Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Discriminating in a non-discriminating way
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, March 06, 2008

I have to admit I'm confused by all of this:
Six times a week, Harvard kicks all the guys out of the Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center at the request of the Harvard Islamic Society. This is to accommodate those female Muslim students whose faith won’t let them work out in front of men.

In the old days, Harvard would have laughed if some Catholic or evangelical mother urged “girls-only” campus workouts in the name of modesty. Today, Harvard happily implements Sharia swim times in the name of Mohammed.

At Harvard, that’s called progress.
So the lesson here is discrimination is sometimes ok, right?

Really that should come as no surprise. We do still have Affirmative Action, don't we?

But wait - isn't the whole point of not discriminating for any reason so that others won't feel excluded? Isn't inclusion one of the most important parts of the "progressive" ideology as taught by liberal academia?

See, that's where this all gets murky. On the one hand, we're told that discrimination is just bad. And history is dutifully trotted out to show us examples of this "badness."

On the other we see the same institutions which are telling us that discrimination is bad using discrimination routinely (AA) and abetting it in cases where favored minorities request it - such as the 'girls only' hours at the gym.

So when the "discrimination is bad" mantra meets the "girls only" gym hours, the confusion it creates is bound to be evident.

I mean, look at this:
When I asked Harvard spokesman Bob Mitchell about this new Sharia-friendly policy, he denied that they were banning anyone. “No, no,” he told me, “we’re permitting women to work out in an environment that accommodates their religion.”

By banning all men from the facility, right?

“It’s not ‘banning,’ ” he insisted. “We’re allowing, we’re accommodating people.”
Ah, so not "accommodating" everyone is actually "accommodating" someone and that's good?

*blink*

This from an institution which is considered to be one of "higher learning".
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
One of the reasons I agreed with Rush’s attempt to keep Hillary in the race, well the primary and most compelling reason, is that it allows different denominations of the church of identity politics to continue to thrash each other. The only way the left will ever acknowledge the lunacy of identity politics is if they are fighting themselves because of it.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
And this is what passes for leftist thought:
When I asked Harvard spokesman Bob Mitchell about this new Sharia-friendly policy, he denied that they were banning anyone. "No, no," he told me, "we’re permitting women to work out in an environment that accommodates their religion."

By banning all men from the facility, right?

"It’s not ’banning,’ " he insisted. "We’re allowing, we’re accommodating people."
Pure spin.

And the whole thing you said about their reaction if a Christian group were to request woman only gym hours for the sake of modesty? Yeah. Sure. Youbetcha.

I note also (Knowing Muslims) that the fact that their men aren’t supposed to work out with women was never even brought up by the Muslim Student’s Association. Because they knew it would be easier to do the whole divide and conquer routine by appealing to "protecting their women."

Jeez. Words fail me. This is so transparent, and those left-wing MORONS are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker to brownnose and pander to a minority group.

Sickening. Purely sickening.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
What this boils down to is what I’ve been saying for years...anything that isn’t part of the American culture, gets boosted. Anything that is, gets dumped.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
When I asked Harvard spokesman Bob Mitchell about this new Sharia-friendly policy, he denied that they were banning anyone. "No, no," he told me, "we’re permitting women to work out in an environment that accommodates their religion."

By banning all men from the facility, right?

"It’s not ’banning,’ " he insisted. "We’re allowing, we’re accommodating people."
So this would appear to be the green light for Kappa Kappa Kappa House to "accomodate" only white, Christian students...

They aren’t banning minorities and non-christians, they are accomodating people!!
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Just for clarity’s sake, do you actually have some objection to having six hours of women only at the gym per week? Or is this just another installment of "hypocritical liberals aren’t being liberal"?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Or is this just another installment of "hypocritical liberals aren’t being liberal"?
It doesn’t surprise me, particularly, that you’re unable to see any deeper than that.

Here, consider - "Well, you accommodated us in the gym, why can’t we have separate classrooms for women and men? Our religion forbids men and women studying together".

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"Well, you accommodated us in the gym, why can’t we have separate classrooms for women and men? Our religion forbids men and women studying together".


Or

"Our religion forbids women to speak to men to whom they arent married so they can only have female teachers no matter what classes they are studying"

or

"the call to prayer has to be sounded on campus 5 times per day so that we know when to pray"

Or

"our religiion forbids us to interact with infidels so you have to accomodate us on seperate sports teams for Muslims, seperate clubs for muslims, assignments can only be graded with the muslim religion in mind, etc etc etc"



 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
When I asked Harvard spokesman Bob Mitchell about this new Sharia-friendly policy, he denied that they were banning anyone. "No, no," he told me, "we’re permitting women to work out in an environment that accommodates their religion."

By banning all men from the facility, right?

"It’s not ’banning,’ " he insisted. "We’re allowing, we’re accommodating people."
Wow. That’s just so beautiful I want to frame it.
 
Written By: ck
URL: http://
Just for clarity’s sake, do you actually have some objection to having six hours of women only at the gym per week? Or is this just another installment of "hypocritical liberals aren’t being liberal"?
Retief, do you believe that if a group of Christian women had told the university that they needed to exercise apart from men according to their religious beliefs, that the university would have granted their request?

That said, I have no problem with some hours being women only, or some being men only. In fact, I’d have no problem with separate gyms for men and women, for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with religion. The issue isn’t making the gym off-limits for men for a short time, it’s favoring one religious group when you know darned well they wouldn’t do the same for another group.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
It is not surprising that left cannot take this mental exercise to its logical conclusion. You can substitute any groups you wish.

Whites uncomfortable with Blacks-
Blacks uncomfortable with Whites-
Arabs uncomfortable with Jews-
Straights uncomfrotable with Gays-
Gays uncomfortable with Straights-
etc, etc, etc...... ad naseum

But none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
Just for clarity’s sake, do you actually have some objection to having six hours of women only at the gym per week? Or is this just another installment of "hypocritical liberals aren’t being liberal"?
Well, yeah, in fact I do. The fact that there is liberal hypocrisy is just a bonus; and the recreation value in the mental and semantic gymnastics you lefty b@$t@rdS go to get there is most entertaining. I know it should be old by now, but watching ’tards like the guy in the above example insist that something is other than what it is if he just describes it differently is like being in a Lewis Carroll book. Hell, I stopped doing acid over twenty years ago, and this is instant flashback.

Little wonder you’re so snarky, Retief - examples of the above aren’t merely fishing in a barrel. It’s grenade fishing in a barrel.

Let’s try this from the top, though. Say I’m a student at the university. I pay a fee, usually called an "Activity fee" (YMMV) for access to such student services.

FOR THE WHOLE STUDENT BODY.

I have classes, I work, and one of the few times I get to myself is my Gym time.

Oooooooooooooooooops! I show up one day and "No men allowed!" But .. but ... this is the only time I have available!

Sheet outta luck.

Now, we can’t even put up a representation of Mosaic law to look at. Because this will "offend" the delicate sensibilities of some people. But I am losing my gym time to ENACT a portion of Mohammedan law? Remember, Retief - this is a religious law. Being imposed on people who are not of that faith.

So - once again - I ask people not to put their Ten Commandments on my public property (Well, mine too, but), and tell them to build their own shrines if they want to view them. So I see no difference when I tell some Islamic to keep his Sharia law off my public property, and if they want to follow it, build their own damn gym.

Hope it’s clear. Maybe not. I usually find when people start embracing principles combined with clarity of thought, and moral, intellectual, and philosophical consistency is when they grow up and stop being liberals.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
More, Gonzo... it’s the logical extension of what we’ve been complaining about all along as regards ’discrimination’. It’s not that discrimination exists, that bothers the left so, it’s what, exactly, is being discriminated against, and who gets to make those choices.

Thus do the majority of complaints about religion in public life, on the basis of the mythical seperation, get labeled a lie.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Here’s what nobody except Steyn seems to understand- the Shariaistas are playing the long game. They are implementing sharia in small incremements, segregated gym hours here, cabbies refusing to transport passengers carrying alcohol there, "sensitivity" all over.

And Western culture is dead. We can’t win because we don’t care.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
“It’s not ‘banning,’ ” he insisted. “We’re allowing, we’re accommodating people.”
Soooo... the white lunch counters under Jim Crow were accommodating white people, not banning black people? I don’t buy it.
 
Written By: Phelps
URL: http://phelps.donotremove.net
Phelps,

Best comment ever.

How about a surcharge on the activity fee, for women only, in recognition of the additional gym hours available only to them?

How about refunding the portion of the student activity fee that supports the gym to Muslim women? Let them go to Curves or whatever.

Next, Harvard will refund fees to Catholics that support activities they deem sinful.

The Jews get a refund on the bacon served in the cafeteria.

Conservatives pay no speakers fees for liberal activists.

Let me make this fair for everyone, please.
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
Soooo... the white lunch counters under Jim Crow were accommodating white people, not banning black people? I don’t buy it.
That’s because you’re not a 21st century American Liberal.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Nice slippery slope McQ, but you offer no explanation of why more extreme demands would follow, or be accomodated.

Steverino,
The issue isn’t making the gym off-limits for men for a short time, it’s favoring one religious group when you know darned well they wouldn’t do the same for another group.
I don’t know, why does Harvard’s winter break happen to coincide with a major Christian holiday?

The Gonzaman, Harvard has more than one gym. It’s a rich school.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Nice slippery slope McQ, but you offer no explanation of why more extreme demands would follow, or be accomodated.
Because there is a precedent, for heaven sake. That’s the power of the "accommodation" for the requester. I can’t foresee the future, but it is certainly set up in favor of those asking for such accommodation if they choose to push it.

And, other than whim, there is no good argument to be made against such a further accommodation.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I don’t know, why does Harvard’s winter break happen to coincide with a major Christian holiday?
Red herring alert!

Which Christian group asked for the winter break to be scheduled accordingly, and when was the schedule changed to accommodate them? That has nothing to do with reserving campus facilities exclusively for one group.

And you didn’t answer my question about Christian women asking for the gym to be closed to men....do I hear the sound of ducks?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
I don’t know, why does Harvard’s winter break happen to coincide with a major Christian holiday?
Because the US has a long tradition as an essentially Christian nation. It’s already "built in", although I’m sure there are those who would like to change it.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Steverino, the fact that Christians didn’t even have to ask suggests just how deep US institutions’ accomodation of one particular religion goes. I’m not saying that’s bad, just that you’re blind to it, because, as Don says, it’s built in. On to your question. Is there some christian sect that both forbids women excercising with men and sends women students to Harvard? If so I’m sure they’ll be able to make great friend’s with the Muslim women using the gym, and maybe they’ll organize on other campuses to ask for such a thing. I imagine they’ll get much the same reaction.

McQ, there are tons of good arguments if you choose to make them. Classroom space is tighter than time in the gym. Mixed sex classes allow a greater diversity of thought, which Harvard prizes. Doubled classes would mean doubled teachers, which costs more. etc. etc. etc. This kind of fretting about future dominos falling will always depend on subjective estimates of domino tippiness.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits granting federal funding for agencies who discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.

If I were a male Harvard student, I would file a civil rights complaint against Harvard for gender discrimination. There is no difference between having "whites only" hours and "females only" hours. It is institutional discrimination which is prohibited by law.

Harvard receives far more from the federal, state and local governments than from Arab petroleum leaches.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
On to your question. Is there some christian sect that both forbids women excercising with men and sends women students to Harvard? If so I’m sure they’ll be able to make great friend’s with the Muslim women using the gym, and maybe they’ll organize on other campuses to ask for such a thing. I imagine they’ll get much the same reaction.
You dodged the question again. The question was that if a group of Christian women had told the university it was against their beliefs to excersize in the presence of men, do you think the university would have granted the request? This question, to anyone with more than one fuctioning brain cell, implies that the Muslim women had never made their request. It does NOT, as you wrongfully inferred, propose that Christian women "piggyback" their request with Muslim women. Now, try it again, and don’t be so dishonest about it.
Steverino, the fact that Christians didn’t even have to ask suggests just how deep US institutions’ accomodation of one particular religion goes. I’m not saying that’s bad, just that you’re blind to it, because, as Don says, it’s built in.
Actually, the history of the winter break is such that you’d have to admit that it now has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. That fact that it’s no longer called "Christmas Vacation" should give you a clue. In fact, if the university were to announce that finals week would begin on Christmas Day, there would be more grumbling about the day being a national holiday than about it being a religious feast. Even with the grumbling, students and faculty would show up for finals.

As far as other US institutions accommodation of Christian beliefs, I dare say that were the federal government to declare that December 25th was no longer a national holiday, the outrage would come not from Christians but from retailers.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
McQ, there are tons of good arguments if you chose to make them.
And you have yet to refute one of them.

Still in deflection mode and not looking good, retief.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Steverino, what part of "I imagine they’ll get much the same reaction" did you fail to understand?
history of the winter break is such that you’d have to admit that it now has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. That fact that it’s no longer called "Christmas Vacation" should give you a clue.
Do you mean the history during which it was called a Christmas vacation?

McQ, why would I want to refute a hypothetical argument against hypothetical further requests for accomodation of sex seperation? I’m not the one suggesting that this slope is so slippery that we need to wring our hands at this (purportedly first) step.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
McQ, why would I want to refute a hypothetical argument against hypothetical further requests for accomodation of sex seperation?
Well for one thing you can’t without looking rather foolish. And that’s obvious to anyone watching you squirm right now.

But please - continue.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Maybe by the term "’higher’ learning" they meant they were stoned at the time.
 
Written By: Rich Horton
URL: http://www.iconicmidwest.blogspot.com
Nice slippery slope McQ, but you offer no explanation of why more extreme demands would follow, or be accomodated.
Because worldwide such has been the pattern of caving in to Muslim demands for more and more accomodation.
I don’t know, why does Harvard’s winter break happen to coincide with a major Christian holiday?
Let’s see.

On the one hand we have a winter break consisting of two or more weeks in which a single day within there is a major holiday for Western Christianity, but to which all students are entitled to time off, none are denied services on the basis of that religion, none are excluded from public access, etc. etc. etc.

And on the other hand, we have a specific request to deny a portion of the public normal access to facilities provided with public funds, made by a religious group, specifically for religious purposes.

Not even apples and oranges, mate. That would give your ridiculous analogy far too much credence. Perhaps apples and cinder-blocks.
The Gonzaman, Harvard has more than one gym. It’s a rich school.


Excellent. Perhaps we should use that "logic" to allow the return of Jim Crow in a few limited establishments, provided that we have a large and/or rich enough city to make sure that "Hey, there are other lunch counters."

If it is such a "rich" school, surely rich people go there. Perhaps some of those rich folks (Hint: Limousine Liberals) could pony up some money for some after hours staffing at the gym - or, hey! Even open your own to cater to the Muslims?
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
Forget sex seperation.

Address the issue of what would happen were Christians to make such a request of the school. Retief, care to take a whack at it?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Foolish? You might need to listen to Michael Jackson and take a look at the man in the mirro on that one. Allow me to recap.

Me: what’s your real problem with this?
McQ: Next thing you know they’ll be asking for seperate classrooms.
Me: So it’s a slippery slope? What makes you so wure it’s that slippery?
McQ: If you say yes once, you have only whims as reasons to say no the next time.
Me: That’s not true, here are three other reasons.
McQ: And you haven’t refuted any of them.
Me: Uh. You’re right about that. Why would I?
McQ: Because you can’t without looking foolish.

The mouth moves. The tongue waggles. But no sense comes out.

Bithead, the request was for sex seperation. Surely we can’t forget that as we consider your hypothetical. As I suggested earlier, I see no reason to believe that a request by a group of Christian women who were forbiddden by their religious beliefs from using the gym with men wouldn’t recieve the same attention that this one from Muslims recieved.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Foolish? You might need to listen to Michael Jackson and take a look at the man in the mirro on that one. Allow me to recap.

Me: what’s your real problem with this?
McQ: Next thing you know they’ll be asking for seperate classrooms.
Me: So it’s a slippery slope? What makes you so wure it’s that slippery?
McQ: If you say yes once, you have only whims as reasons to say no the next time.
Me: That’s not true, here are three other reasons.
McQ: And you haven’t refuted any of them.
Me: Uh. You’re right about that. Why would I?
McQ: Because you can’t without looking foolish.
Good recap and it still appears to be true.
In Australia, Muslim students (mostly Saudi citizens) asked Melbourne universities to adjust class times to fit in with their daily prayers. They also requested female-only recreational areas on campus.
Still slippin’ and slidin’ retief? Suddenly it’s not so hypothetical, is it?

So now, go ahead and refute it since you’re so keen to do so.

BTW, one of the institutions where these demands were made actually did the right thing:
One institution rejected their demands outright. "That would seriously inconvenience other people at the college and it is not institutionally viable," La Trobe University’s Martin Van Run told The Australian.
Tell us why that’s wrong, retief. Tell us why they should have chosen to discriminate, er, accommodate those demands, ok?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The admirable Martin Van Run proves my point. One can easily refuse a request that would seriously inconvenience other people at the college and it is not institutionally viable, even after having granted a request that doesn’t particularly inconvenience anyone, and is institutionally viable. The fear that one will have no way to refuse further, less reasonable requests turns out to be overblown, and not a useful rationale upon which to hang opposition to a reasonable request.

Oh and please tell me you didn’t just refer me to Horowitz hysterical shrieking.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
The admirable Martin Van Run proves my point.
He doesn’t even come close to your point, but certainly makes mine.

Harvard caved and can’t justify it. And, as is seen in the quote provided, gyms lead to adjusted class times, or the other way around, if you cave.

Slippery slope. Precedent. No way to justify refusal after you allow the first.
Oh and please tell me you didn’t just refer me to Horowitz hysterical shrieking.
Deflection. Martin Van Run was in the same article but that was fine when you thought he was perfectly suitable for your purposes, didn’t you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
OK McQ, how, pray tell, does Mr. Van Run’s actual refusal of a request prove that there is "no way to justify refusal after you allow the first"? What would prevent Harvard from making the same answer he made to such a further request? How would having a few women only gym hours interfere in that argument?

Were there any indications in the article that any Austrailian universities had "caved"? Or that these requests were not simultaneous? No. One of these dominoes toppling the next was entirely in your mind.

Deflection Schmeflection. Horowitz is a loon.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
OK McQ, how, pray tell, does Mr. Van Run’s actual refusal of a request prove that there is "no way to justify refusal after you allow the first"?
Wha?

His refusal has nothing to do with that.
What would prevent Harvard from making the same answer he made to such a further request?
Because they have no logical grounds for such a refusal after granting the first except, as I mentioned earlier, whim. Is this really that hard for you to understand?
What would prevent Harvard from making the same answer he made to such a further request?
I just told you "what". This is hard for you to understand, isn’t it?
Were there any indications in the article that any Austrailian universities had "caved"? Or that these requests were not simultaneous? No. One of these dominoes toppling the next was entirely in your mind.
What on earth are you babbling on about? This has nothing to do with whether other institutions caved. It has to do with Harvard caving and their difficulty now in denying any further requests.

I hope you don’t operate machinery or drive a car in this condition.
Deflection Schmeflection. Horowitz is a loon.
Whether true or not, that has nothing to do with my point that the article you’re decrying was used by you as an argument when you thought it suited your purpose.

Deflection.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
His refusal has nothing to do with that.
No Kidding. And as that is your point, he certainly doesn’t make it.
Because they have no logical grounds for such a refusal after granting the first except, as I mentioned earlier, whim.
Hold on, what are the logical grounds Mr. Van Run mentions? 1. That would seriously inconvenience other people. And 2. it is not institutionally viable. Not institutionally viable just means we ain’t gonna do it, but seriously inconveninece other people can apply perfectly well to scheduling around five daily prayers or adding seperate classes but not to setting out six hours of the week in one of several gyms for women. In what way does saying yes to something that doesn’t seriouly inconvenience anyone oblige one to say yes to something that does discomode other people? Your continued insitence that you can’t say no to sex once you’ve said yes to a kiss is kind of nuts.

Please consider these two comments you just made and try to reconcile them.
And, as is seen in the quote provided, gyms lead to adjusted class times, or the other way around, if you cave.
Were there any indications in the article that any Austrailian universities had "caved"? Or that these requests were not simultaneous? No. One of these dominoes toppling the next was entirely in your mind.
What on earth are you babbling on about? This has nothing to do with whether other institutions caved. It has to do with Harvard caving and their difficulty now in denying any further requests.
Nothing has in fact, as you note, led to anything. And there is no such difficulty.

Your acknowledgement of Horowitz’s looniness gives me hope for you yet.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider