So some kid at York University deliberately chooses to do most of his courses online so he won’t be obliged to interact with students of the female persuasion, which he feels would be a sin against his religion. But one of his sociology courses turns out to include a meatspace group project, and the kid asks to be excused from participating in it, for religious reasons. The prof finds this objectionable on grounds of gender discrimination. He denies the kid’s request. The kid accepts this, and participates in the project. End of story.
Except it’s not. Higher-ups in the university administration decide the kid’s religious collywobbles should be accommodated, on human rights grounds – just don’t tell the women in the class about it, they say, and nobody will feel offended or discriminated against. Indeed, the dean implies that the prof is discriminating against the student simply because he doesn’t like the student’s beliefs. The prof responds that, you betcha, he doesn’t like the student’s beliefs, because such beliefs should not be acted upon in a public secular institution where gender equality is theoretically valued. Then he decides to go public about the university’s fit of PCness, and various forms of shite hit various media fans.
According to some opinions I heard expressed in the media and proclaimed in lengthy comments threads, the prof is wrong. Freedom of religion must be respected; the kid should be able to follow his conscience, and steer clear of the contaminating/tempting/distracting presence of women. I wonder if the same people would be so quick to defend, say, faith-mandated polygamy, denial of medical attention to sick children, lethal exorcisms, and so forth. In theory, the line is drawn where one person’s religious freedom infringes upon another person’s human rights—but the line is thick, fuzzy, wavy, and all shades of grey.
Or, say some others, universities already make lots of accommodations for students with special needs—the prof should be offering the same respect to the kid’s faith-based discomfort as he would to, say, physical disabilities, ADHD, depression, and dyslexia. Heigh ho. Well, if they want to equate religion with illness or disability, that’s their words and not mine, but I really do not think they have thought things through.
Hearteningly, the consensus is on the prof’s side, including opinions expressed by people of faith, Muslim women, and the amazing Marina Nemat. And indeed, the prof is in the right. The only test needed to substantiate this is to substitute some other identity descriptor for “female” – Asian, male, Irish, gay, black, French, lesbian, Jewish, Down’s, Hispanic, transsexual, Catholic. And so on. If you belong to a sect that reviles anybody on the basis of an imaginary sky-daddy’s malignant ancient pronouncements, should you really be indulged in your delusions?
One of the university’s prime functions is to educate people. The admin, in deciding to pander to the kid’s faith-based bigotry, would have failed in their duty to educate, and done the kid no favour. Reinforcing retrograde attitudes that Canada has legislated against, and moved away from, would have done the rest of us no favours, either. In this case, the prof did his duty by the student—and who knows, maybe the kid learned something valuable.
