Canada takes pride and is known for its multiculturalism and tolerance of many different beliefs. So much so, that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted to protect these beliefs. Furthermore, the charter also includes the guarantee of sexual and racial equality amongst Canadian citizens. So, what happens when two of these clash? Well, this happened recently at York University when a student taking a sociology class asked to be excused from a group project because his beliefs said he was not allowed to work with women. The professor teaching the course, Dr. Paul Grayson, disallowed the request, while the Dean of Arts demanded that he accommodate the student. In this instance, the professor got this delicate ruling correct and the university is completely in the wrong.
To really delve into why Professor Grayson was correct, there are a few details that will need to be clarified.
First, although the charter grants the right to have any religious belief that one wishes, there have been a number of court rulings that have defined some of the technicalities behind this. In this case, we can refer to the ruling Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem. In this ruling, precedent was set so that if the courts believe that a practice that someone has is attached to their religion, they then may ask if that belief follows the charter. In relation to the York case, the student agreed to comply with Professor Grayson’s decision to have him still complete the group project. Since the student did not dispute the decision, the belief was not strong enough to justify enforcing it under the charter, which was the primary argument by the university to allow for it.
Second, the university argued that because Professor Grayson allowed another student who happened to be out of the country to be exempt from this assignment, that the religious accommodation should be allowed. The key problem with this assertion is that the circumstances are completely different. Since the course in question is offered online, it is assumed that the course can be taken remotely. In this case, there was an exception to that and it was handled appropriately. Having a belief that one can’t work with women is contradictory to attending a university, especially one with over 70 per cent of its populace being female like York is.
Third, as many have opined, what would the decision have been if the student said that his beliefs said he could not work with Asian people or with Muslims? If this was the case, the circumstances would not be any different. The student’s religious beliefs would still be discriminatory against a group of individuals (albeit a race or religion and not gender). Regardless of what the student believed, there is no place in public institutions for religious beliefs to be considered discriminatory against another group of people.
Another thing to consider with this controversy is how Professor Grayson came to his decision to disallow the religious accommodation for his course.
Professor Grayson first consulted both Orthodox Judaic and Islamic religious leaders to determine whether either of those religions, which he thought the student could be a part of based on his name, had rules that followed his request. Neither religion forbade interaction with women, just specific circumstances in regards to body contact. The course being taught was a sociology course, not first aid or athletics course. Therefore, this request appeared to be outside the normal beliefs of either of the suspected religions of the student.
Additionally, Professor Grayson consulted with his departmental colleagues on the issue to ensure that he was not biased in the situation. His department overwhelming agreed with the decision and as a whole the department passed a resolution that stated that “accommodations for students will not be made if they contribute to material or symbolic marginalizations of other students, faculty or teaching assistants.”
So the question remains of why the university, even after due process by Professor Grayson and the student agreeing to accept the professor’s decision, still demanded that the accommodation be met. Furthermore, this begs the question of how far should schools and other institutions go to accommodate similar religious beliefs in this nature.
In this case, the sociology department at York University got it right. If one person has a belief that discriminates against a group of individuals, there should be no accommodation made. Let’s even consider different circumstances.
What if there was a world-class surgeon that was one of a few people in the world that could perform a life saving surgery and he refused to operate on anyone that wasn’t white and Christian? Would the hospital that he worked at accommodate him just because he was an exceptional surgeon or would they refuse to let him continue working there? If this occurred in Canada and the accommodation was allowed, heads would roll at the hospital. So regardless of the circumstances, these accommodations are completely inappropriate in Canada, even with people twisting the charter to protect them.
To conclude, Professor Paul Grayson was completely correct in disallowing one of his students to be exempt from a group project because his beliefs did not allow him to work with women. Using religion as the basis for discrimination is not protected under the charter and considering that the student accepted Professor Grayson’s decision, should not be protected as a strong belief. Allowing for any accommodations that are discriminatory in nature is contrary to what makes Canada a tolerant and great place to live.
Leave a Reply