How would you feel if women were excluded from a Washington University facility in order to accommodate the wishes of a religious minority? Some might laud the University’s commitment to religious and cultural pluralism, while others would probably object to what appeared to be discrimination and the unacceptable encroachment of religion into the lives of others.

While merely a thought experiment here at Wash. U., the issue is not at all imaginary for students at Harvard.

Recently, Harvard administrators decided to establish “women’s only” hours at one of Harvard’s three gyms in order to respect the beliefs of female Muslim students, who don’t wish to be seen in immodest workout clothes by men. Mondays from 3 to 5 p.m. and Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8 to 10 a.m. are now off-limits if you’ve got a Y chromosome.

Before examining the significance of this event, it is important to first point out what is not at issue.

First, what is important about this event is not that a university is making an effort to accommodate religious views and practices. No one is (or should be) upset by the presence of the Catholic Student Center or the provision of kosher meal plans at Wash. U. Furthermore, a moment’s thought about the scheduling of breaks for all universities makes it obvious that, right or wrong, Christianity is accorded a special status-our between-semester break does not occur during Passover, Yom Kippur or Ramadan.

Second, attempts to co-opt this incident into the larger “clash of civilizations” narrative about the West and Islam are nothing but sensationalistic.

As Harvard student Sahil K. Mahtani pointed out in the political magazine The New Republic, the administrators responsible for the policy acted largely independently of Muslim students, who were unaware of what was happening until it was nearly finalized.

Mahtani is right to say that “this clearly wasn’t Harvard ‘capitulating’ to Islam, considering how minimally Muslim students were involved in the decision.” The journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan, with whom I often agree and respect, is therefore mistaken when he declares this to be an imposition of “sharia at Harvard.”

Sullivan does, however, raise an interesting point when he asks, “What’s next? Removing all gay men from the locker room?” This comparison fails in some respects-for one thing, this would be difficult to enforce, because sexual preference is less salient than sex or gender -but the principle is the same.

What is to be done if respecting the religious beliefs of one group requires an infringement on the freedoms of others? If religious freedom conflicts with equal treatment, something has to give.

Some might object to Sullivan’s comparison, pointing out that the Muslim women’s requests were reasonable, while a request by Christian or Muslim men to exclude gays from male locker rooms would be irrational and disrespectful.

I might agree with these people that the women have a better case here, but that isn’t really the point.

The desire of Muslim women to avoid exposing their hair and forearms to men is not based on reason, but religious and cultural beliefs (which is not a criticism by any means).

Once we start evaluating the validity of religious claims based on what we believe to be reasonable, religious pluralism is no longer achieved.

My aim is not to argue for or against such pluralism (though I believe it is a worthy goal), but rather to point out that we cannot resolve the issue by merely appealing to what we believe to be reasonable. In both of these cases, either someone is unfairly excluded or someone’s religious beliefs are not respected, and this conflict is not easy to resolve.

What do I think about the Harvard decision? I’m on the fence, but pragmatic concerns lead me to believe that it is probably all right when all is said and done.

There are two other gyms at Harvard, and men will only be excluded for six out of the 70 weekly hours of the gym’s operation.

However, pragmatism cannot resolve the philosophical issue, and I’m not sure that my position would allow me to object to Sullivan’s hypothetical.

Bill is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Monday, April 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.