Capitulating to religious extremists

For those following the debate on the extraordinary Universities UK guidelines condoning gender segregation, as discussed by Chris Moos at Harry's Place, it's worth looking at this blog post, in which University UK's Nicola Dandridge attempts to justify their views - and the hammering she gets in the comments (via Ophelia B at Butterflies and Wheels, who has much to say).

Also, Rory Fenton at the Rationalist Association:

This Friday saw the publication of a report from Universities UK, the body representing university Vice Chancellors across the UK, on external speakers on campus. The report tackled the kind of issues you might expect – how to handle far-right speakers, what kind of speech might fall foul of hate-speech laws and what groups are banned under anti-terror legislation. But nestled in the report was a bizarre and backward recommendation; universities should be willing to enforce sex segregation between male and female audience members if a speaker requests it....

In advocating for enforced sex segregation they are cowardly capitulating to religious extremists in a way they surely never would to political extremists. In bending to these extremists, universities betray the moderate majority in religious groups who do not wish to see segregation or, at least, would not want it to be forced on others. Men and women should sit where they wish. Universities have a duty to protect the rights of their students, they do not have a duty to protect their beliefs.

Also worth reading, Sara Khan in the Independent.

The whole affair seems to me symptomatic of a deeper malaise (a phrase that I'm going to try and incorporate more into my posts). Here's the crucial bit from Nicola Dandridge:

The case study reflects the challenges of accommodating everyone’s views, from those whose religious beliefs require them to sit separately with their own gender, to those who wish to sit with the opposite gender – hence the mixed seating alternative which is part of the solution in this case study. The issue is how to ensure that no one is unlawfully excluded from the event.

But why should everyone's views be accommodated? Should a Nazi speaker's demands to have Jews separated out (but of course not at the back, now that would be discriminatory) be accommodated? For too many people in higher education the demands of Islamists just cannot be challenged, because they're......well, because they're religious "deeply held" demands?...because they're people from a minority culture and to deny them would be racist - or at least would allow the racist card to be played?...because they're not going to change so we have to? Or because they're not afraid to resort to intimidation? Whatever the reason, the rot seems to be spreading.

Here's the petition to stop it.

Comments

[Ralph Musgrave]

The Dantridge drivel is an example of a much more pervasive problem, namely that the more responsible the job someone holds, the more politically correct they are. Presumably that's because in 2013 Britain, as in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia, your job is at risk if you don't hold the "correct" political views.

As for joining the BNP, anyone with a responsible job who did that would need their head looking into.

[Argie]

"Should a Nazi speaker's demands to have Jews separated out (but of course not at the back, now that would be discriminatory) be accommodated?"

Exactly the example I was having in mind while I was reading.

[Dom]

There seems to be a sense among Muslims (usual hiccup here, not all Muslims, just a few) that non-believers must pay a kind of respect to sharia law and othe such customs, even if they don't obey it. All of this just confirms that sense.

[Churm Rincewind]

I'm not sure what you mean by "condoning gender segregation". Both Islam and Judaism promote gender separation in places of worship. Yet mosques and synagogues exist in the UK and we don't generally object to their presence in our communities.

So are you saying that it's OK to accept gender segregation in some situations but not others?

[Mick H]

Yes. It's universities we're talking about. Regrettable things may - and as far as I'm concerned do - happen in places of worship. We can't stop that, though we may criticise. State-funded places of higher education are a different matter altogether.

Churm Rincewind?? Really?

[Churm Rincewind]

MH - Thanks for your reply, and I'd broadly agree, though the point I was trying to illustrate is that the situation is far more nuanced than has been made out.

A poster on the blog you cite remarks, "If your religious beliefs require that you don't interact with a large segment of the population, then the sensible thing to do is stay home." Well of course that is frequently what happens in the UK, and is why so many British girls and young women are denied (or deny themselves) full access to the educational system. This is not a situation which I can view with the complacency implied in this post (and many others on the same site).

I wonder, too, whether you would extend your position to state-funded places of primary and secondary education? Though hard facts are hard to come by, there seems to be no doubt that when push comes to shove the only way secondary schools can provide their pupils equality of access to the full range of the curriculum is to condone gender segregation at least in specific areas of activity - the egregious example being sports and exercise, and swimming lessons in particular. Birmingham City Council's "shared practical guidance" on "Improving Participation of Muslim Girls in Physical Education and School Sport" from as long as 2008 notes that the provision of "all-female environments where requested by parents and schools...has proved highly successful in enabling Muslim children to learn to swim". Is this policy of gender segregation for predominantly religious reasons in the state-funded education sector something you would support or condemn?

Finally, no, my genuine name is not Churm Rincewind. My real name is Bogus, Your Excellency.