Before beginning, I must allow for a disclaimer concerning the opinion that I am about to discuss. I wholly oppose any and all forms of sexism, and I do not condone any sort of action that propagates sexist ideas or stereotypes. At the same time, I am also supportive of religious equality and respecting the faith of others, especially when they wish to continue practicing in public environments. However, there are times when these two issues can appear to be contradictory— one such case being the recent ethical struggle concerning a York University student’s request to be excused from a mandatory group project, claiming that his religious beliefs did not allow for him to interact in such a manner with women. While the professor of the course wished to refuse the student’s request, the Dean of the Faculty thought that York University was obliged to accommodate the student’s request.
At first glance, this scenario appears to be simply an example of a religious practice directly inhibiting equality for a minority group— a well-heard story when it comes to members of sexual and gender minorities, ethnicities, and religious beliefs. However, the situation is not as black-and-white as advocators for either group might believe. As previously mentioned, there are definite moments of contradiction when striving for equality, and the way we handle such moments is a very important matter in achieving equality for all. Delicacy is crucial— immediately declaring one side as wrong only pleases a portion of those involved, and ostracizes the rest.
This exchange is rather extraordinary when one considers the ways the parties involved reacted at different points in the exchange. When refused his request, the student supposedly was very understanding and polite about the matter, accepting his responsibility to continue with the course and project. This is not the typical picture that we often see painted of religious individuals whose practices hinge on controversy. While it is impossible to speak on behalf of the student based solely on this fact, it does suggest that the student was in no way basing his request on some sort of misogynist mentality. Motivation is paramount in the ethics of anything— very different judgements are passed on people who attack in self-defence versus premeditated assault. Likewise, what issue should we have with the student’s request if it is, as he described, based solely on religious grounds, and not because he views women as lesser people than men?
Despite the young man’s complacency with the professor’s decision, the Dean’s decision that his request be granted also is a rather strange one. If both professor and student had agreed upon the decision, why drag out the affair any longer? The simple answer is that he likely saw the matter as one beyond the scope of an isolated event— it is an event that has reached the public eye, and as such needed to be dealt with in a way that could set an example for similar encounters in the future, and present a positive image of the university.
Obviously, York University does not want to portray itself as a culturally insensitive place, but by the same token it would not want to participate in blatant sexism. As such, the response should not be seen as the University just attempting to portray itself in a particular politically positive light, but rather as an act of open-mindedness, showing that just as much as the student was willing to understand and concede to the professor’s point of view, the university was willing to understand and concede to the student’s point of view.
Compromise is an important tactic in any sort of negotiation, as is attempting to understand the perspective of the opposing opinion. If we cannot talk maturely and diplomatically about issues, we cannot hope to discuss matters of more significance than mere school projects. Other controversial topics concerning religion desperately need to be addressed as well— ones with serious consequences, such as doctrines that prevent the performing of live-saving medical procedures, or belief systems that promote the abuse or mistreatment of our fellow human beings. Merely declaring these issues as “unacceptable” and fighting against the respective religion is not going to fix them. People have tried this tactic since the first time such issues have come to light; clearly, a new tactic is needed. Peaceful discussions and intelligent conversation should pave the way to universal equality.
Religion is always a difficult topic to handle and discuss, but that does not mean we can so hastily close conversations whenever it is brought up. There are many important discussions to be had that involve religion, including matters of equality for minorities. Contradictions may make dealing with these issues seem impossible, but the key is to find an open, common ground on which matters can be discussed. Recognizing the existence and possible validity of both opinions is step one in establishing this— and this is exactly what York University achieves by seeking to permit the student’s request.
Leave a Reply