Religious accommodation or ‘accessory to sexism’? York student’s case stirs debate

[captain morgan]

also from the article in the OP

My bad

He never made an argument, he made a request.

I like the example that the professor uses regarding parallel requests to be exempted from having to have contact with another race... Kinda points to the absurdity of the 'request.

But as to the 'request': "Dr. Grayson said the student argued that “due to my firm religious beliefs … it will not be possible for me to meet in public with a group of women.”

It was rejected, he moved on. The story surrounding it is a bunch of sensationalist crap.

Only after much debate among multiple levels within the institution.

I wonder if Grayson's example: “What if … I said, well, my religion really frowns upon my interacting with blacks?” , would be so vigorously debated among the Dean and related departments?

 

[karrie]

I wonder if Grayson's example: “What if … I said, well, my religion really frowns upon my interacting with blacks?” , would be so vigorously debated among the Dean and related departments?

Any religion can put any restrictions it wants on its own members, and society can attempt to accommodate, or choose not to accommodate, whatever wonkiness it can stomach, insofar as that accommodation impacts the individual holding the belief. What a religion, or a religious individual can't do, is extend that belief to attempting to impact the individuals it doesn't want to associate with. It's a pretty simple formula, and it applies equally well to gender, sexuality, race, appearance, religion, lack of religion, etc. The school sought to see if it could accommodate him without impacting anyone but him. For some reason, they felt his absence would impact others, and denied the accommodation, which is their call, it's their school.

You DO have every right to choose not to be around black people. You have every right to choose not to be around women. You just can't expect to be able to keep black people or women, or atheists, or whoever the heck you dislike, out of public, or effect their lives in any way, other than improving it through absence.

 

[pgs]

Any religion can put any restrictions it wants on its own members, and society can attempt to accommodate, or choose not to accommodate, whatever wonkiness it can stomach, insofar as that accommodation impacts the individual holding the belief. What a religion, or a religious individual can't do, is extend that belief to attempting to impact the individuals it doesn't want to associate with. It's a pretty simple formula, and it applies equally well to gender, sexuality, race, appearance, religion, lack of religion, etc. The school sought to see if it could accommodate him without impacting anyone but him. For some reason, they felt his absence would impact others, and denied the accommodation, which is their call, it's their school.

You DO have every right to choose not to be around black people. You have every right to choose not to be around women. You just can't expect to be able to keep black people or women, or atheists, or whoever the heck you dislike, out of public, or effect their lives in any way, other than improving it through absence.

All they need is to open the door a crack , once one foot is in it is hard to get that door closed again . I hope you enjoy your new found freedoms Karrie well they last .Because they want you back in the kitchen and bare footed .

 

[karrie]

All they need is to open the door a crack , once one foot is in it is hard to get that door closed again . I hope you enjoy your new found freedoms Karrie well they last .Because they want you back in the kitchen and bare footed .

Well lucky for them, that's exactly where I'm at this morning.

So, you're of the view that people should be somehow forced to be politically correct and accepting of others?

 

[Goober]

What did he say about personal infringements?

Oh, that's right, he said he'd respect the school's decision, and he attended the group session. Weird way of crying.

Anyone consider he just wanted to create a stir?
There has been no mention of his religion.

 

[karrie]

Anyone consider he just wanted to create a stir?
There has been no mention of his religion.

Personally, I'm just sticking to the facts as stated in the article. When you start inventing motives and reasons and emotions that weren't necessarily there, you run the risk of looking foolish.

 

[Sal]

As per documents provided by the professor, one of the keystones of the Dean’s position is the assertion that allowing the student to opt out of female interaction would not affect the “experience of other students in the class”—provided the professor kept quiet about it.

And here we have it...the professor needs to keep it quiet = WRONG entirely wrong

In an October 18 email, the Dean specifically told Mr. Grayson that if he was worried about the “course experience of our female students” he would make sure they “are not made aware of the accommodation.”

excuse me? So I am not to be told buddy doesn't want to interact with me because I am female. So this is no longer a problem I have with buddy who is now in my group and happily interacting. I now have a problem with the Dean and his solution to the problem.

This is setting a precedent and it is not a precedent the university wants to set because it is now favouring religion over what.... not quite certain of what...

The Dean dismissed the November survey, saying he was not “persuaded that other students’ political views on the subject are either a relevant or an appropriate consideration.”

If female enroll is affected he will be...it's all about money intake.

 

[Goober]

Personally, I'm just sticking to the facts as stated in the article. When you start inventing motives and reasons and emotions that weren't necessarily there, you run the risk of looking foolish.

True but if he was that firm in his beliefs, why did he change.
Why keep the religion a secret?
From what I understand it is still York Policy.
Their linkage to a Student taking the course from overseas is a big stretch. Person could injure their brain muscle on that one.
3 separate demands by the Dean to the Prof

York University defends policies after religious accommodation controversy | CTV News
In a controversy that's attracted the attention of some top politicians, Toronto's York University is defending its policies after the administration came down on the side of a male student who didn't want to do group work with his female classmates.

"A deciding factor in this case was that it was an online course where another student had previously been given permission to complete the course requirement off-campus," university's vice-president academic Rhonda Lenton said in a statement issued Thursday.

"Ultimately, a satisfactory agreement was reached between the professor and the student."




York University student's request not to work with women stirs controversy - Toronto - CBC News

The sociology professor got in touch with the Centre for Human Rights and the dean's office at York. Both replied that he had to comply with the student's request, with the dean issuing three separate orders to comply.

"I basically refused," said Grayson. "My main concern was that for religious beliefs, we also can justify not interacting with Jews, blacks, gays, you name it. And if this were allowed to go through, then all these other absurd demands could be made."

 

[Colpy]

The final word on the York controversy...

I expected this back in Iran, not at York University - The Globe and Mail

 

[gerryh]

The final word on the York controversy...

I expected this back in Iran, not at York University - The Globe and Mail

The final word happened a while ago. It's just idiots with an agenda that have kept it coming. Here's what this idiot woman says at the end of her moronic diatribe:

"We don’t know what the religion of the aforementioned York student is, but he seems to be either Orthodox Jew or Muslim – but it doesn’t matter at all. Whatever his religion, in a secular school he has to put his religious/cultural beliefs aside."


Here's the thing. The kid agreed and acquiesced to his professors ruling. He attended the class and received the credit. It's been the media and the University higher ups that have made a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[karrie]

Her closing statement is a flat out lie.

You do not ever have to set aside your religious beliefs, just because you are in a secular environment. That is not a rule anywhere in Canada or any other free country. The only rule of secularism is that you can not push that belief on others. He did no such thing in trying to excuse himself from class work. He simply tried to live his life his way.

The reason political issues like feminism, religion, and homosexuality, become such intense battle grounds, is precisely because of attitudes of indoctrination. 'If this becomes politically accepted, then I will be forced to behave in accordance with it.' If homosexuality is legally protected, then you can never express a discomfort with it, for any reason. If feminism is entrenched, then you may never express a desire to not be around women, ever, for any reason. If atheism is the norm, then you must erase all evidence of religion.

The world would be a lot more peaceful if we stopped trying to erase all disagreement, and instead simply followed the rule of 'do what you want with your self, and leave other people with the same right.'

 

[Colpy]

The final word happened a while ago. It's just idiots with an agenda that have kept it coming. Here's what this idiot woman says at the end of her moronic diatribe:

"We don’t know what the religion of the aforementioned York student is, but he seems to be either Orthodox Jew or Muslim – but it doesn’t matter at all. Whatever his religion, in a secular school he has to put his religious/cultural beliefs aside."


Here's the thing. The kid agreed and acquiesced to his professors ruling. He attended the class and received the credit. It's been the media and the University higher ups that have made a mountain out of a mole hill.

The student did that.....and kudos to him, although it should never have been an issue in the first place.

And you are fully correct that it is the university administration that REALLY ****ed this up.........which is the bad part. It was not an individual, but the institution that choose to ignore the treatment of women as equals as a basic tenet of the west............

So what is your point??

 

[karrie]

... but the institution that choose to ignore the treatment of women as equals as a basic tenet of the west............

At no point, ever, did they do anything to treat women differently in any way shape or form.

 

[Colpy]

Her closing statement is a flat out lie.

You do not ever have to set aside your religious beliefs, just because you are in a secular environment. That is not a rule anywhere in Canada or any other free country. The only rule of secularism is that you can not push that belief on others. He did no such thing in trying to excuse himself from class work. He simply tried to live his life his way.

The reason political issues like feminism, religion, and homosexuality, become such intense battle grounds, is precisely because of attitudes of indoctrination. 'If this becomes politically accepted, then I will be forced to behave in accordance with it.' If homosexuality is legally protected, then you can never express a discomfort with it, for any reason. If feminism is entrenched, then you may never express a desire to not be around women, ever, for any reason. If atheism is the norm, then you must erase all evidence of religion.

The world would be a lot more peaceful if we stopped trying to erase all disagreement, and instead simply followed the rule of 'do what you want with your self, and leave other people with the same right.'

Of course you do not have to set aside your religion to participate in anything.....your religion should be one of the guiding principles in choosing whether or not you participate........

Your last line is dead on.

At no point, ever, did they do anything to treat women differently in any way shape or form.

Yeah, they did....when they claimed that the individual should have been accommodated by avoiding contact in a mixed-gender classroom in the west. THAT is an insult to woman.

 

[petros]

How so?

 

[karrie]

Yeah, they did....when they claimed that the individual should have been accommodated by avoiding contact in a mixed-gender classroom in the west. THAT is an insult to woman.

If the basis of his religious belief is set in some notion of inferiority or subjugation, I agree, his belief is insulting to women. But, women don't have an inherent human right to not be insulted. Men sure don't, why should women?

When they examined whether they could or should accommodate him, the only thing that should have been a factor is, does it effect anyone else's rights but his? Given, again, that women have no right to not be insulted (and wouldn't have even known they were supposed to be insulted if they weren't told someone didn't want to mix with them), the only person who would have been effected is him. Their right to attend class, pursue careers, and move freely, has in no way shape or form been impacted by his request.

 

[captain morgan]

But, women don't have an inherent human right to not be insulted. Men sure don't, why should women?

.. But it appears that women do have the right to be excluded

 

[karrie]

.. But it appears that women do have the right to be excluded

No, he had the right to exclude himself, not to have women excluded. There's a difference.

 

[captain morgan]

Kinda like the way that the whites excluded themselves from 'blacks only' water fountains in the deep South back in the day

 

[karrie]

Kinda like the way that the whites excluded themselves from 'blacks only' water fountains in the deep South back in the day

Sure, THAT'S the way it worked then.