<p>From another thread about praying for Jahi by public school children ffrf wrote</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They also noted that 32% of Americans under the age of 30 are not religious. I’m wondering if this accommodation is being made more for parents than students.</p>
<p>^interesting quote, and relevant to this situation because the accommodation to the adherents is not a neutral act; it has a significant negative effect on the non adherents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what makes sense to me. The profs who miss the first day of class can tape their lecture. Nbd. It seems like a no-brainer versus inconveniencing everyone or limiting the break in order to accommodate a few.</p>
<p>Didn’t seem like the rule was particularly hard for the UC system to define–they’ve got a whole policy and guidelines for it. It’s pretty clear: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If somebody can demonstrate that Buddah’s birthday, or Shinto holy days, or something sacred to the FSM is their major religious holiday and interferes with move in day, they are free to do so and take advantage of this accommodation. There is no special treatment for “certain religions.”</p>
<p>Also, note this is for move-in day at residence halls. It has nothing to do with not holding classes–which are held on "major religious holidays–or at least major non-Christian religious holidays.</p>
<p>It is not hard to define in words, but it is in substance.
<p>I completely support freedom of religion, but it is supposed to be separate from State activities. The State should not interfere with the clergies schedule, and the clergy should not impact the State’s schedule.</p>
<p>The article seems to be rather incomplete about Ramadan, which is a whole month (was August 21 to September 21 in 2009).</p>
<p>The Berkeley academic calendars for 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 indicate that there was no shift for 2009-2010.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://registrar.berkeley.edu/stucal0809.html]2008-2009”>http://registrar.berkeley.edu/stucal0809.html]2008-2009</a> Student Calendar - Office Of The Registrar<a href=“SB%208/21,%20IB%208/27”>/url</a>
[url=<a href=“http://registrar.berkeley.edu/stucal0910.html]Student”>http://registrar.berkeley.edu/stucal0910.html]Student</a> Calendar 2009-2010 - Office Of The Registrar<a href=“SB%208/20,%20IB%208/26”>/url</a>
[url=<a href=“http://registrar.berkeley.edu/stucal1011.html]Student”>http://registrar.berkeley.edu/stucal1011.html]Student</a> Calendar 2010-2011 - Office Of The Registrar<a href=“SB%208/19,%20IB%208/26”>/url</a></p>
<p>SB = semester begins (which appears to be move-in day at the dorms)
IB = instruction begins</p>
<p>You could say the same thing about almost any policy, much2learn. Disability policies, for instance, require judgment calls all the time: does this particular disability warrant granting a student 50 percent extra time, or 100 %? Is a written exam a core and essential component of a course, or is a professor obliged to substitute an oral exam for students with a diagnosis that would warrant it? That doesn’t mean we should throw those policies out.</p>
<p>Populations change. There is a growing Muslim population in the US, which may warrant taking Eid into account in school calendars. Since cancelling school for the entire month of Ramadan is not a reasonable or workable policy, there is no inconsistency in granting certain other concessions but not that one. Conversely, the Jewish population is shrinking. In areas where there are very few Jewish students, I doubt that there is any thought to scheduling around HHDS - why would there be? If we get to a point where the coasts also have a negligible Jewish population, I would expect similar changes in districts that currently have the HHDs off. </p>
<p>The problem comes in when one can show evidence that the policy is being applied in a biased or preferential way. Deciding to schedule around the needs of 300 Jewish students but not 5 Muslim students may make perfect sense. If, on the other hand, you take into account the observances of your 300 Jewish students and not the 300 Muslim students, you’re going to be hard-pressed to justify that decision. </p>
<p>When you get to the extreme of “no religious exemptions EVER,” I think you’re getting into more dangerous territory. Whether you like it or not, the reality is we live in a society in which a significant number of people still possess religious beliefs that entail, to various degrees, some sense of obligation. Do we really want a world in which any person who requires any accommodation, no matter how small, for religious beliefs he sees as binding be marginalized and told to stay within his own religious enclave if he wants any consideration for his scruples? And at what point is a willingness to make exemptions for a variety of other groups or in a variety of other circumstances but pointedly not for religious adherents a form of discrimination in its own right?</p>
<p>apprenticeprof,</p>
<p>Religion and disabilities are not the same at all. There is no law about the separation of disabilities and State. No one chooses a disability. Religion is a choice.</p>
<p>Why do you think that no religious exemptions is “dangerous territory”. The State is not marginalizing anyone. They may choose to feel marginalized, but they need to take responsibility for their own actions. It is the State’s responsibility to treat everyone the same. No one’s rights should be more equal than someone else’s. The only way to do that is to not give special treatment to any religion.</p>
<p>Separation of Church and State. The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that that is the intent of the First Amendment. It does not say Separate, but you can mix a little. </p>
<p>With increasing consistency, local governments are being forced by the courts to not display nativity scenes on public property, or to allow displays by anyone.</p>
<p>To me, this is the same of situation.</p>
<p>apprenticeprof, it makes no sense to compare disabilities with religious preferences. Disabilities do not happen by choice. People CHOOSE to follow religions.</p>
<p>Obviously, cross posted with much2learn!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could making it more difficult for someone to practice his/her religious practices when not doing so is cost-free for everyone else be a prohibition on the free exercise of religion?</p>
<p>I was not drawing a comparison between the need to make disability accommodations and the need to make religious accommodations. I was specifically referring to much2learn’s contention that the UC policy was problematic because it required interpretation (was “hard to define”), which is equally true of any number of policies you could name, disability policies being one of them. Heck, it is true of the constitution: as far as I’m aware, there is currently no law that defines what a “speedy trial” is. That doesn’t mean we cannot or have not made rational interpretations of what that provision requires.</p>
<p>The Establishment Clause, in its most restrictive meaning, prevent nothing but the official establishment of a state religion. That’s all. It has been interpreted somewhat more broadly to prevent government promotion of a particular religion and, sometimes, to prevent excessive government entanglement in religion. The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the right to practice one’s religion freely. The record on whether or not the government or private entities are required to grant religious exemptions to satisfy a broader reading of the Free Exercise Clause has been mixed; some decisions have mandated exemptions, some have not. I can’t think of any case that has PROHIBITED either governments or private entities from granting exemptions. Even if there are some, it isn’t the general trend.</p>
<p>I do think there is a point at which refusing to grant any religiously based accommodation becomes discriminatory. It is one thing to say that you don’t want to give a special status to religion. It is another to single out religion as the one thing that cannot under any circumstances be accommodated. Schools make all sorts of accommodations beyond the ones that are legally required of them. Colleges allow students to reschedule exams for all sorts of reasons, including “I have too many other exams that day,” “my sister is getting married that day” and “I just came back from my grandmother’s funeral and haven’t had time to study” (these are all examples taken from personal experience). If a school will make exceptions in those cases but not for religious reasons, shame on them. And, possibly, good luck in court.</p>
<p>I already gave you the most current case examples with regard to Nativity scenes on public property. There have been several rulings that you have to allow all religions to display or no one, but you can’t grant an exemption just for Christians.</p>
<p>Quote: “It is another to single out religion as the one thing that cannot under any circumstances be accommodated.”</p>
<p>I completely agree with you. That is why none of them should be accommodated. Then no one is singled out.</p>
<p>With regard to your example of allowing someone to make up a test, I do not see a problem with someone rescheduling a test because they took a religious holiday. I do see a problem when you are closing the whole school for the religious holiday. To me, that is very different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, there have been situations where an ostensibly neutral prohibition may have been intended to discriminate against members of religions more likely to practice what is newly prohibited. For example, the French ban on wearing religious symbols in schools was widely believed to have been directed specifically against Muslim females wearing headscarves, although members of other minority religions like Sikh males wearing turbans and Jewish males wearing yarmulkes also were affected.</p>
<p>In the US, school dress codes commonly prohibit wearing hats, but make exception for religious hats (such as headscarves, turbans, and yarmulkes).
[School</a> dress code: Top ten offenses - Hats off - CSMonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2013/0930/School-dress-code-Top-10-offenses/Hats-off]School”>Hats off - CSMonitor.com)</p>
<p>^The hat/headscarf thing is completely different, of course, but I agree that prohibitions should not single out a specific group. (How long till gang members insist they have a right to wear caps at school if religious students can? Surprised we haven’t seen that one yet.)</p>
<p>Here’s a very different approach to the calendar issue being taken by another university, Stony Brook.</p>
<p>[Conflict:</a> Religious holidays or college classes? | JPost | Israel News](<a href=“http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Conflict-Religious-holidays-or-college-classes]Conflict:”>Conflict: Religious holidays or college classes? - The Jerusalem Post)</p>
<p>Again, I think the UCs are going overboard if the only issue is move-in days. Plenty of people move in early or late or without their parents’ help.</p>
<p>BCAlumnus,</p>
<p>I agree with you. It should not be used in ways that have some hidden agenda to target a particular group. </p>
<p>The approach that Princeton and other schools in your article are taking seems fair to me. No one gets special treatment and you can make up work you miss, but they are not going to close the institution for everyone’s religious holidays.</p>
<p>No, but Princeton has, to my knowledge, moved their first day of classes when what would have been their usual start date fell out on Rosh Hashanah.</p>
<p>Yes, but that moves it one day - big whoops.</p>
<p>Anecdotal, but when I asked my UC professor friends over the weekend about the impact of the shift of the quarter and having one week less of winter break, reactions ranged from “huh?” to “doesn’t make any difference to me or to any of my students.” Again anecdotal, but they said it doesn’t make a difference to the international students they know, as most of them cannot afford to go home over winter break.</p>
<p>So, I have a kid at a UC and heard nothing about this until this thread popped up. Coincidentally, we were on the phone at the time. Kiddo thinks it’s weird that school won’t start until Oct. but no big deal. The shortened winter break bothers a couple of friends who want to go home for a month. And, one girl who will now have to be on campus on her birthday. Three weeks is plenty for us since due to a job at school visits are pretty short, anyway. Also, most students have no idea why the change is happening.</p>
<p>A lot of West Coast colleges are on the quarter system and maybe to some California kids it will probably just feel like they’re all adopting a similar schedule. One of my D’s friends at Cal already says it feels weird to leave so early in the fall and hang around so long (we’re in a different Pac 12 college town) in the winter compared to his friends. Three-four weeks at winter break is plenty long enough to see family/go on vacation.</p>