# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/81 "2014-01-10T20:36:59Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > FYI, in a university setting, a professor cannot ask a student what religion they are. This, in itself, would be considered a violation of the male student’s rights. If the student did not volunteer this information during the request for accommodation, the professor would have no way of knowing. Does that apply in Canada? Maybe he asked anyway. Or maybe the student has already offered the information. A guy who would make such a request is likely to have broadcast his religion before. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/82 "2014-01-10T20:38:58Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I would accept something along these lines. At least the student should be required to provide SOME form of evidence that their request is a genuine belief system and not simply a personal desire. That’s a hairy thing to do though. Who are we to declare what religious beliefs are genuine, or legitimate, or whatever? I know we (or schools, or the government) have to do it in order to make these decisions, but it’s not a slam-dunk to just go look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/83 "2014-01-10T20:46:16Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But that would mean the school could, say, require all students to kneel and pray each day to the moon god Ithrax, and nobody could get a religious accommodation allowing them not to, whether because they have other religions or are atheists. My post wasn’t supposed to be a watertight statement of exactly what should and shouldn’t be allowed - it’s only one sentence. It was partly based on the assumption that universities will not come up with strange requirements that are unrelated to their actual purpose. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/84 "2014-01-10T21:04:11Z")
At the college where I teach, one student demanded an alternative assignment because she didn’t want to watch an R-rated film in her English class due to her religious belief. The prof refused and the admins backed the prof; the student later dropped the class because she wasn’t accommodated. This is the only incident of its kind I had ever heard of there. On the same campus, I once had a student who claimed that he had a legal right to be half an hour late to class because his “religious duties” did not end until 2pm on Fridays, which is when the class began. I asked him to prove it; he didn’t and just got pissed at me for asking. My dept. head and division dean told him he had no case and that he if he couldn’t make it to class on time, he should have taken a different class. People can’t just claim religious exemptions from everything and expect their demands to be met. ---
**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 11, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/85 "2014-01-11T00:58:34Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > That’s a hairy thing to do though. Who are we to declare what religious beliefs are genuine, or legitimate, or whatever? I know we (or schools, or the government) have to do it in order to make these decisions, but it’s not a slam-dunk to just go look it up. Yes, it is a tricky situation, and can be quite complex, especially when there are competing “rights” involved. But there has to be SOME kind of evidence-based reasoning involved, otherwise students could ask for religious accommodation for ANYthing for ANY reason, based on no evidence that a religion even exists. There must be a line somewhere. It sucks that someone has to make the call on where the line is, but without one, there is no policy - it’s just open season on whatever anyone wants. ---
**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 11, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/86 "2014-01-11T01:33:24Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > But there has to be SOME kind of evidence-based reasoning involved, otherwise students could ask for religious accommodation for ANYthing for ANY reason, based on no evidence that a religion even exists. There must be a line somewhere. It sucks that someone has to make the call on where the line is, but without one, there is no policy - it’s just open season on whatever anyone wants. Here’s what puzzles me: you’ve emphasized the need for some sort of evidence-based approach to religious belief. But, when I asked you to hypothetically assume that this student’s belief _was_ sincere and passed your evidence-based assessment, your response was that the student should go to a different college which was male-only. That is, you still weren’t willing to grant the accommodation. How do you reconcile this? ---
**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 11, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/87 "2014-01-11T18:37:02Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Here’s what puzzles me: you’ve emphasized the need for some sort of evidence-based approach to religious belief. But, when I asked you to hypothetically assume that this student’s belief _was_ sincere and passed your evidence-based assessment, your response was that the student should go to a different college which was male-only. That is, you still weren’t willing to grant the accommodation. > > How do you reconcile this? If that’s what you’re getting from my comments - apologies. It is of course much more complicated than that. With each case like this, there is a careful balancing act going on. The trouble with many institutions like York, there is a tendency for administrators to take the the easy, simplistic role. It seems that they are following 3 simple rules: 1. Is there a sincere belief, 2. what decision will cause us the least negative PR and 3. can we keep the whole thing secret. I would say that the policy should be a bit better thought out. 1. Sincerity of belief - this is important, but hard to judge or quantify. I may have a very sincere belief that I need to pray to my jar of peanut butter every day at 2:00 2. I think (as stated) there needs to be some form of evidence that there is an actual _religious_ basis for the belief. Otherwise it is simply a personal preference. This may take a variety of forms and does not necessarily have to be a rules set in stone. It should be the responsibility of the applicant to provide proof, and not the professor to guess. 3. The needs and rights of the applicant, the institution and the rights of others need to be balanced. In this case, it looks on the surface like nobody else’s rights would be harmed (as long as the decision was kept secret). The secretive nature of the decision is problematic. If the male student was given accommodation, then why keep it secret? The institution must be taken into account, particularly as each case sets a precedent. In this case, York must think: what if hundreds of male students requested accommodation to not work with females? What would the implication of that be? Rights of others must be taken into account. Are they harmed? Even indirectly? Finally, societal and cultural impact also needs to be analysed. Is Canada the type of country that accepts differential treatment of males and females? Is Canadian society happy with gender discrimination? Is this a message that a major educational institution wants to send to society? Bottom line is - each decision is complex, and must be taken on an individual basis, without a simplistic “formula” that York seems to be using. It seems that in this case, the professor hit the right note. The male student did seem happy that his request was seriously considered, even if it was in the end, denied. Everyone was happy until the administration applied the simplistic “solution” ---
**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 12, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/88 "2014-01-12T02:25:25Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > If that’s what you’re getting from my comments - apologies. It is of course much more complicated than that. > > With each case like this, there is a careful balancing act going on. The trouble with many institutions like York, there is a tendency for administrators to take the the easy, simplistic role. > > It seems that they are following 3 simple rules: 1. Is there a sincere belief, 2. what decision will cause us the least negative PR and 3. can we keep the whole thing secret. It sure seems to me that the dean and the human rights center were following the 3 simple rules enshrined in the accommodation policy. Subsequent to making the determination of whether the accommodation should be granted or not, PR concerns surely crept in, as they all do. But they clearly used the policy, as the article quotes the human rights center director’s reasoning that the accommodation wouldn’t harm the course’s academic integrity, as another student had been excused already, and didn’t interfere with the other students’ experience, nor violate their rights. As you note below, assessing sincerity is a tricky matter. [QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic] I would say that the policy should be a bit better thought out. 1. Sincerity of belief - this is important, but hard to judge or quantify. I may have a very sincere belief that I need to pray to my jar of peanut butter every day at 2:00 2. I think (as stated) there needs to be some form of evidence that there is an actual _religious_ basis for the belief. Otherwise it is simply a personal preference. This may take a variety of forms and does not necessarily have to be a rules set in stone. It should be the responsibility of the applicant to provide proof, and not the professor to guess. [/quote] What sort of evidence / proof? Also, I’d like to be given some examples of the harm that could be wrought by accommodating personal preferences that aren’t allowed to interfere with academics or harm other students. [QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic] 3. The needs and rights of the applicant, the institution and the rights of others need to be balanced. In this case, it looks on the surface like nobody else’s rights would be harmed (as long as the decision was kept secret). The secretive nature of the decision is problematic. If the male student was given accommodation, then why keep it secret? [/quote] Their rights weren’t harmed even if it wasn’t secret. Secrecy is a PR concern, not directly related to applying the policy in order to grant or deny an accommodation. [QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic] The institution must be taken into account, particularly as each case sets a precedent. In this case, York must think: what if hundreds of male students requested accommodation to not work with females? What would the implication of that be? [/quote] Such requests could only be granted if they didn’t interfere with academics. That right there eliminates the vast majority of them. Not this one, though, due to the non-required nature of the in-person portion. If the in-person portion _were_ required, then the accommodation would rightly be denied. [QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic] Rights of others must be taken into account. Are they harmed? Even indirectly? [/quote] Not as far as I can tell. No one was excluded from anything, the student didn’t stand to deny the other students anything. [QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic] Finally, societal and cultural impact also needs to be analysed. Is Canada the type of country that accepts differential treatment of males and females? [/quote] By individuals? So far as I know, outside of highly specific situations involving harm being done (ie, hiring practices, public accommodations). [QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic] Is Canadian society happy with gender discrimination? Is this a message that a major educational institution wants to send to society? [/quote] How about the message the minority religious views won’t be tolerated, whether they harm anyone or not? [QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic] Bottom line is - each decision is complex, and must be taken on an individual basis, without a simplistic “formula” that York seems to be using. [/quote] I’m American, so my background differs from the Canadian experience, but our Constitutional rights often come down to similar, simple formulas, such as the [Lemon test:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman) > [@](#): > > The Court’s decision in this case established the “Lemon test”, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs: > The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong) > The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong) > The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. (Entanglement Prong) When human rights are at stake, simple rules established by the highest court are a better way to go than having each government agency come up with their own, complex, multi-faceted, unique formula, no? [QUOTE=Euphonious Polemic] It seems that in this case, the professor hit the right note. The male student did seem happy that his request was seriously considered, even if it was in the end, denied. Everyone was happy until the administration applied the simplistic “solution” [/QUOTE] I don’t think it’s reasonable to use the student’s reaction at being denied as evidence that the decision was the correct one. Lastly, there’s still the matter of the sociology department creating its own accommodation rules, which is wildly inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/89 "2014-01-12T04:00:21Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Most would say that it is, but a minority opinion holds that since God is referenced in the charter, that means that Canada is not secular. > > It’s secular in practice. There is no state religion. Doesn’t Canada give governmental support for religious schools? I ask because most American liberals(including myself) would consider it asinine to suggest that governmental support if religious schools isn’t a violation if the separation of Church and State. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/90 "2014-01-12T19:03:06Z")
I think that sincerely held religious beliefs should be given reasonable accommodation in a university setting. However, one of the requirements for passing this course is to work in a group effectively. In modern society, working with a group includes working with females in a group. By granting this student an exemption and either passing him without group work, or working in an all male group, he will have missed a key component of the course. Therefore, no reasonable accommodation can be made. He has no inalienable right to a university degree. Work with the broads or fail the course. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/91 "2014-01-12T20:12:08Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Doesn’t Canada give governmental support for religious schools? > > I ask because most American liberals(including myself) would consider it asinine to suggest that governmental support if religious schools isn’t a violation if the separation of Church and State. Our Canadian head of state is a monarch who is also the head of a religion. 😃 > **[Supreme Governor of the Church of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Governor_of_the_Church_of_England)** > > The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is the titular head of the Church of England, a position which is vested in the British monarch. Although the monarch's authority over the Church of England is largely ceremonial and is mostly observed in a symbolic capacity, the position is still relevant to the established church. As the supreme governor, the monarch formally appoints high-ranking members of the church on the advice of the prime minister of the United Kingdom, who in turn acts on... > **[Monarchy of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada#Head_of_state)** > > The monarchy of Canada is Canada's form of government embodied by the Canadian sovereign and head of state. It is one of the key components of Canadian sovereignty and sits at the core of Canada's constitutional federal structure and Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. The monarchy is the foundation of the executive (King-in-Council), legislative (King-in-Parliament), and judicial (King-on-the-Bench) branches of both federal and provincial jurisdictions. The current monarch is King A... So it is fair to say there is much in Canada that would displease a die-hard “seperation of church and state” US constitutionalist - despite the fact that, in practical terms, the differences are actually relatively minor. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/92 "2014-01-12T20:20:58Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Doesn’t Canada give governmental support for religious schools? Unfortunately. It’s a relic that is now embedded in our Constitution, so we may never be rid of it. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/93 "2014-01-13T14:34:17Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > My post wasn’t supposed to be a watertight statement of exactly what should and shouldn’t be allowed - it’s only one sentence. That’s fine - I was inviting you to clarify and explore the implications of relying on just that one sentence. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/94 "2014-01-13T14:36:59Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Yes, it is a tricky situation, and can be quite complex, especially when there are competing “rights” involved. > > But there has to be SOME kind of evidence-based reasoning involved, otherwise students could ask for religious accommodation for ANYthing for ANY reason, based on no evidence that a religion even exists. There must be a line somewhere. It sucks that someone has to make the call on where the line is, but without one, there is no policy - it’s just open season on whatever anyone wants. Yes. I’m just pointing out how tricky this is - harder than it may seem at first. It puts the government in the position of judging what religious beliefs are legitimate or “real.” ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378/95 "2014-01-13T19:27:47Z")
Most major religions are chin deep in sexism and sexist bigotry. I see no reason to grant exceptions for the bigotry because it’s part of someone’s religion. Bigotry is bigotry, whether or not it has its origins in religion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-accommodation-or-accessory-to-sexism/678378.md?page=4)