sexual segregation in UK universities

[carlajean]

I don't know if i've missed any threads on this, but i'm horrified to have just learnt that some UK universities are going to allow sexual segregation in some lectures. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown commented on it in today's Independent, and Polly Toynbee wrote about it in the Guardian.
Why hasn 't the NUS objected?
I'd be interested to hear what other mnetters think about this. As i've said, I object strongly to this, but would be interested to hear what others think.

[ErrolTheDragon]

The hypothetical case study of what could/should be done if a visiting speaker requested segregation of the audience has now been removed from the document I linked to, which is rather frustrating.

IIRC the main points were that segregation is lawful (not desirable, not something they encourage - a matter of law) if there was equal access. So front/back would be discriminatory, left/right wouldn't. That an institution could propose to the speaker that there should be male, mixed and female seating available - I think more from the perspective of accommodating the preferences of the attendees rather than pandering to the speaker. But that this might not be deemed acceptable and in that case the part quoted by ParcelFancy applies ... the law puts them between a rock and a hard place.


It may be somewhat hard for lawmakers to frame laws which allow for separation which is a matter of choice, but disallow segregation which is enforced. Be careful what you wish for if you don't want the rugby club boys in your changing room ... in the current unequal world where women are routinely objectified and girls in mixed schools are put of STEM subjects, separation isn't something we can lightly dispense with.

[Juliet123456]

The example which was so hotly opposed has been removed today from the official guidance (those issuing it were interviewed on Radio 4 at 5pm on it. They are now seeking a second legal opinion on the rest of the guidance and have referred it to the equalities people too for a view.

The guidance says if the speaker wants segregation you can have it but then you must provide three areas - men, women and mixed. If a woman in the mixed area wanted to plonk herself amongst all those muslim men who apparently cannot stop touching women's breasts to such an extent they need women covered in order to prevent such acts then I think the guidance would allow the university to require the woman to move back to the mixed area. My view is that that is not good enough and that at a university rather than a private club or rooms which are hired which are not publicly funded we should not have in lectures even with visiting lecturers tolerance of segregation.

Of course a lot of people do segregate. Go to any primary school play ground in the country and you'll see little girls chatting and boys taking up 90% of the play space with a ball. Go to many a mosque or synagague and women will be forced to be separate. Christina Lamb was visting the area where Malalah came from in Pakistan and said the women serve meals to the men however long and late it gets and eat nothing. Many a night the women could only get fed at mid night once all those men had eaten. That will be replicated around plenty of homes in the UK even today. Universities need to take a stand and say that if the speaker requests single sex (or single race or colour) seating he or she needs to be told that that is not permitted for talks on university land in the UK.

[ErrolTheDragon]

Universities need to take a stand and say that if the speaker requests single sex (or single race or colour) seating he or she needs to be told that that is not permitted for talks on university land in the UK.

I think the problem is that they shouldn't have to take a stand. They should just be able to say 'sorry, the equalities legislation means it would be illegal for us to host a segregated meeting'. This is what they cannot currently do.

[hiddenhome]

How do you actually sign the petition? It just kept asking for my email address. Do you put your name in the top box and your email address in the bottom or what?

[alemci]

yes exactly Errol. good point

[Jux]

Hiddenhome, if you're already a member of Avaaz then you just put your email address in, as they'll have the rest of your details in their database, so the petition is signed automatically.

If you're not a member, fill in the boxes under First Time Here?

[perlona]

How is this not illegal? If they were segregating people according to race the police would be investigating, any body receiving public funds should be banned from discrimination, in fact I thought that was the law already

[TheCrimsonQueen]

Bumblebzz I will come with you. How dare they think that sexual apartheid can be justified ever.

[flatpackhamster]

ErrolTheDragon

I think the problem is that they shouldn't have to take a stand. They should just be able to say 'sorry, the equalities legislation means it would be illegal for us to host a segregated meeting'. This is what they cannot currently do.

I think that's exactly the problem, though. Instead of making a moral stand and saying 'We are committed to liberty' you're asking them to hide behind the very legislation that is causing the problem in the first place.

Where's the willingness just to say 'No, this is wrong'?

[Juliet123456]

Today I believe the guidance has been withdrawn.

"Islamic speakers at universities will no longer be allowed to demand that men and women sit apart after vice-chancellors withdrew their controversial guidance that sex segregation was acceptable. Universities UK was forced into a humiliating climbdown yesterday after David Cameron intervened, saying he felt very strongly that students should have the right to sit together. The Prime Minister said: “I’m absolutely clear that there should not be segregated audiences for visiting speakers to universities in Britain. That is not the right approach, the guidance should not say that, universities should not allow this. I’m very clear about this.”

[Shenanagins]

I and shocked to that a) this was even considered acceptable and b) i have only just heard about it. It is truly scary that our media and politicians were not all over this.

[MadameLeBean]

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100250298/sex-segregation-on-campus-is-wrong-but-that-doesnt-mean-it-should-be-outlawed/

An interesting point and I agree there is a difference between public and private meetings. What about women who have suffered abuse and want to meet in a female only space.

[flatpackhamster]

The article you linked to is by Brendan O'Neill, who runs Spiked magazine. They have been highlighting this concern for some time. I've been reading their stuff for a couple of years now, and I like their no-compromises stance on liberty.

[edamsavestheday]

Women only spaces are different. People who are part of a group that is discriminated against, or disadvantaged, are entitled to safe places.

It is deeply depressing that universities, FFS, could pander to this sort of oppression. Universities are supposed to be educating people about oppression, not encouraging it.

It's not Cameron alone who has changed Universities UK's mind, btw, it's the Equalities Commission response to UUK's 'guidance'. EC said, um, actually, you might want to re-think that.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

I would suggest that inviting women only was ok if the purpose of the event required it.

If I ran a chess club I could say I only wanted people there who play chess.

If I were making a film about say slavery in the US I would expect to be able to specify black actors for certain roles and white actors for others.

If I ran a class related to pregnancy then yes I could specify women only.

There are situations where the color, gender or skill are themselves significant to the purpose of the event.

But then I can't say "no black chess players" because the color isn't relevant to the chess playing. Nor is deciding where the audience sit relevant to someone giving a lecture/speech.

[flatpackhamster]

edamsavestheday

Women only spaces are different.

I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with this argument. Your line of argument is precisely why this whole mess has happened in the first place. What you're doing is elevating the rights of one group that you define as oppressed over the rights of another group.

Now you could argue, reasonably, that women should be free to assemble without men, and I would agree with you. Where I disagree with you is with the notion that women should be defined as a special interest group and thus should be privileged over other groups. Because as soon as you do that, you get everyone defining themselves as a special interest group. Black people, gay people, disabled people, Islamist loons, people who wear chickens every second Thursday, everyone looks for a way to have themselves defined as a special group entitled to privileged treatment.

And sorting that mess out means you have to privilege one group's special interests above another.

Until you can move beyond defining people as in need of special privilege by the state, this problem will continue to arise as special interest groups fight for access to the best 'rights'.

[carlajean]

I'm als

[carlajean]

Ei

[carlajean]

I am uncomfortable with the idea of women only spaces.i imagine that some women attending these hypothetical segregated meetings want segregation. So, should they be allowed this? I don't think so, but if you start arguing that women should be entitled to this what do you do?

[ErrolTheDragon]

It's not Cameron alone who has changed Universities UK's mind, btw, it's the Equalities Commission response to UUK's 'guidance'. EC said, um, actually, you might want to re-think that.

Yes - the UUK was certainly foolish not to run this all by them prior to publication.

Hopefully this debacle will result in clarifications of the laws and modifications where necessary. One in particular is that, as it stands, a 'genuinely held religious belief' seems to trump a secular belief (in this case, the feminist principle that women should not be segregated against their will). I personally don't think that religious belief of itself should be a protected characteristic, and certainly not one which is given more weight than a rational ethical principle. 'You win because your belief is based on something supernatural' really doesn't bear scrutiny.

[flatpackhamster]

ErrolTheDragon

Hopefully this debacle will result in clarifications of the laws and modifications where necessary. One in particular is that, as it stands, a 'genuinely held religious belief' seems to trump a secular belief (in this case, the feminist principle that women should not be segregated against their will). I personally don't think that religious belief of itself should be a protected characteristic, and certainly not one which is given more weight than a rational ethical principle. 'You win because your belief is based on something supernatural' really doesn't bear scrutiny.

But you still come back to 'my oppressed minority is more important that your oppressed minority' with this line of argument.

[edamsavestheday]

Backonly - agreed, v sensible explanation.

Playback, I think it's straightforward to define minority/oppressed groups - the equality legislation does it quite effectively.

[ErrolTheDragon]

Until you can move beyond defining people as in need of special privilege by the state, this problem will continue to arise as special interest groups fight for access to the best 'rights'.

people will no longer require special protection (No one should be 'privileged' over another group any more than they should be discriminated against) when society is truly equal. Whoa, I just saw a pig fly...

So, when push comes to shove, the relative merits of different groups do need to be weighed against one another. In recent cases pitting fundamentalist Christians against homosexuals, a general principle seems to be that inherent characteristics trump religion. What someone is over what someone else believes. There are harder cases, but that one really is quite simple.

[flatpackhamster]

ErrolTheDragon

people will no longer require special protection (No one should be 'privileged' over another group any more than they should be discriminated against) when society is truly equal. Whoa, I just saw a pig fly...

What does 'society' being 'equal' actually mean though? In actual, real terms how would you define it?

So, when push comes to shove, the relative merits of different groups do need to be weighed against one another.

In recent cases pitting fundamentalist Christians against homosexuals, a general principle seems to be that inherent characteristics trump religion. What someone is over what someone else believes. There are harder cases, but that one really is quite simple.

No it isn't. YOU think it is because you believe that the rights of homosexuals trump those of Christians. It fits the temporary morality of 21st century British society and you are writing your temporary morality in to law. But what you are doing is expecting the law to decide which minority interest is more important. That's not justice, that's just taking sides.

It isn't equality, either. There can be no equality when you define one group as privileged in law over another.

[alemci]

I think the university is a publicly funded body and this just shouldn't be happening in 2013. zero tolerance towards this by university I think.

in a religious building not great but more acceptable

also I don't mind women only swimming