York U Accommodation: Quebec and Other Commentary

More on the York University accommodation case.

No surprise, but Minister Drainville tries to portray Quebec as ahead of the curve, and that similar debates over approaches will occur in English Canada. He misses the point: debate over what is reasonable will always occur, the question is whether, and how far, one can codify this or handle issues on a case-by-case basis, subject to laws, regulations, and values. Ontario rejected sharia (and other faith-based) religious tribunals and funding for faith-based schools. While the risk of ad hoc case-by-case approaches is that sometimes administrators will get it wrong (as did York), government charters will likely get it more wrong, impacting more people, as the QC charter indicates.

Religious rights controversy will spread across Canada, PQ minister warns – The Globe and Mail.

Drainville also has an interview stating that the Charter is an indispensable tool to against fundamentalism. But why such a broad approach if it is really the small percentage of fundamentalists in all religions?

Charte de la laïcité: «Indispensable» contre l’intégrisme

Andrew Coyne reminds us that judgement, not trying to codify everything, is a better approach. Professor Grayson exercised good judgement, York U administration did not, particularly given that part of their mission statement includes:

A community of faculty, students, staff, alumni and volunteers committed to academic freedom, social justice, accessible education, and collegial self-governance, York University makes innovation its tradition.

York accommodation and Quebec values charter aren’t opposites, in fact they are the same

The Globe editorial, while raising some valid points (the sky is not falling over this request) and ends up on the correct note, nevertheless views this as a complex case, in addition to slamming Justice Minister MacKay for his jingoistic – but correct – response:

What has been overlooked to some degree is the fact that, when the student was initially turned down, he accepted the decision and agreed to attend the online course’s group session. York officials were right to reconsider the student’s request after the professor’s refusal. Their decision to accommodate him, on the grounds that the course is online, is not something we support, but it’s not inherently objectionable – especially because the school implied it would not have made the same decision if the request had come from a student taking a regular, in-class course. This is a hard case, on which reasonable people can and do disagree. What cannot be in dispute is this: York’s decision is not a slippery slope leading to segregated classrooms.

Reasonable accommodation at York is not a slippery slope