Complying with Muslim students' request, one Harvard gym provides female-only hours

[razorsharp]

<p>

So is the kosher food option hurting other students because they arent spending more time making “regular” food.

What you are overlooking is that schools that offer kosher food are not preventing non-jews from eating that food. </p>

<p>The same is true with churches on campus. Churches may offer christian services, but they would not prohibit muslims or people of other religions from entering the church. If a church did so, I am sure Harvard would have no problem kicking that church off campus given Harvard’s intolderance of Christians.</p>

<p>If Harvard prevented men from entering the gym because women don’t wish to be watched and that was the sole reason, the arguments against it would be substantially different. In this case, Harvard is responding to a request from religious group based who are making their request for religious reasons and thus Harvard is engaging in religious discrimination as well as gender discrimination. </p>

<p>

So is it sexist to have women only bathrooms razorsharp?

Actually, it is discrimination based solely on gender. It should be prohibited, but our society has decided certain discrimiantion is acceptable in some areas (restrooms) even though it is not acceptable in other areas (employment). </p>

<p>In addition to restrooms, one of the most blatent examples of gender discrimination is women’s athletics. Separate but equal was supposed to have ended with Brown v. Board of Education, but it still lives in America in women’s athletics.</p>

<p>At least with things like restrooms and athletics you can argue there are biological differences that would justify different treatment. Religion is a preference. One can choose his or her religion. </p>

<p>How do you think Harvard would respond if a group of white male students asked to have the gym reserved for whites during two hours of the day so that whites could have their own basketball games. Let’s say the whites complained and believed that having blacks play basketball with them too often interfered with the quality of the white player’s games? Would those of you who support Harvard’s decision regarding muslims support a simliar decision regarding whites?</p>

[proudamerican007]

<p>While Harvard has, its own student policy and they have reached a compromise with its student body. Therefore, this is upto harvard. These women have rights as long as they do not infringe on others. Fox news took this story because this gives the news good coverage. It is to get better ratings. </p>

<p>However, on other side some points to think:</p>

<p>Islam forbids any person who observes Islam that one cannot take any interest on any money he or she gives to other person. Yet all business people in Muslim world charge interest. Why businessman practice something against the Islamic teachings? Because it does not suit the capital aspect of running a business enterprise that is based on profits. </p>

<p>If you read Koran, prophet Mohammed’s wife was a businesswoman. She led an active life and has never worn a veil in her lifetime. Veil is not even mentioned in Koran as I have asked my close friends. As you know woman has equal rights as man as per teaching by Koran. Muslim religion like any religion is good. However, people who preach religion sometime give views what suits the preacher to hold the power rather than change stance according to common sense. </p>

<p>Now something to think seriously:</p>

<p>What will happen if a man who has exchanged sex and became woman for all practical purposes. The sex exchange person who are now woman have same rights as any woman who is Muslim or non Muslim. If these woman who have changed their sex, want to exercises as they may only find time suitable when it is only open to women. Would College deny these Harvard student body who has changed their sex the equal right it so values. What about having objections from Muslim women that they do not recognize the ladies as woman because for them they are man.. I do not know the answer. </p>

<p>I am not arguing with anyone, just presenting some slippery slope situations. I think Harvard’s community has sorted this one out. If situation changes, they will work on a different compromise. But Fox news or any other person who can get benefit will always try to take a different stance.</p>

[WorryNoMas]

<p>To all the geniuses who referred to discrimination against Muslims as “racism,” let’s stop drinking the Ted Turner Kool-Aid for a moment and remember that “Muslim” refers to a member of the religion of Islam. “Muslim” is not a race. I’m Middle Eastern. I know. Thank you kindly, my enlightened compadres.</p>

<p>The minute you confuse racism with discrimination against RELIGIOUS practice is the minute you open the door to very dangerous legislation. Harvard has the right to give us a preview of that dangerous legislation - as they did here - because they are not a public entity. I do take issue with it, but really, there’s nothing we can do. It’s Harvard’s call.</p>

<p>When the U.S. government starts forcing 24 Hour Fitnesses to have “Muslim-Only” hours, then we can start worrying.</p>

[binghamtonrocks]

<p>Razorsharp: your analogies work against you here…</p>

<p>With regard to the whole Church analogy: while this is a Muslim initiative, it’s purpose is not explicitly for Muslims. It is for all females who wish to exercise without the presence of men. I am 100% certain that Harvard would never allow any one race/religion to occupy the entire gym for six hours every week.</p>

<p>“Let’s say the whites complained and believed that having blacks play basketball with them too often interfered with the quality of the white player’s games? Would those of you who support Harvard’s decision regarding muslims support a simliar decision regarding whites?”</p>

<p>Muslims have not requested that, nor will they ever. Stop dealing with hypotheticals. </p>

<p>And with regards to the athletic situation: How many women would be involved in athletics (unless affirmative action was implemented) if they were intergender. I know I am being sexist, but men are better at sports; it is a fact of science. </p>

<p>Unless, it is directly imposing on one’s acceptance/advancement in society, then, to me, it is acceptable.</p>

[inkspill]

<p>I don’t even know where to start.

And when the Muslims decide they are made uncomfortable by any other groups? What happens then? This is an outrage.

</p>

<p>It’s not that they’ve simply ‘decided’ to be uncomfortable around men. Their religion calls for modesty. Their demand isn’t unreasonable.</p>

<p>

this was driven by the concerns of Muslim students and it is not right.

</p>

<p>Oh, so if this were driven by the concerns of Christian students, it would be just fine? I see.</p>

<p>

“When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

</p>

<p>Ah, yes. But we’re in America, and in America, ALL religions are recognised and RESPECTED. Check the first amendment.</p>

<p>

If “not-being-looked-at-by-males” is part of their religion, then even wearing the veil is, and then why don’t they wear a veil at the gym? Aren’t they defying the code of their own religion??

</p>

<p>First of all, you’ve clearly misunderstood the tenets of their religion. Even the most conservative Muslim women don’t wear their veil at all times (they don’t sleep in them, they don’t shower in them, I think you get the idea). They’re simply not supposed to reveal themseleves in the presence of men. Thus, working out at the gym in front of other women is perfectly okay.

I don’t have a problem with accommodating innocuous religious requests - rescheduling exams, providing on-campus support for religious life, whatever. But screwing other students over for it crosses the line big time, in my books.

The absence of two hours of gym time twice a week HARDLY constitutes ‘screwing over’ other students. If this meets your definition of hardship, then boy, your life sure has been nice. For those of you who feel THAT passionately about HAVING to exercise at those exact times on those exact days – whoa! There are TWO OTHER BIG GYMS. And in addition, according to the article, there are exercise facilities in EVERY RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE (there are 12). To those of you who aren’t satisfied with one of your FOURTEEN options during those short periods of time, learn how to adapt. You can’t possibly criticize female Muslim students for their failure to assimilate/adapt when you yourself can’t figure out how to utilize one of fourteen alternatives. Insisting on having every single gym available every single hour of the day is pure stubbornness.

True. But the thing is that Muslim women aren’t hot. They’re ugly and I wouldn’t be surprised if they now want different classes because the professors stare at them (out of ridicule though).

I have nothing to say to this, GoPrincetonTiger, except that I sure am glad I’m not going to Princeton if that’s what they’re teaching over there.

Non-Muslim Harvard students ought to be entering into the gym during muslim hours and staying there until they are arrested.

That would be an admirable thing to do. I would support anyone who did it.

Those students can go right ahead but sorry, the police won’t be storming the fort. The rules don’t call for “muslim-only” hours….they are “female-only hours”. Big difference.</p>

<p>Colleges make accommodations for minority students all the time, whether it be for religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I applaud these students for voicing their requests, and I applaud Harvard even louder for recognizing them.
To those of you crying injustice, step back and analyze what you’re so upset about. For most of you (I’m going to ignore the various comments on the ugliness of Muslim women), I imagine the concern is that accommodations that exclude parts of the student body are being provided. But consider all-girls dorms. Men can’t go in those dorms - the blasphemy! Just because you were born with a Y instead of an X chromosome, you can’t set foot into an entire building? Ridiculous! Same thing, but no one cares. All-girls dorms are accepted because they were instituted to respect the privacy/comfort of females that requested such accommodations. I can’t help but see prejudice (which most of you will probably continue to deny) at work here. The fact that MUSLIM students have made this request is, I think, the source of much of the negative reaction. If a group of female students, from all races and religions, came together and asked for some girls-only gym time on the basis of discomfort, I imagine there wouldn’t be nearly as much outcry.</p>

<p>Oh, and for the record, I’m not Muslim.</p>

[binghamtonrocks]

<p>Thank you so much for enlightening us, WorryNoMas. But in the process, you also have no $%*#ing what you’re talking about. They’re not “Muslim-only” hours, they’re female hours. Next time you want to condescendingly call the rest of us geniuses, make sure you know what the hell you’re talking about. Other than that, good point (I’m referring to the Muslim is not a race comment). THe rest I disagree with, and for someone called Worry no mas (Worry no more), you are OVER-REACTING.</p>

[jkjkjkj]

<p>its not “muslim only”, its WOMEN ONLY, including women of ANY religion. And yes, I apologize for using the term racism, the correct term is discrimination.</p>

[TheGirlsLoveMe]

<p>Why no male-only hours?</p>

[binghamtonrocks]

<p>if you wanna request one, then go ahead. but wouldnt you be doing a disservice to all your adoring, female fans?</p>

[jkjkjkj]

<p>I agree, another group should request men only hours and see what kind of reaction they get. I assure the reaction would not be like the one with the muslim girls. And who knows, maybe some guys want men only hours to compensate. Why not, its a free country.</p>

[WorryNoMas]

<p>You’re welcome, you overzealous baffoon. </p>

<p>I believe the rules Harvard put into effect were at the behest of Muslim students. If that was not the case, then I apologize…but when the introduction to the article is “In response to a request by female Muslim students…” I’m not sure how else to take it. I’m a pretty literal guy.</p>

<p>Also, my name - WorryNoMas - refers to the college admissions process. I reserve the right to get angry about gross misinterpretations of the American system which have been perpetuated by the media and happy-go-lucky non-discrimination types.</p>

<p>Also, I read something earlier about how in America, the Land of the Free, “all religions are recognised and RESPECTED.” And that the party being argued against should “check the first amendment.”</p>

<p>The First Amendment really doesn’t really have much to do with this case. The Bill of Rights limits what the federal government (and by selective incorporation, the states) can do to inhibit certain freedoms we take to be inalienable. As I stated earlier - I think Harvard should be able to do whatever the hell it wants. It’s a private entity.</p>

<p>I really don’t think my stance is OVER-REACTING. I’m just sick of being called Muslim because I look like one (I’m Christian). And I’m sick of people confusing public and private entities. You can’t apply governmental restrictions to private entities, even though - beginning in the 1960’s - we’ve been doing a lot of that. Which is why the scenario I proposed (somewhat sarcastically, although some seem to have taken it literally) about 24 Hour Fitness…doesn’t seem too far off.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

Razorsharp: your analogies work against you here…</p>

<p>With regard to the whole Church analogy: while this is a Muslim initiative, it’s purpose is not explicitly for Muslims.

</p>

<p>You are simply wrong as a matter of fact. The article stated:

Robert Mitchell, communications director of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences.</p>

<p>“It was done for religious purposes, but it’s not closed to other women who may want to participate,” he said.

</p>

<p>Being done for religious purposes means it was done explicitly for Muslims contrary to your statement. </p>

<p>Saying that other women are not excluded does not sanitize the fact that men remain excluded. Men remain excluded because of the religious preference of Muslims.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

Why no male-only hours?

Because if a group of men asked for this, Harvard would deny the request because it reflected sexism. Just ask Larry Summers.</p>

[binghamtonrocks]

<p>Well the church is also done for a religious purpose, but it is open to people of all faiths. The gym rules were instituted for “religious purposes”, but will not be carried out for explicitly religious purpose. It will not be Muslims Females only… I know you have a problem with this, but let’s take one hurdle at a time. First, solve how to get public and private entities to stop discriminating against men by making the bathrooms nicer for women (sarcasm intended). Can these gyms be considered sexist? Yes. Is it wrong? Relative to the rest of society, No. </p>

<p>Worrynomas: Go ahead, be literal, but know what you’re talking about…</p>

<p>and this is not exactly the thread to vent about how you’re pi*sed off about being called a Muslim, but you are the literal type, so I suppose once you read “In response to a request by female Muslim students…”, you made a “literal” connection</p>

<p>“Which is why the scenario I proposed (somewhat sarcastically, although some seem to have taken it LITERALLY) about 24 Hour Fitness”</p>

<p>And here I was thinking you were the literal type…</p>

[WorryNoMas]

<p>??</p>

<p>An ability to discern sarcasm should be a legitimate expectation in any argument, whether or not one defines him- or herself as literal. The issue in online discussions is that sarcasm often doesn’t translate well to type.</p>

<p>Second of all, I’m pretty sure I said I have absolutely no problem with what Harvard’s doing. My critical point was that “Mulsim” does not refer to a race of people, and that confusing race and religion immediately gives the government a right to step in, a right I believe they do not have and should not have.</p>

<p>Thank you for zeroing in on a single word of my argument and making yourself look like an even grander nincompoop.</p>

[inkspill]

<p>

The First Amendment really doesn’t really have much to do with this case. The Bill of Rights limits what the federal government (and by selective incorporation, the states) can do to inhibit certain freedoms we take to be inalienable.

The first amendment has everything to do with this case, especially when the conversation turns to American ideals (which is what I was responding to when I made that statement). Our conception of freedom is rooted in the Bill of Rights – thus, citing the first amendment applies.

I’m sick of people confusing public and private entities. You can’t apply governmental restrictions to private entities.

Thank you for stating the obvious. You’re not the only one that knows anything about US Govt. I wasn’t implying that Harvard was subject to restrictions set forth in the constitution. What I WAS saying was in response to the comment that people ought to assimilate to American standards and culture – the first amendment reference was a reminder that all religions are (traditionally) respected, in Government and otherwise.</p>

[WorryNoMas]

<p>Oh, sorry, I only saw the particular statement (I joined the discussion late, so I was trying to get a feel for what had been happening previously). I didn’t know the discussion revolved around American ideals, in which case you’re absolutely correct. I thought you were invoking the First Amendment as direct defense for Harvard’s actions.</p>

<p>Also, I’m stating the obvious, but people are still misinterpreting my points. Maybe you understand, but not everyone does, hombre.</p>

[binghamtonrocks]

<p>You use the “literal” aspect of yourself as an excuse to stray away from the theme of the discussion, which I find ironic. </p>

<p>My point was that you should not come out running when you don’t know what you’re talking about. But you used your “literal” way of discerning things as the reason for this, which is why I harped on that. And you somehow connected the theme of this conversation to you being a Christian who looks like a Muslim…A problem in online discussions is people tend to stray off topic.</p>

<p>Kudos on the creativity of insults, you rumpfed runyon.</p>

[WorryNoMas]

<p>But the theme clearly is religion. If a rule is prompted by religious considerations, then religion is the theme. I’m sorry - literal or no, that’s the way I see the situation.</p>

<p>Morevoer, me being called a Muslim has everything to do with my main point, which is that “Muslim” shouldn’t be connected to any sort of race, real or perceived.</p>

<p>Let me just break down how the argument went:</p>

<p>I, in the most antagonistic way possible, called out a few people for using the phrase “racism” for this situation. I then elaborated on why I found this troublesome - because the government can justify increased regulation by crying racism.</p>

<p>You claimed, and continue to claim, that it’s not really a matter of religion.</p>

<p>I honestly don’t think we should be arguing anymore. We agree on my major point. The only point we disagree on is whether the “theme” of this issue is religion or not. And neither of us is going to do any real convincing there.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

I’m sick of people confusing public and private entities. You can’t apply governmental restrictions to private entities.

</p>

<p>Because Harvard receives federally backed student loan money and federal grants and other funding, it is treated, for the most part, as if it were a State government educational instution. Government restrictions apply to Harvard (eg. Title IV, etc) just as they do to UCLA.</p>

<p>Harvard’s actions in this matter are contrary to federal gender and religious discrimation laws. Unfortunately, the ACLU only supports the rights of muslims and not of white males.</p>