The professor's radio interview with CBC was particularly revealing early in the interview he said:
My main concern was that for religious beliefs we can also justify not interacting with jews, blacks, gays you name it and if this were allowed to go through than presumably all these other absurd demands could be made.The professor's issue was simply that the student used his religion as the reason to make the request, and that if the university accommodated the request however insignificant it was it could lead to all sorts of terrible consequences. So it appears the professor refused the request simply to make a point. The interviewer asked, "Could you have accommodated him?" Professor Grayson's responded:
Physically sure because it's a web based course and if for example you live afar I can't expect you to fly to Toronto to conduct a focus group, but that is a completely different situation from a student who wishes not to interact with females in class out of preference. The analogy I like to use is two students come to class on Monday morning without completing their assignments, the first didn't complete it because his father passed away ok that's a very good reason, the second didn't complete it because he got drunk all weekend, well that's not a good reason.So the professor is now equating having a religious faith with being drunk and saying explicitly that making a request as a matter of conscience is not a very good reason. In fact freedom of religion and of conscience is a foundational right in any free society.
No one would have been harmed by accommodating the student, and I'm sure the professor would have accepted almost any other reason to grant an exception from this assignment. It should have been granted.
Paul Grayson asked for a principled response from the University and I'm pleased to say he received one. Another principled response would be to discipline Grayson for deliberately refusing to follow his dean's direction.
9 comments:
AÀnd what if for religious reasons he doesn't want a female prof and this is a compulsory course to get his degree? I agree that the drunken analogy doesn't sound right.
I think it was a bad decision. I should note this is not partisan as I noticed one liberal blogger also took a similar track so not totally partisan.
My reason for opposing this is gender equality is a fundamental value not just in Canada but almost all Western democracies and as such should be defended, especially when someone is using a public institution. As I've always said if someone doesn't like our values, don't come to this country. We should not go down the path many European countries have in trying to accommodate every demand from various religious groups. This has largely ended in disaster.
Anon 1 - I'd say in your example the student wouldn't be eligible for the degree, in this case exemptions from the assignment were available.
Anon 2 - how is gender equality threatened? If anything the female classmates would have a better experience without this guy in the workshop.
I am always amazed how people bend themselves into pretzels to justify gender apartheid based on some religious belief. It does not matter one iota whether this student could be "accommodated". The concept is totally outside our value system and therefore should not even be considered, especially in a public institution.
This on its own may not threaten gender equality, but it sets a bad precedent. Many immigrants we get today come from countries with much different value systems and if we start allowing them to ask us to bend to their culture, where does it end. It should be understood when you come to Canada, you follow our values and if you don't like them, then don't come to this country. I've seen in Europe where this was done and the outcome was not pretty, so we would be best to avoid the mistakes they made.
Is God planning for new scenery and new leadership?: daniel1021-thebookoftruth.blogspot.com/p/welcome.html
Book of Truth mini-webcast, part one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvRpHDlGsyc
Book of Truth mini-webcast, part two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud07pzKoA9I
I like your post.keep it up.
IAS coaching In Jaipur
happy hug day card message for boyfriend
happy proposes day quotes
happy hug day sms messages
rose day special quotes in english
While I am certainly willing to accept religious freedom in many respects, such as wearing religious clothing and objects, prayer, and food requirements, it goes beyond acceptability when it begins to limit the actions of others.
It is true that the women in this case were not harmed, and it will not likely affect their success in the course. However, all parties could potentially have benefited from the discourse - especially since it was between people of differing world-views. We always need more discourse, not less. This leads toward empathy.
In this case, this man is perhaps legitimately practicing his cultural version of faith by not having communication with women. However the root of this belief is that women are inherently evil temptresses, and also less important (and in some beliefs less human) than men. The easiest way to resolve the issue is to look at ethics: deontology would state that the society he is in values equality, and this action goes against that; utilitarianism would state that allowing segregation and limited interaction with women nurtures myths of vast differences between men and women which results in continuation of sexist ideologies - bad for everyone; categorical imperative would argue that this man views women as means to an end and not ends in themselves, which diminishes them and society as a whole (additionally, the "what if everyone did that?" prompt would show a society of severe division between the sexes). This is a case where the values of the particular cultural version of Islam directly contradict the views of the society and progress towards equality. In contrast, virtue ethics, where actions are based on internal guidance and conscience might say that this man was acting correctly, because, being unaccustomed to communicating openly with women, he might experience inappropriate sexual thoughts and urges that he is rightly trying to avoid - but this train of thought leads inevitably to the idea that men shouldn't be made uncomfortable or be responsible for the control of their own desires - that the control must be undertaken by women alone.
Strangely, the outrage of many conservatives when an RCMP officer wears a turban is not echoed here when there is actual impact. Yet, when it concerns the equal participation of women in society there is support of radical, outdated beliefs.
Post a Comment