For Shame

[thebin]

Harvard University has instituted special hours at a student gym when men are not permitted to enter, so that Muslim women can work out in attire that might be slightly less modest than the traditional Bee Keepers suit. There are no words. Western Civilization is committing suicide.

The 10,000 men of Harvard can march all they want, but no yoga with the Muslim female students in case they get the urge to rape them, which would trigger the girls' death by honor killing. Best to keep it safe. Veritas.

[strummer8526]

Wow, this is completely outrageous. At some point, I stop caring about other people and their rights, interests, beliefs, etc. At the point that women are going to the gym, I stop caring about their religious need to cover their skin. Get a set of weights at home or workout climbing the stairs if you can't be seen by other people, but to keep thousands of paying students out of the gym is absurd.

[SDHoya]

Thanks for editorializing without providing a link.

www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/04/harvard.gym.ap/index.html

Yeah, the Western World is really going to hell in a handbasket when Harvard puts aside 6 hours a week on a trial basis to make a gym women only. I can't tell if your outrage is tounge in cheek or not, but I don't see this as being a big deal. It looks like they chose specifically slow hours to make sure that this doesn't cause major disruption. Seeing as this is being done at the request of Muslim women, I don't see how this is sexist, and as this is a private institution, there are certainly no legal issues here.

My guess is that if virtually no one shows up to the gym for these special hours, that they will come up with some other alternative (perhaps helping to fund a Muslim sorority with some excerzize stuff in it, just as there are Jewish, Christian, Black, Asian, etc. frats/sors). But all in all, I don't see the problem in making life more comfortable for a minority group as long as it does not cause any real disruptions for the rest of the students.

On a side note, I think the real story on Harvard's campus right now is this one:

www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522351

;D

[kchoya]

Mar 7, 2008 17:13:26 GMT -5 SDHoya said:

Thanks for editorializing without providing a link.

www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/04/harvard.gym.ap/index.html

Yeah, the Western World is really going to hell in a handbasket when Harvard puts aside 6 hours a week on a trial basis to make a gym women only. I can't tell if your outrage is tounge in cheek or not, but I don't see this as being a big deal. It looks like they chose specifically slow hours to make sure that this doesn't cause major disruption. Seeing as this is being done at the request of Muslim women, I don't see how this is sexist, and as this is a private institution, there are certainly no legal issues here.

My guess is that if virtually no one shows up to the gym for these special hours, that they will come up with some other alternative (perhaps helping to fund a Muslim sorority with some excerzize stuff in it, just as there are Jewish, Christian, Black, Asian, etc. frats/sors). But all in all, I don't see the problem in making life more comfortable for a minority group as long as it does not cause any real disruptions for the rest of the students.

On a side note, I think the real story on Harvard's campus right now is this one:

www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522351

;D

"Nude Mag Arouses Debate" What a witty headline. Watch out NYPost!

[AustinHoya03]

Mar 7, 2008 17:13:26 GMT -5 SDHoya said:

Thanks for editorializing without providing a link.

www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/04/harvard.gym.ap/index.html

Yeah, the Western World is really going to hell in a handbasket when Harvard puts aside 6 hours a week on a trial basis to make a gym women only. I can't tell if your outrage is tounge in cheek or not, but I don't see this as being a big deal. It looks like they chose specifically slow hours to make sure that this doesn't cause major disruption. Seeing as this is being done at the request of Muslim women, I don't see how this is sexist, and as this is a private institution, there are certainly no legal issues here.

My guess is that if virtually no one shows up to the gym for these special hours, that they will come up with some other alternative (perhaps helping to fund a Muslim sorority with some excerzize stuff in it, just as there are Jewish, Christian, Black, Asian, etc. frats/sors). But all in all, I don't see the problem in making life more comfortable for a minority group as long as it does not cause any real disruptions for the rest of the students.

On a side note, I think the real story on Harvard's campus right now is this one:

www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522351

;D

The article also states that there are other gyms on campus, and "The policy only applies to one gym, a facility mainly used for intramurals. Because of its location at the edge of campus, it is the university's least used gym."

Furthermore, "The policy will be reviewed at the end of the semester."

IMO, if Harvard is at fault for anything here, it's not publicizing the restrictions adequately before they went into effect, and putting a controversial policy into place without a suitable review effort.

Just curious, bin, if you have a problem with the Muslim Prayer Room at Georgetown. It's pretty much the same thing -- if I recall correctly, it's a campus space anyone can reserve, but it's reserved for Muslim students at specific times.

[hoyatables]

thebin has a well-documented problem with anything that burdens white anglo-saxon males.

[thebin]

On fundamental principles you hold dear, you don’t compromise with 15th century fanatacism one bit. Not even a teeny bit just to be friendly or because it makes you feel good about yourself. Harvard in the 21st century is as secular a place as you can find in the world. It claims to hold dear the values of gender equaliy, does it not? When they make special religious hours for a tiny group it puts paid to the LIE that its secular and validates claims that in reality its only anti-Christian and anti-Western. Sometimes the “slippery slope” argument is made too quickly. Not here. This is the textbook example of a hideously dangerous slippery slope. But even if it wasn’t a clear gateway to the next absurd "compromise," its very essence is utterly OFFENSIVE to me and the ideals I hold dear- ideals of secularism and gender equality that Harvard itself claims to be in the forefront of in all manner of extreme situations. Why are not my sensibilities, or Harvard's own, as important as the sensibilities of this one very small group of students? Do you think a Christian group could get a special alloted time set aside for a common facility at the exclusion of all others a similar purpose? Stifle your laughter please. Why are they the only ones who get special treatment so as to not be offended? Are they retarded puppies or something to take pity on rather then treat them like say Christian adults who we do not allow to propagate 15th century church dogma? Why do we have to pretend that its OK to let them bask in 15th century gender roles? Why do we have to promote that even for one second at our most famous temple of secular enlightenment of all places?

Muslim prayer rooms on any campus do not involve active segregation of common facilities, so its a poor analogy frankly. Anyone, Jews or atheists or Kentuckians as far as I know CAN use the Muslim prayer room to pray, can they not? Is anyone actively excluded from such rooms?


PS.
I am not an anglo saxon white male.
I am not a Christian but an atheist.

[seattlehoya11]

Do you really think there are currently Harvard students who wish to "propagate 15th century church dogma"? I'd assume no because such dogma has been replaced both officially and practically/religio-culturally (if that makes sense).

I can't figure out if you are more Editeded that: a) the most wide-spread religion in the world adheres to more strict and ancient traditions than say Christianity or b) if it's specifically that Harvard has chosen to facilitate exercise in a manner that otherwise wouldn't have occurred.

Go figure that the debate is already more about values and ideals and less about practically. It doesn't sound like very many people care for reasons of convenience. If this is really about secularism in secular universities, are you gonna be Editeded that a lot of them provide Kosher food for Jews or have a school break that always coincides with Christmas?

[seattlehoya11]

sorry, didn't know the alternative word for peeing was banned

[strummer8526]

This is admittedly my own ignorance and my own lack of time available to research it myself, but I'd bet someone on this board knows:

I've heard conflicting accounts of the extent to which Muslim women covering their skin is really directly linked to the very core principles of the religion itself versus just cultural norms in the Muslim world. For some reason, I have the impression that the female dress situation is more like Catholics not eating meat on Fridays in that it is not directly from Biblical text or the most core teachings of Catholicism.

This isn't meant at all to sound disparaging about either custom. Customs are important, but it doesn't mean they need to be observed or accommodated the same way as foundational religious beliefs.

[SDHoya]

thebin, you need to look at the situation in context, as opposed to trying to make a broad statement about society with it. One of the multiple campus gyms (in fact the least used one) will allow extremely limited off peak hours for a pilot program. Harvard is a private institution, so just like nearly every other private university in the country gives money and other support to campus sponsored religious groups in order to make them feel comfortable on campus, so Harvard is attempting to do so while causing the least amount of disruption (which again, is very very limited).

I really don't see how Western Secular values have been compromised here. The slippery slope is an oft-used analogy, and rarely holds any real truth. If a few women who are paying Harvard $50,000 per year ask for a religious accommodation, is that really crossing a line? My understanding is that Harvard has two Orthodox Jewish groups on campus. In Orthodox religious services, men and women are segregated. Is this discrimination too?

Furthermore, it is really quite irrelevant that you think that this program is offensive. The fact is, certain religious groups hold themselves to different value systems than you do. Our legal system upholds the right of these groups to practice freely so long as they do not do anything overtly immoral (such as murder, physical abuse, financial scams, etc.). These women are not hurting anyone by covering themselves around men, and Harvard has every right to grant them space a few hours a week to comfortably exercise.

[thebin]

Its abundantly clear to me that there is a fundamental difference between hosting orthodox student groups, offering kosher/halal food choices, following the traditional Christmas calendar, etc and instituting official segregation hours, no matter how few they are or at which facilities. A christian male of Mayflower stock can choose to eat the kosher food offereings, pray (or sit there doing buddist meditation) in any of the prayer rooms, or join one or a dozen religious identitiy groups on campus. BUT HE CANNOT ENTER THE GYM DURING PROHIBITED HOURS. You almost have to will yourself to not see this difference. All the former examples offer choices- open to all, while the latter policy is on its face exclusionary- and is so for RIDICULOUSLY outdated views of gender roles that wouldn't for a second be countenanced by a Harvard administration if they came from a Christian viewpoint.

Frankly I would rather Harvard treated Islam with the same level of contempt that they treat Christianity in deed.

I ask each of you....can you imagine Harvard excluding women from a far flung facility so that a Christian men's group could use it without having to interact with women? Let's say its only for 5 minutes per year and at the smallest crappiest gym but no women allowed for those annual 5 minutes of single sex bliss because maybe 2-3% of the student body believed that a fictional God didn't like men and women working out together in immodest clothing. Can you imagine that? If you say yes, you can imagine such a policy concession to these hypothetical Christian loons, I call you a liar.

[Cambridge]

Mar 8, 2008 22:48:45 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

This is admittedly my own ignorance and my own lack of time available to research it myself, but I'd bet someone on this board knows:

I've heard conflicting accounts of the extent to which Muslim women covering their skin is really directly linked to the very core principles of the religion itself versus just cultural norms in the Muslim world. For some reason, I have the impression that the female dress situation is more like Catholics not eating meat on Fridays in that it is not directly from Biblical text or the most core teachings of Catholicism.

This isn't meant at all to sound disparaging about either custom. Customs are important, but it doesn't mean they need to be observed or accommodated the same way as foundational religious beliefs.

Bingo

[Cambridge]

Hasidic jews have many of the same restrictions regarding the interaction of men and women. I wonder if the hasidic women will go to the gym at the same time as Muslim women. I also wouldn't be surprised if numerous other non-muslim/non-religious women will really enjoy going to the gym when there are no men. My fiancee was a member of a very popular gym in Boston (health works) which was all women. Anyways, my point is, what if this all-women gym time ends up causing a mixing of women from various different cultural backgrounds while they participate in a healthy, active endeavor? What if muslim, hasidic, christian and other women come together and talk in the lockerrooms or interact on the treadmills? Wouldn't that be beneficial in the long run since it would foster intercommunity dialogue in a non-threatening and healthy environment?

PS The funniest part about health works in Porter Sq was that its biggest selling point was that it made women feel less self-conscious, however it was all windows and sat right in the middle of one of the busier squares in the boston area (nexus of T, commuter rails and busy roads), so it was really like a big display of attractive women. My fiancee actually said the gym was much more intense because not only did you feel like you were in a window display, but an all women environment actually ends up being ultra-competitive. Ironic, really. She liked the gym because it had laundry service included, was really clean, had its own spa/masseuses, was very close to our home and had all the kooky classes she loved (ie urban rebounding...all you need to know is that it involves a trampoline and is hilarious to watch).

[AustinHoya03]

Mar 8, 2008 18:09:18 GMT -5 thebin said:

Muslim prayer rooms on any campus do not involve active segregation of common facilities, so its a poor analogy frankly. Anyone, Jews or atheists or Kentuckians as far as I know CAN use the Muslim prayer room to pray, can they not? Is anyone actively excluded from such rooms?

You are right about this -- poorly thought out on my part.

I think you have a point here, I just think that nobody is as upset over the situation as you are. I am not that upset because no student at Harvard has been prevented from working out at Harvard gyms -- there is only a slight restriction on this activity.

I am not offended that I cannot go into Mormon temples. I am not offended that the Catholic church doesn't want me taking communion in their churches. Notre Dame's draconian rules on dorm life, based on Catholic principles, don't cause me to lose sleep at night, even if I think they're stupid. Private restrictions based on religion do not bother me as much as they seem to bother you.

Your complaint seems to be based on the notion that to prevent us from sliding down the sliperry slope, Harvard should be the protector of secularism in this country. That seems to me to be both unfair to Harvard and unnecessary (the US Constitution prohibits public institutions from enacting similar restrictions, making the slope not-so-slippery).

[FormerHoya]

please note that the banner ad above this site is now for Muslima.com, the international muslim matrimonial site. "browse photos now!"

betcha they're kinky...

[bubbrubbhoya]

I agree with thebin, and I look at this as the same slippery slope that England may be flirting with now that the Archbishop has recommended pockets of sharia in Muslim dominated areas of the UK. Likewise the slippery slope for free speech in Western Europe, where newspapers allows themselves to be censored by mass kneejerk public protests and murder threats in reaction to criticisms of Islam (be they graphical or not). At issue isn't the ability of women to work out, but rather the willingness of the West to be blackmailed into rolling back the freedoms that are its hallmark. Many liberals have no qualms raising their ire that the current Administration has propograted a supposed climate of fear in America over the past eight years, but these same people remain silent about or even defend the advance of an actual climate of fear as typified by the examples above.

It's time for people to wake up and realize that these outrages are an affront to societies that value free speech and abhore discrimination. Quite frankly, SD, I think that you are being naive (probably actively) by urging thebin to "look at the situation in context," as the real context is that this is indeed at a university that prizes its position of being at the forefront of secularist and humanist freedoms. In addition, universities and their students are uniquely positioned for their actions to be much more significant symbolically than literally (why else would anyone care about student riots--the symbolism is extremely powerful even if it's just a bunch of privileged kids yellling). So yeah, the fact that a beacon of freedom would acquiesce to the fundamentalist ideas fueling this type of segregation does represent a good example of the slippery slope argument.

And by the way, my argument and, I think, that of thebin, isn't about religion, and those who dismiss it as such are being intellectually lazy. This is mostly about upholding free speech and the rule of law, which are the most important secular values underpinning free societies.

[thebin]

Mar 11, 2008 15:06:43 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Mar 8, 2008 18:09:18 GMT -5 thebin said:

Muslim prayer rooms on any campus do not involve active segregation of common facilities, so its a poor analogy frankly. Anyone, Jews or atheists or Kentuckians as far as I know CAN use the Muslim prayer room to pray, can they not? Is anyone actively excluded from such rooms?

You are right about this -- poorly thought out on my part.

I think you have a point here, I just think that nobody is as upset over the situation as you are. I am not that upset because no student at Harvard has been prevented from working out at Harvard gyms -- there is only a slight restriction on this activity.

I am not offended that I cannot go into Mormon temples. I am not offended that the Catholic church doesn't want me taking communion in their churches. Notre Dame's draconian rules on dorm life, based on Catholic principles, don't cause me to lose sleep at night, even if I think they're stupid. Private restrictions based on religion do not bother me as much as they seem to bother you.

Your complaint seems to be based on the notion that to prevent us from sliding down the sliperry slope, Harvard should be the protector of secularism in this country. That seems to me to be both unfair to Harvard and unnecessary (the US Constitution prohibits public institutions from enacting similar restrictions, making the slope not-so-slippery).

You want to know why it bothers me so much. Fair enough.

It ain't because someone might not be able to use that gym. Its the SHAMEFUL and COWARDLY hypocrisy of a radically secular institution like Harvard to change the ground rules for Islam when it would do so for NO OTHER religion. Its frankly a level of hypocrisy that has no equal I can think of in recent years.

This is a school that excludes ROTC from campus because of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell Policy, and decides to accommodate a religion which stones gays to death, partially I must assume because the religion isn’t one of those really dangerous western religions like Christianity or Judaism. Cowardly. Shameful. There are simply no more appropriate words for it.

[thebin]

"At issue isn't the ability of women to work out, but rather the willingness of the West to be blackmailed into rolling back the freedoms that are its hallmark."


BRAVO sir. That's exactly it. Of course some people convince themselves they are not being blackmailed at all, but doing it because they are just so damn broad-minded and fair unlike bigots like me. They are Lenin's "useful idiots."

[Cambridge]

Mar 11, 2008 16:52:21 GMT -5 thebin said:

Mar 11, 2008 15:06:43 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

You are right about this -- poorly thought out on my part.

I think you have a point here, I just think that nobody is as upset over the situation as you are. I am not that upset because no student at Harvard has been prevented from working out at Harvard gyms -- there is only a slight restriction on this activity.

I am not offended that I cannot go into Mormon temples. I am not offended that the Catholic church doesn't want me taking communion in their churches. Notre Dame's draconian rules on dorm life, based on Catholic principles, don't cause me to lose sleep at night, even if I think they're stupid. Private restrictions based on religion do not bother me as much as they seem to bother you.

Your complaint seems to be based on the notion that to prevent us from sliding down the sliperry slope, Harvard should be the protector of secularism in this country. That seems to me to be both unfair to Harvard and unnecessary (the US Constitution prohibits public institutions from enacting similar restrictions, making the slope not-so-slippery).

You want to know why it bothers me so much. Fair enough.

It ain't because someone might not be able to use that gym. Its the SHAMEFUL and COWARDLY hypocrisy of a radically secular institution like Harvard to change the ground rules for Islam when it would do so for NO OTHER religion. Its frankly a level of hypocrisy that has no equal I can think of in recent years.

This is a school that excludes ROTC from campus because of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell Policy, and decides to accommodate a religion which stones gays to death, partially I must assume because the religion isn’t one of those really dangerous western religions like Christianity or Judaism. Cowardly. Shameful. There are simply no more appropriate words for it.

My future brother-in-law graduated from Harvard a couple years ago. He was ROTC and is now a Navy Seal. Although Harvard students do their ROTC training at MIT, I always thought that this is at least partially due to the small number of enrollees at both schools and the practical nature of sharing resources rather than don't ask don't tell. However, I could be totally wrong.