Gender segregation at Universities
When I was at University, as Student Union Treasurer I had various dealings both with the University Women's Groups and with various Islamic societies.
The latter sometimes seemed to celebrate being difficult to deal with - I remember one Christmas the University of Bristol Islamic Students Society completely spoilt what I had at first thought the rather nice gesture of sending Christmas cards to all the members of Union Council - until we realised that they had left out the two members of the council with Jewish names.
Women's groups, by comparison, thought of themselves as victims and were always trying to overset any example of what they saw as the oppression of "all women" - and yes, they did mean ALL women, including the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. I remember an attempt to remove the word "all" from a motion about the oppression of all women was voted down at NUS conference and the debate turned on the specific point of whether Margaret Thatcher was oppressed - they thought she was. But at the time feminists had an enormous moral ascendancy on campus and most student politicians were scared to death of crossing them.
I am trying to recall if I heard of a single instance in the 1980's in which Islamic societies at either of the Universities I attended or any other major institution of learning ever dared to propose gender segregation in any lecture or event, or even to get permission to operate in that way at their own meetings. (To be recognised as being entitled to operate at most Universities and colleges, societies had to enshrine in their constitution that their meetings were open to everyone regardless of gender, race, class, etc. You were likely to run into trouble with most Student Unions even if you wanted to call the person who presided at your meetings Chairman rather than Chairperson.)
It is hard to prove a negative but I do not recall the Islamic societies of the time trying any such thing. And part of the reason that I doubt if they did is that the reaction from Women's groups would have been so vocal that I would have heard of and remember it - and their opposition would undoubtedly have been supported by most other students and by the college authorities.
I knew things have changed a bit, but unless Yasmin Alabhai-Brown has got completely the wrong end of the stick in this article in yesterday's Independent on Sunday the pendulum has swung back further than I would have thought possible.
If, and I repeat if, it is true that
"Muslim women in jeans or with hair uncovered have been asked to leave lecture rooms by clothes vigilantes."
then the people who made that request should be warned in no uncertain terms that if there is any repetition they are the ones who will be asked to leave the institutions of higher education concerned.
It is pretty rare for me to find myself lining up with either Yasmin Alabhai-Brown or Polly Toynbee, let alone both at the same time, but I find it as intolerable that in the 21st century British Universities should be condoning telling people where they can sit on the basis of their gender as I find it if they told people where to sit based on skin colour or what school they attended.
And that is what Universities UK's latest guidance on external speakers appear to do.
As Polly Toynbee puts it in the Guardian,
"Universities once barred women altogether. Now they strive to be emblems of enlightenment, temples to reason, equality, free speech and freedom of thought. But it's not easy to balance conflicting freedoms. Universities UK, their representative body, has just published 40 pages of guidelines on External Speakers in Higher Education Institutions, wriggling and writhing over competing freedoms for women versus not causing religious offence: it ends up with excruciating nonsense.
"Some students may want a 'no platform' policy for speakers they find obnoxious – the BNP or members of unsavoury governments. Demonstrating opposition is a freedom, but banning or yelling down free expression within the law is a denial of freedom. However, Universities UK's guidelines give the sexist eccentricities of some religions priority over women's rights, by allowing religious speakers the right to demand women and men are segregated in the lecture hall.
"Universities UK tells universities that 'concerns to accommodate the wishes or beliefs of those opposed to segregation should not result in a religious group being prevented from having a debate in accordance with its belief system'. If 'imposing an unsegregated seating area in addition to the segregated areas contravenes the genuinely held religious beliefs of the group hosting the event, or those of the speaker, the institution should be mindful to ensure that the freedom of speech of the religious group or speaker is not curtailed unlawfully'.
"Good grief. The compromise is that women can't be put at the back"
Indeed.
The latter sometimes seemed to celebrate being difficult to deal with - I remember one Christmas the University of Bristol Islamic Students Society completely spoilt what I had at first thought the rather nice gesture of sending Christmas cards to all the members of Union Council - until we realised that they had left out the two members of the council with Jewish names.
Women's groups, by comparison, thought of themselves as victims and were always trying to overset any example of what they saw as the oppression of "all women" - and yes, they did mean ALL women, including the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. I remember an attempt to remove the word "all" from a motion about the oppression of all women was voted down at NUS conference and the debate turned on the specific point of whether Margaret Thatcher was oppressed - they thought she was. But at the time feminists had an enormous moral ascendancy on campus and most student politicians were scared to death of crossing them.
I am trying to recall if I heard of a single instance in the 1980's in which Islamic societies at either of the Universities I attended or any other major institution of learning ever dared to propose gender segregation in any lecture or event, or even to get permission to operate in that way at their own meetings. (To be recognised as being entitled to operate at most Universities and colleges, societies had to enshrine in their constitution that their meetings were open to everyone regardless of gender, race, class, etc. You were likely to run into trouble with most Student Unions even if you wanted to call the person who presided at your meetings Chairman rather than Chairperson.)
It is hard to prove a negative but I do not recall the Islamic societies of the time trying any such thing. And part of the reason that I doubt if they did is that the reaction from Women's groups would have been so vocal that I would have heard of and remember it - and their opposition would undoubtedly have been supported by most other students and by the college authorities.
I knew things have changed a bit, but unless Yasmin Alabhai-Brown has got completely the wrong end of the stick in this article in yesterday's Independent on Sunday the pendulum has swung back further than I would have thought possible.
If, and I repeat if, it is true that
"Muslim women in jeans or with hair uncovered have been asked to leave lecture rooms by clothes vigilantes."
then the people who made that request should be warned in no uncertain terms that if there is any repetition they are the ones who will be asked to leave the institutions of higher education concerned.
It is pretty rare for me to find myself lining up with either Yasmin Alabhai-Brown or Polly Toynbee, let alone both at the same time, but I find it as intolerable that in the 21st century British Universities should be condoning telling people where they can sit on the basis of their gender as I find it if they told people where to sit based on skin colour or what school they attended.
And that is what Universities UK's latest guidance on external speakers appear to do.
As Polly Toynbee puts it in the Guardian,
"Universities once barred women altogether. Now they strive to be emblems of enlightenment, temples to reason, equality, free speech and freedom of thought. But it's not easy to balance conflicting freedoms. Universities UK, their representative body, has just published 40 pages of guidelines on External Speakers in Higher Education Institutions, wriggling and writhing over competing freedoms for women versus not causing religious offence: it ends up with excruciating nonsense.
"Some students may want a 'no platform' policy for speakers they find obnoxious – the BNP or members of unsavoury governments. Demonstrating opposition is a freedom, but banning or yelling down free expression within the law is a denial of freedom. However, Universities UK's guidelines give the sexist eccentricities of some religions priority over women's rights, by allowing religious speakers the right to demand women and men are segregated in the lecture hall.
"Universities UK tells universities that 'concerns to accommodate the wishes or beliefs of those opposed to segregation should not result in a religious group being prevented from having a debate in accordance with its belief system'. If 'imposing an unsegregated seating area in addition to the segregated areas contravenes the genuinely held religious beliefs of the group hosting the event, or those of the speaker, the institution should be mindful to ensure that the freedom of speech of the religious group or speaker is not curtailed unlawfully'.
"Good grief. The compromise is that women can't be put at the back"
Indeed.
Comments
The back is the safest place to be, its unlikely you will be picked on for a question, and if the lecture is boring, its much easier to sneak out un noticed to the student union bar for a swift pint from the back row.