# Religious accommodation or ‘accessory to sexism’? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378 "2014-01-09T18:25:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/21 "2014-01-09T19:16:54Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I understand he did this as a “hypothetical”. He wanted their opinions, but did not disclose the details, like the male student’s name. But what business is it of theirs at all? I mean, fine, we think this professor is competent to judge the validity of the kid’s professed religious beliefs. Fine. And he went and asked some Jews and Muslims for their opinion (although we don’t know why). I don’t agree with that, but I understand it. What does the opinion of the female students have to do with anything? It isn’t probabtive of his religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/22 "2014-01-09T19:17:17Z")
It’s probative of whether an accommodation should be made. Whether or not the kid’s religious beliefs are sincere is only one factor in the decision. I was on the professor’s side at first, but I just noticed this: > [@](#): > > Dr. Grayson sent the request to Dr. Singer and the director of the university’s Centre for Human Rights, Noël Badiou, seeking support. But the dean’s office said that because Dr. Grayson exempted a student who is taking the course abroad from meeting with a group at York, the other student should be treated the same. Either group work is required, or it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/23 "2014-01-09T19:25:12Z")
What if he said his religious belief did not allow him to work with black people? How is sexist avoidance of women based solely on the fact that they’re women any different from racist avoidance of someone based on skin color? And why should anyone expect either idiotic ideology to be accommodated in any setting involving human beings? ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/24 "2014-01-09T19:25:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I was on the professor’s side at first, but I just noticed this: > > Either group work is required, or it isn’t. This is silly. What’s “required” can very well different from student to student based on their circumstance. If someone gets into an accident and needs to be hospitalized, and a professor gives them a few extra days to turn in an assignment, must _everyone_ be given those extra days? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/25 "2014-01-09T19:27:22Z")
Medical or compassionate issues are distinct from other bases for accommodation (not to mention _ad hoc_.) ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/26 "2014-01-09T19:30:40Z")
Sure. And there’s a huge difference between somebody being physically unable to complete an assignment, and somebody not wanting to complete an assignment because he doesn’t want to talk to women. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/27 "2014-01-09T19:32:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Medical or compassionate issues are distinct from other bases for accommodation (not to mention _ad hoc_.) And I’d submit that “I don’t like girls” is not a reasonable basis for any accommodation. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/28 "2014-01-09T19:34:02Z")
Seeing how many fundamentalist Christians pull stuff out of their ass and then attribute a religious justification to it that is not backed up by any mainstream church, I think we can all pretty well agree that sincere does not equal religious. For example, can I demand that my class not include any Blacks based on my sincere belief in the “Curse of Canaan”? Would a professor need to exclude all non-whites as a religious accommodation? Can I smoke ganja in class if I am a Rastafari if even though such actions are not required it is my sincere belief that they are? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/29 "2014-01-09T19:34:16Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > And I’d submit that “I don’t like girls” is not a reasonable basis for any accommodation. Are you rejecting the University’s policy, or just its specific application in this case? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/30 "2014-01-09T19:35:34Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Seeing how many fundamentalist Christians pull stuff out of their ass and then attribute a religious justification to it that is not backed up by any mainstream church, I think we can all pretty well agree that sincere does not equal religious. > > For example, can I demand that my class not include any Blacks based on my sincere belief in the “Curse of Canaan”? Would a professor need to exclude all non-whites as a religious accommodation? Can I smoke ganja in class if I am a Rastafari if even though such actions are not required it is my sincere belief that they are? Not at York University, no: > [@](#): > > To grant a religious accommodation, the university must decide the beliefs are sincere, and that it will not interfere with other students’ experience or harm the course’s academic integrity. Those examples all fail the policy. The one at issue doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/31 "2014-01-09T19:53:23Z")
Euphonius Polemic: > [@](#): > > I would say that it should be contingent upon the student to provide evidence of the “religiosity” of his/her beliefs. For example, they should be able to point the professor to some sort of religious authority who will back them up. It should not be up to the professsor or institution to guess which authority is appropriate. That’s pretty much what I meant to say. The student should provide the name of the religious leader whose views he follows. It’s weird that the Professor was apparently purely guessing, even as to what major religion it was. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/32 "2014-01-09T20:12:37Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Are you rejecting the University’s policy, or just its specific application in this case? I’m rejecting that there is any religious basis whatsoever for this male student’s desire to not work with a group with women in it. It is simply his desire. The university should not have to give religious accommodation to every whim that each individual student has. ETA: I would also reject the policy as stated: > [@](#): > > o grant a religious accommodation, the university must decide the beliefs are sincere, and that it will not interfere with other students’ experience or harm the course’s academic integrity. While I’m sure someone’s beliefs are “sincere”, if they are not grounded and backed up by an actual religious practice, then there are merely an individual’s whims. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/33 "2014-01-09T20:14:10Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I’m rejecting that there is any religious basis whatsoever for this male student’s desire to not work with a group with women in it. > > It is simply his desire. The university should not have to give religious accommodation to every whim that each individual student has. What do you base that conclusion on? The fact that the professor obtained theological opinions from a Jew, a Muslim, and representatives of the Sisterhood? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/34 "2014-01-09T20:20:16Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > What do you base that conclusion on? The fact that the professor obtained theological opinions from a Jew, a Muslim, and representatives of the Sisterhood? The absence of any evidence whatsoever that the student in question has given any religious support to his sincere desire to not work with females. And the absence of any evidence that he belongs to any religious group or sect that advances this as a requirement of their believers. I think it is contingent upon the person asking for _religious_ accommodation to provide some kind of evidence that this is a _religious_ requirement, beyond their own sincere belief. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/35 "2014-01-09T20:21:58Z")
I honestly wonder if the person who asked for the accommodations didn’t really want it for religious reasons, but instead was just trying to troll or make some kind of news fuss to make a political point. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/36 "2014-01-09T20:23:32Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > The absence of any evidence whatsoever that the student in question has given any religious support to his sincere desire to not work with females. > > And the absence of any evidence that he belongs to any religious group or sect that advances this as a requirement of their believers. > > I think it is contingent upon the person asking for _religious_ accommodation to provide some kind of evidence that this is a _religious_ requirement, beyond their own sincere belief. So, I understand you to be saying that, in order for a belief to be “religious,” the person claiming that belief must belong to an organized religious group that advances that belief and it must be supported through the teachings of some recognized religious leader who has established a religious demomination? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/37 "2014-01-09T20:38:40Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > ETA: I would also reject the policy as stated: > > While I’m sure someone’s beliefs are “sincere”, if they are not grounded and backed up by an actual religious practice, then there are merely an individual’s whims. That’s a very dangerous road, though, letting the university be the gatekeeper of what’s a religion and what’s not, on the basis of politics and convenience. Also, given the boundaries of the policy, what makes accommodations based on whims so dangerous? If they don’t negatively affect academics or other students, what’s the objection? > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > The absence of any evidence whatsoever that the student in question has given any religious support to his sincere desire to not work with females. > > And the absence of any evidence that he belongs to any religious group or sect that advances this as a requirement of their believers. > > I think it is contingent upon the person asking for _religious_ accommodation to provide some kind of evidence that this is a _religious_ requirement, beyond their own sincere belief. Do we know if the professor even asked? I have a feeling he didn’t, since unless the answer was “Jewish Muslim”, the professor’s subsequent actions aren’t consistent with having received a specific answer. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/38 "2014-01-09T20:38:53Z")
The prof should have told him to stop being an idiot, grab the golden opportunity and go in there and see how many numbers he can get. Or get set up with a friend of a friend. _Something_. That’s a real college education. I can see some mild “oh, I’m not good enough for you?” type reaction, but I don’t know why women would want to work with a gynophobe anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/39 "2014-01-09T20:42:46Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > So, I understand you to be saying that, in order for a belief to be “religious,” the person claiming that belief must belong to an organized religious group that advances that belief and it must be supported through the teachings of some recognized religious leader who has established a religious demomination? The other end of the spectrum is “whatever this specific individual happens to believe at any given moment in time”. I think that the institution needs to have a clear definition of what a “religion” is, \*as it pertains to the policy of giving religious accommodation. \* This does not mean (as some would posit) that the university is dangerously being a “gatekeeper” of what a religion is. It would mean that they are drawing a line for the specific purpose of the religious accommodation policy. Otherwise, the policy is simply meaningless, and is open to abuse by anyone for any reason whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/40 "2014-01-09T20:45:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Also, given the boundaries of the policy, what makes accommodations based on whims so dangerous? If they don’t negatively affect academics or other students, what’s the objection? It opens the door to more objectionable demands based on ethnic differences or sexual orientation. What’s to stop someone from saying their faith prevents them from working with gays? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378.md?page=3)