York dean has ‘regret,’ but defends religious-accommodation choice – The Globe and Mail

2014/01/14 3 Comments

As noted in an earlier post, Andrew Coyne has it right (York accommodation and Quebec values charter aren’t opposites, in fact they are the same); the problem is not the policies, laws and regulations, it is the absence of good judgement in its application:

In an interview, York provost Rhonda Lenton said if the student had made the same request for an in-class course, rather than one offered online, “I think that would be highly unlikely that the university would agree to grant such accommodation.”

After consulting York’s legal counsel and human-rights officials concerning the Ontario Human Rights Code, however, Dr. Singer also concluded that granting the accommodation “would have no substantial impact on the experience of other students.” And he suggests “the student would presumably not have enrolled” had the course not been advertised as exclusively online, even though Dr. Grayson says he knows the student has taken in-person courses at York.

“I wish I had had another choice, but neither I, nor those who advised me, believe that I did,” Dr. Singer’s letter concludes.

York dean has ‘regret,’ but defends religious-accommodation choice – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

York U Accommodation: Quebec and Other Commentary

2014/01/13 Leave a comment

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 

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

York University Accommodation Controversy

2014/01/11 Leave a comment

No surprise, that editorial and other commentary is uniformly in favour of the York U Professor Grayson and against York U Admin (University stands by controversial decision to allow female-free schooling for religious student).

National Post editorial board: Rights crusaders run amok at York University | National Post.

York professor was right to deny student’s request to work apart from women: Toronto Star Editorial

York U prof won’t let male student opt out of working with female classmates – Sun

Ottawa Citizen Editorial: Unreasonable accommodation

 What York University forgot: Gender equality is not negotiable  (Sheema Khan)

Interesting, in Quebec media only (to date), Professor Grayson was quoted in being in favour of the Quebec Charter of Values:

« Tout ceci indique qu’il y a un certain besoin pour le genre de choses qui sont débattues au Québec, lance Paul Grayson en entrevue téléphonique avec Le Devoir. Nous avons des universités publiques. Elles doivent être laïques. On ne peut pas avoir des droits religieux qui ont préséance sur les droits laïques des étudiantes. »

Un prof réclame une charte pour le Canada

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Religious accommodation or ‘accessory to sexism’? York student’s case stirs debate – The Globe and Mail

2014/01/10 Leave a comment

The request by a male student at York University in Toronto to be accommodated in his wish to not be in a study group where he would have to interact with female students has understandably attracted much controversy.

Accommodation is not an automatic right but has to be balanced against the rights of others and the broader interests of society, which include the overall mandate of universities to encourage learning, discussion and knowledge, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation etc. Professor Grayson made the right call in rejecting the request; unfortunately the Dean did not and too accommodating.

Seems to have ended up with the student accepting the Professor’s position, but still worrisome that Dr. Grayson was not backed up by the university administration:

The dean’s office told the student if he wished to drop the course, the fee would be refunded. But less than a week later, the student told Dr. Grayson he would “respect the final decision” to deny the request, was pleased with the way it had been handled, and has since met with his learning group. Even so, York has not changed its stand.

“What concerns me is that there’s an apparatus there that says this kind of thing’s okay, and you could have other students making similar requests,” Dr. Grayson said. “… There is room here for decision-making, and as far as I’m concerned, York has made the wrong decision.”

Religious accommodation or ‘accessory to sexism’? York student’s case stirs debate – The Globe and Mail.

And in Britain some similar debates about accommodation in UK university campuses for Muslim speakers who insist on separate seating for men and women (see Campus segregation: ‘religious freedom’ cannot be allowed to trump equality – Telegraph).

Agree that such accommodation in public universities is not reasonable as it undermines integration and equality:

All the more reason, then, that a fearless debate is encouraged to protect the fundamental values of a secular society. Teachings and practices in some faith schools that undermine women’s freedoms also ill prepare boys for the challenges of a modern mixed workplace. Issues such as forced arranged marriages, and domestic violence condoned by the extended family, have to be confronted, not because they are exclusive to any particular religious group, but because they are out of step with our civic life.

Segregation:our secular values need to be protected | Observer editorial | Comment is free | The Observer.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Newer posts →