I don’t think there is any reason for religious exemptions for anything, where there is no exemption for any other opinions. What an idiotic rule.
I agree with the professor, no exception for people’s bigotry
The exactly what it means to be a gatekeeper. You’re arguing that they need to be a gatekeeper in the instance, but by your rationale, they are a gatekeeper.
I’m still not seeing the potential for abuse, when the accomodations are only granted if they don’t adversely affect academics or other students. What other considerations are there? Concordance with mainstream thought?
Why are demands based on ethnicity or orientation more objectionable than those based on gender?
In this exact scenario - a group project which isn’t essential to the class, and a person asking not to meet with the group - nothing, as it doesn’t violate the university’s own policy.
The sociology department, earnest politics notwithstanding, should not be adopting its own unique policy for religious accomodation, countermanding that of the university, the dean, and the center for human rights.
I don’t think it’s fair to claim something isn’t “essential to the class” because one student who was completely incapable of performing the task was allowed to skip it. Otherwise you’re going to have students arguing that everyone deserves more time on tests because disabled students get it and the time limit is obviously not “essential to the class”, etc. The more you push the “essential to the class” requirement, the more the entire argument falls down.
Why not? If it’s permitted to skip the assignment altogether, then letting this student skip it doesn’t harm the course’s academic integrity.
Further, the idea of a religious accomodation is that religious belief can also make someone completely incapable of performing a task, and such beliefs should be reasonably accomodated so long as they don’t harm anyone else or interfere with the class.
That’s not analogous, the disabled student would have to be allowed to skip the test altogether for the situation to be comparable. More time on a test is a reasonable accomodation for disability.
Of course the university must function as an enforcer of rules. If you want to call this a “gatekeeper” so be it. They have a set of rules and policies that they must enforce. This is an essential part of the role of the administration.
If a student says they were sick and missed an exam, there is a rule that says that they must have a doctor’s note. This is a gatekeeper function to stop every student claiming they missed an exam because they had a “sincere belief” that they were sick.
Or, to put it as Saint Cad did:
A religion of “one” that does not want to work with women is not a religion. It is just one person’s bigotry and bias (or fear of women). It simply does not deserve a “religious” accommodation.
No. Concordance with human rights in our society. It does not matter if the women in the class did not know why he was not with the group. As the National Post put it:
Before discussing this further, is there any reason to believe that this person was practicing a “religion of one”? The article simply doesn’t supply the information needed to make that judgment.
Are you asserting that telling a group that a student has been excused from working on a group project due to a religious objection, or even the specific nature of the objection, consitutes a violation of the group’s human rights? I cannot fathom how that would be so.
What do you expect from York University. It’s kind of a middling school with no real identity, so it tends to attract the weirdo / foreigner crowd.
I think the burden of proof in this case falls upon the student. It seems apparent from the article that he did not disclose his general religious background to the professor, much less his specific sect. Bear in mind that religious leaders consulted could find no religious basis for the student’s request.
So what it looks like is less of a religious request, and more of a personal bias request. That is based on information available. Obviously we can only go on what has been presented to us.
Yes. Telling a group of women that a male student has been granted officially sanctioned university permission to NOT interact with them is insulting, demeaning, and should not be considered correct.
Why do you think the dean advised that the male students request/accommodation be kept secret? If there is no harm to be done, then there should be no secret agreements.
I taught a college Orgo lab and one of the main reasons we had students work in pairs is that the immense majority had no clue how to do it. All their previous work had been either adult-directed or individual (and often, “individual with a directing adult”), they didn’t know how to organize a two-people group. There were enough materials, enough spaces, and enough TAs to go around.
That said, I started on the fence about this one. In theory, TAs for those labs could not be assigned taking “ethnicity” into account and the classes were in English so “language skills” wasn’t supposed to be relevant either, but over half the students were Hispanics and the TAs got arranged so that there would always be a Hispanic TA around, on the basis that sometimes a quick change of language is useful (most notably when the students are distressed). But - in our case, being able to hear “no pasa nada” mixed with the "it’s OK"s was helpful. How is it helpful to this student not to force him to work with women? Does he expect to go all through his work life not having to interact with one? I don’t see how being allowed to live in a bubble of male-ness is supposed to help him or anybody. If he doesn’t want to interact with women, he can join a monastery.
It also seems apparent that the professor didn’t ask. Perhaps he would have cheerfully volunteered all the information you seek. We simply don’t know.
It cannot reasonably be assumed, on the basis of the article, that the student’s request wasn’t based on a religious belief that passes your level of scrutiny, setting aside the issue of whether such scrutiny is appropriate.
And that amounts to a human rights violation? Of which right?
For the sake of argument, say the student belongs to a sect with a few million adherents, that has a longstanding belief that men and women must be educated separately, as commanded by God. Or, substitute any such belief that’d pass muster with you as being genuinely religious.
The student enrolls in an online course, so he won’t have to violate this stricture. He knows there’s a group project component, but another student who lives abroad was excused from it, so he reasonably believes he will be too. He’s not. Is this not a violation of not only university policy, but his right to exercise his religion?
Because this is a controversial, divisive issue, where either decision would result in bad press. That’s one possibility, at least. It certainly doesn’t mean he thought harm was being done. The dean had the backing of the campus human rights center, whose job it is to resolve these sorts of problems.
Do you think it’s appropriate for the sociology department to enact their own version of the university’s religious accomodation policy?
Or, as has been pointed out by some, he can go to a country or community where gender segregation is the norm, and where women’s rights are not recognized.
This is part of the reason why this has struck a chord with so many. As a Western secular country with an emphasis on human rights, how far do we go in granting accommodation to those who do not respect those rights?
How tolerant must we be of intolerance?
It is a debate that is playing out in a variety of countries in a variety of situations. In Quebec, their recent “Values Charter” is one example of how the debate has entered the public sphere.
Is Canada technically a secular country?
I submit it should be the duty of the applicant to supply relevant details to support their case.
Then the student should go to a university that educates men and women separately. York university does not do this. It matters not if the course was “online”, as there was a course requirement to do a group project together.
Yes. It is the job of every person to bring foolish and idiotic policies to light whenever they can, and not simply accept what the authority has told them to do.
Professors shouldn’t be making policy decisions. I don’t agree with the Dean but something like this is his call and responsibility.
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.
Professors usually make the initial call about accommodation (as in this case). And it is certainly the professor’s right (and duty) to question the policy.
Policy is both made and interpreted. This case was fuzzy. The professor was not making policy. He was interpreting it.
Now you’re just arguing for sport. 
We don’t know that this is in fact what happened in this particular case and can’t assume that it’s even close to being the fact of the case because:
- It’s not clear that this student knew of the exceptions made in the past and it’s not reasonable to assume that he did prior to registering.
- Said student “cheerfully” accepted the administration’s denial for exceptional treatment and proceeded to meet with classmates.
But was unsure, the dean is the first and perhaps only person he/she should have consulted.
Faculty in a university are usually granted a pretty high degree of autonomy. It seems that in this case the prof did some research, and came to a decision that everyone was fine with (the male student "cheerfully agreed, thanked the prof for looking into it, and proceeded to do the assignment)
It was all fine until the Dean stepped in it.
Seriously though… How much are we expected to tolerate intolerance? How much do we roll back human rights in order to make those who don’t respect those rights feel good?