslim women, dialogue on issues of modesty and other moral/religious principles, and have an opportunity to make friends and witness to these Muslims.
Again, I don’t want to see schools or governments accommodate religious demands of Muslims. But just as I do want to see accommodation of basic courtesy and morality made by Christians (”don’t force my children to read homosexual ‘literature’ or use unisex bathrooms”), I think we can accommodate this request…and encourage Christian young women to take advantage of it and push toward a culture of greater modesty on campus.
No Harvard is not sexist. However, it is anti-Western and catering to Islam is sufficiently anti-Western to override the sexism issue.
Um, is the gym open only to Muslim women?
The problem with this is Muslims don’t like to hang out with us infidels.
My fear is Harvard, unless they’re keenly aware of Islam’s goal, will give more and more to these people until Harvard is open only to adherents of Allah!
And the Knack will have the top selling hit: “My Sharia”…
Oh, don’t forget: Muslims, in general do not assimilate. Don’t bother asking them.