Segregation and Religion: Women only?

Last updated on: June 18, 2008 at 9:19 pm by Guest Contributor

Segregation and Religion: Women only? 2008-06-18T21:19:00-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Don’t sweat it

What happens at Harvard certainly does not stay at Harvard, as demonstrated in late January this year when the College’s agreement to create women-only gym hours for Muslim women students made national headlines. The news coverage, of course, was far out of proportion to the issue itself: whether men’s access to a lightly used university athletic facility should be barred for six hours a week. The debate on the blogosphere was hot and vicious, some of it reflecting deep fears of multiculturalism. Wrote one conservative Christian blogger, “This is just the first step in surrendering, and that surrender will ultimately involve everything it means to be an American.”

While it’s easy to blame such responses on Islamophobia or knee-jerk Harvard-hating, the issues at stake—Islamic law, women’s rights, and religious accommodation—are not easily resolved. As a Muslim and former graduate adviser to the Harvard Islamic Society, I find my own sympathies surprisingly mixed.

The first problem in considering the gym debacle is how to frame it. The University is, of course, private, so none of the First Amendment issues of religion in the public square apply. “The question in this case is not about what’s legal—it’s about what is the right thing to do,” says Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C.–based program focused on freedoms of speech, religion, and the press.

To Haynes, a 1975 graduate of Harvard Divinity School, the accommodation on the gym hours is a positive one. “It shows Harvard is committed to liberty of conscience, which is a core principle of American democracy,” he says. “The fact that they are willing to look for a reasonable accommodation says to Muslim students: ‘We care about you being a part of this community.'”

Kevin (Seamus) Hasson, chairman of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public-interest law firm in Washington, D.C., pointed out two years ago in a speech defending the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions that honoring freedom of conscience is often “inconvenient” for the majority. “It may be inconvenient with military operations if somebody’s not willing to fight, [or] if somebody’s not willing to take an oath or get vaccinated,” he said. “But overall, conscience and moral principles are good things for society.”

Knowing that the inconvenient truths of conscience are hallowed American traditions, then, I want to be someone who defends conscience, and of course I feel for my Muslim brothers and sisters at Harvard, who, like Muslims elsewhere, face a lot of hostility toward their religious beliefs. Wearing a headscarf or dressing modestly is a struggle, and Muslims deserve support. But at the same time, I hesitate to endorse the College’s decision as a symbol of religious accommodation. Where will the line be drawn when it comes to religious law and Islamic law in particular? And is comfort the same thing as conscience?

A commenter at the Boston Herald website wrote on the topic: “Harvard isn’t accommodating Muslim women, many of whom already work out at the co-ed gym with no trouble. Harvard is accommodating the fundamentalists who believe in separation of the sexes and that women can’t be in the company of men who aren’t family members.” Now, women who wear headscarves or prefer women-only spaces are not wild-eyed fundamentalists. If they are like the Muslim women I knew at Harvard, they are smart, independent, and thoughtful, even while exploring and upholding their faith.

But their insistence on modest dress and a certain level of sex-segregation does refer back to classical Islamic law, and there is no getting around the fact that some aspects of that law are problematic, especially when it comes to women. What if, for example, Muslim male students requested gym hours when they could exercise without the presence of women? Such a request would seem repugnant on the face of it, yet it would be undergirded by the exact same interpretation of Islamic modesty that the Muslim women have referred to. Should the College grant such a male request, on the same basis that they have granted the female request?

Bloggers and online commentators have painted other troubling scenarios: What if a group of conservative religious students were “uncomfortable” living in a dorm with openly gay peers and requested homosexual-free housing? Or sex-segregated classrooms? What if Orthodox Jewish men did not want to share chairs with menstruating women and asked for men-only chairs?

For Haynes, these slippery-slope scenarios are not scary: Each must be worked out on a case-by-case basis, relying on the principle of “reasonable accommodation,” he says. In other words, if it’s going to cost a lot or have a heavy impact on others, the answer is no. To Haynes and those who support the women-only gym hours, the burden on other students is not so large that it outweighs the benefits of making life easier for Muslim women.

But if conscience and religious conviction demand accommodation, then I wonder if the issue here rises to the level of conscience. As the Boston Herald commenter pointed out, Muslim women at all levels of religious observance are free to use all the Harvard athletic facilities, and of course many do. Might it be more comfortable for them to be able to work out in more revealing clothes, or to know that a guy isn’t checking them out (or vice versa)? Obviously the answer is yes, or they wouldn’t be asking. But does that increased comfort level really rise to the level of conscience? In this case, I think not.

Sadly, an opportunity was missed here. As liberal Muslim blogger Ali Eteraz has pointed out, women-only gyms are very popular, as demonstrated by the popularity of the Curves franchise, and the Muslim women at Harvard could have saved a lot of grief by building a meaningful coalition with other female students, both religious and nonreligious, who want a comfortable women-only athletic space at Harvard. Instead they made their request on the basis of adherence to gender norms of Islamic law, norms I hope, in the end, that Harvard will not endorse through accommodation.

Andrea Useem, a longtime freelance journalist and creator of ReligionWriter.com, writes and produces content on religion and other topics for national news outlets. She lives in Northern Virginia with husband and three sons. This article was previously featured in the Harvard Divinity Bulletin, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Spring 2008).

Commentary

Previous Post

June 17, 2008

Terror prosecutions: Sami Al-Arian’s Catch-22

Next Post

June 20, 2008 Free speech: Something better

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2012 Elections 30 Dayd 30 Writers (2017) 30 Days 30 Writers 30 Days 30 Writers (2015) 30 Days 30 Writers (2016) 30 Days 30 Writers (2018) 30 Days 30 Writers 2017 Ali Asadullah Ali Eteraz Alper Bilgili Arthur Richards Asides Asma Uddin Black History Month Briefings Charles Turner Commentary Cyrus McGoldrick Eman H Aly Fatimah Popal Hajj Hajj and Dhul Hijjah Hesham Hassaballa Hisham Hellyer Ibrahim Abusharif Inas Younis Irfan Yusuf Jalal Baig Junaid Afeef Laila Alawa Laila Alwala Mas'ood Cajee Muqtedar Khan Nakia Jackson Newsmakers Parvez Ahmed Podcasts Rabia Chaudry Rafia Zakaria Ramadan Reviews Safiyyah Ally Saud Inam Shahed Amanullah Svend White The Opinionated Oncologist Visions Wajahat Ali Zahed Amanullah Zahir Janmohamed Zainab Khan

Select a Month November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the occupation of Lydia, the first European convert in Acts?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Seller of purple cloth Baker Fisherwoman Tentmaker