Peel school board issues fact sheet to ‘quell misinformation’ on religious accommodation

2017/03/24 Leave a comment

While unlikely to change the minds of those spreading misinformation, it is nevertheless appropriate to counter misleading or inaccurate information:

The Peel District School Board issued a fact sheet Wednesday to quell “misinformation and errors” it says are circulating in the community and on social media regarding religious accommodation.

It’s the school board’s response to a campaign to end the accommodation of Muslim prayer in schools, launched by self-described “concerned parents” and Canada First, a group whose mission is to protest M-103, the federal Liberals’ “anti-Islamophobia” motion.

“The issue around religious accommodation and the legal requirement to provide prayer rooms has become confused, shall we say, by many people who are intentional in spreading misinformation,” board chair Janet McDougald told the Star.

“By putting it out in print . . . and communicating the actual facts, we’re hoping it will clarify the issue.

“But we are under no delusions that those that wish to spread prejudice and hate will continue to do so. I believe they have intentionally targeted this issue around religious accommodation to create unease.”

Parents behind the online petition declined to comment to the Star.

“Quite frankly, our board meeting agendas have been monopolized and disrupted by these very loud, albeit a minority, of people,” said McDougald. “There’s so much noise around this subject that people haven’t had the opportunity to sit down and say what this is really about.”

The school board doesn’t track how many Muslim students take part in Friday prayers.

“It varies by school,” said board spokesperson Brian Woodland. “Some have none, some have a few, some might have a hundred. Not all Muslim students request (to participate). It’s not a significant number compared to the student population.”

Religious accommodation, the fact sheet says, is required under the Ontario Human Rights Code. McDougald said the board has also had “several legal opinions about it and we’re on very firm ground here.”

The fact sheet points out that religious accommodation has been taking place in Peel schools for over 15 years.

“The Peel board does not tolerate any campaigns that discriminate against a faith,” the sheet says.

It has been “frustrating and disheartening” to see hatred and prejudice toward a single faith group disguised in a supposed campaign about religion in schools, the board said in a public statement.

“This is a campaign against Islam — counter to the laws of the country, the Ontario Human Rights Code and our board values.”

Source: Peel school board issues fact sheet to ‘quell misinformation’ on religious accommodation | Toronto Star

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

In a Case of Religious Dress, US Justices Explore the Obligations of Employers – NYTimes.com

2015/02/27 Leave a comment

US Supreme Court hearings on religious accommodation (the Abercrombie & Fitch case):

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Wednesday warned that “this is going to sound like a joke,” and then posed an unusual question about four hypothetical job applicants. If a Sikh man wears a turban, a Hasidic man wears a hat, a Muslim woman wears a hijab and a Catholic nun wears a habit, must employers recognize that their garb connotes faith — or should they assume, Justice Alito asked, that it is “a fashion statement”?

The question arose in a vigorous Supreme Court argument that explored religious stereotypes, employment discrimination and the symbolism of the Muslim head scarf known as the hijab, all arising from a 2008 encounter at Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Okla.

Samantha Elauf, then 17, sought a job in a children’s clothing store owned by Abercrombie & Fitch. She wore a black head scarf but did not say why.

The company declined to hire her, saying her scarf clashed with the company’s dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.” The desired look, Justice Alito said, was that of “the mythical preppy.”

…In response to Justice Alito’s question about the four hypothetical applicants, Shay Dvoretzky, a lawyer for the company, conceded that some kinds of religious dress presented harder questions, but he said the court should require applicants to raise the issue of religious accommodations.

Several justices suggested that an employer should simply describe its dress code and ask if it posed a problem. That would shift the burden to the applicant, they said. If the applicant then raised a religious objection, the employer would be required to offer an accommodation so long as it did not place an undue burden on the business.

That approach, Mr. Dvoretzky said, would itself require stereotyping.

But Justice Elena Kagan said that the approach was the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, it could require an “awkward conversation,” she said. “But the alternative to that rule is a rule where Abercrombie just gets to say, ‘We’re going to stereotype people and prevent them from getting jobs.’ ”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg added that Ms. Elauf had not even known that her hijab was a problem.

“How could she ask for something when she didn’t know the employer had such a rule?” Justice Ginsburg said.

In a Case of Religious Dress, Justices Explore the Obligations of Employers – NYTimes.com.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Op-Ed: When gender equality should trump religious accommodation

2014/01/25 Leave a comment

Another example of fuzzy thinking. If we do not allow accommodation for a male student requesting only working with male students, we should not allow accommodation for female students requesting only being with females. I agree equality does not necessarily mean identical treatment, but I fail to see why we would accommodate such a request.

What message does it say to other female students? What message to male students? What if the request was based on race or faith?:

Some have asked, well what if it was a female student who made the request because she didn’t want to attend a class with non-family men due to a religious belief? I think that accommodation request should be permitted. Equality in human rights does not mean identical treatment (formal equality). It means equal effects, or what is known as substantive equality. Equality also permits temporary special measures which, recognizing past and systemic inequities, can be applied to give women opportunities to meaningfully participate and offset, to the extent possible, factors which would otherwise exclude or limit women’s participation in any sphere — be it the family, the marriage, the workplace, in health care or in education.

Op-Ed: When gender equality should trump religious accommodation.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,