Euphonious Polemic:
Whose rights is the student in question not respecting? He’s not insisting that women not be in groups with any men at all, he was (as far as I can tell) just asking for himself to not be in a group with women.
As paradoxical as it seems, intolerance must be tolerated, in the same way that the free speech of someone who opposes free speech must be respected.
So effectively, we need to tolerate a intolerance a little bit. But where it the line?
For those who say that no rights are harmed, let’s use the York Universities own definitions here. They say that as long as the male student has a sincere belief that his religion says he can’t work with women, this should be respected. No proof required.
I would say then, that as long as women in his class have a *sincere belief *that their rights are not being respected, then we must accept that as well. No proof required.
So whose rights do we respect in this case? What is the King Solemen decision?
I would say we need to err on the side of what our society has deemed to be the right thing to do at this time - and that is to respect the rights of gender equality over the rights of those who do not believe in gender equality.
What’s interesting to me about this case is whether a person may speak for his own religious beliefs or whether some clerics or authorities in his chosen religion can speak for him.
In this case, the professor consulted the clerics in order to convince the student not to seek the exception, and it (almost) worked. But suppose he had said he believes what he believes regardless of what religious authorities say? Isn’t that a fundamental part of religious freedom?
Yes, but suppose every single man in the class, or the school, asked for that?
That’s certainly defensible, but you can hardly criticize the student for failing to adhere to a policy that doesn’t exist. It’s not self-evident that someone asserting a religious accomodation must volunteer proof of some kind.
Were that true, I’d agree with you. Clearly it was not a requirement, though, as it had been waived for another student.
That’s not what they did. Rather than bring a policy to light, they overruled it with their own. I understand that you support the outcome here, but the process is deeply flawed.
No, not at all.
Hence for the sake of argument. I’m not asserting those things to be the case. Given that Euphonious Polemic rejects the university policy on the grounds that it doesn’t specify what counts as a religion, and that he believes the student didn’t have a legitimate religious belief. Since there’s not enough information to know, in order to discuss the other aspects of the policy (that the accomodation harm neither other students or academic integrity), I suggested that we stipulate that the belief was genuine and legitimate, by whatever metric Euphonious Polemic desires.
Otherwise, the debate is over, because it’s unknown what the source of the student’s belief was.
What “human right” is being violated by accomodating him? I mean, I’m all for squashing religious minorities, but that notion that it’s a “human rights” issue for the other students in the class is a bit excessive to me.
Do they not even have to assert which right is being infringed? Just a general sense of disrespect is enough?
According to you, they don’t even have to give any evidence. They can just assert it. Just like the make student did not have to give any evidence of his religious beliefs.
That’s not what I said. I wrote that having the university define religious belief as having to meet some criteria for popularity was a “dangerous road”, and questioned the supposed drawbacks of not having such criteria in place. I never said no evidence should be required. I feel it’s an area fraught with hazards to civil liberties, and thus should be lightly trod upon.
Furthermore, the student was able to say something to the effect of “My religion doesn’t allow me to do this.” He articulated the human right in question. Asking that of the group is not onerous or unreasonable, and you’re bordering on reductio ad absurdum here.
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.
This makes guessing at Judaism or Islam and consulting scholars of those faiths all the stranger.
If the university policy included a requirement that in order to demonstrate the sincerity of the belief, some standard of actual practice or longstanding tradition had to be met, with the burden of demonstating this falling on the student, would you accept this policy? If not, precisely what changes would have to be made?
^^^ This. From what we actually know, it seems rather likely that the guy was Jewish or Muslim, and when presented with what the religious leaders the Prof consulted, the guy was convinced that he was going overboard in his interpretation of his religion, and so ‘cheerfully’ accepted the Prof’s decision. From the point of the guy accepting the decision, this whole thing should have ended. Only if the guy appealed it should the Dean have gotten involved further. The Prof is right. The Dean is wrong.
I would think he made his guess based on the last name of the applicant. It was probably not “O’Leary”. He was forced into the position of having to guess.
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.
We don’t let students simply claim they were sick to get out of an exam. A note from a doctor is required. They would not have to produce a note from a religious authority, but at least SOMEthing should be required.
I don’t think that was the sequence of events, based on this article:
There’s no indication that the professor shared the results of his religious consultation with the student, but rather that the professor embarked on that in order to inform his own decision on the matter. It appears the professor simply told the student his request had been denied, and that the sociology department’s policy, passed in a response to the this student’s request, played some role.
He wasn’t, though. Nothing compelled him to vet the religious belief of the student. On the contrary, the policy is an “obligation to accommodate”, per the above article.
Illness, or lack of same, isn’t a human right, though. It doesn’t raise the same concerns.
What sort of evidence do you have in mind, exactly, if not a note from a cleric? If you believe this should be the policy, these sort of issues have to be ironed out.
Agreed.
From another board, a poster there seems to have specific inside knowledge of the institution. He claims that the main issue here is ongoing animosity between the dean and the faculty. The claim is that the dean takes every opportunity possible to slap faculty down, and this is simply another example.
Anonymous internet poster, take with grain of salt, etc.
It’s clear to me that the religious accommodation should not have been granted, but then I’m someone who thinks there’s no such thing as a “valid religious reason” and that any religious accommodation is (or should be) in no way a right.
Then ask, quite apart from whether anyone has a right to religious accomodation, whether a student has some right to rely on published policies from the school. The student’s request was entirely in line with the university policy. Does he have some right to expect them to apply the policy?
Having looked at the policy I think the student’s request was in line with what the university claims to permit. However, what I read was pretty vague and inclusive.
I didn’t interpret the point of this thread as being entirely about this particular case and the application of university policy, though.
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.