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.
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:
Either group work is required, or it isn’t.
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?
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?
Medical or compassionate issues are distinct from other bases for accommodation (not to mention ad hoc.)
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.
And I’d submit that “I don’t like girls” is not a reasonable basis for any accommodation.
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?
Are you rejecting the University’s policy, or just its specific application in this case?
Not at York University, no:
Those examples all fail the policy. The one at issue doesn’t.
Euphonius Polemic:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?