Gender segregation reflects existing social structures and beliefs in various societies and available options for observing such segregation. Thus, the main issue that arises is how far segregation should go.
This issue came to limelight in North America when the Dean of York University granted a male student’s request to avoid female classmates because of religious reasons. However, the Dean noted that he did not have any other choice but to grant the request (Hopper, 2014).
While the Dean regrets his decision, he maintains that the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) or the Code bound him. The Code recognizes the “inherent dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination” (Ontario Human Rights Commission, n.d).
The request considers religious reasons but fails to account for its impacts on female learners. However, it sets a dangerous precedent and undermines several achievements toward an integrated society. Accommodating such a segregation request violates liberty because strict segregation limits individuals’ freedom, especially for women. At the same time, segregation and accommodation promote gender inequality.
While the West has emphasized the importance of offering equal opportunities to women, segregation puts women in the negative light and shows them that they are unable to compete effectively in the modern world. Accommodating a segregation request limits abilities and opportunities for women to interact, coexist, and practice fairness in any environment.
Such practices are responsible for the widespread gender stereotyping about the role of women and men in contemporary society. Accommodating the exclusion request goes against the progress toward enhancing acceptance, tolerance, and inclusion of all persons in society.
Vulnerable people, especially women, may lose their rights through requests related to accommodation and exemptions. Segregation perpetuates sex subordination for women and enhances the status of women as inferior.
It is imperative to treat women and men equally to promote gender equity, which is a long-term commitment of the University. The decision to accommodate the learner’s wish received support from some quarters. Conversely, others have termed the request as ‘odd’ since it originated from a male student. Such requests undermine gender mix and collaboration among learners of the opposite sex, as well as attempts to promote diversity, tolerance, and equity.
Therefore, institutions should review their approaches to individuals’ belief systems against the rights of others. In other words, religious concerns and people’s belief system should not compromise the rights of others.
The fundamental source of concern is that if the West starts to accommodate every person’s religious request, then it may be forced to grant other requests supported by firm beliefs in religion, such as stoning, which undermines justice and fairness.
The main point is that exemption and accommodation could set dangerous precedents and offend developments in people’s rights. Therefore, such requests do not enhance or enforce equality for men and women, but rather undermine the progress achieved in the West after several decades of struggle, particularly for women.
Overall, this essay shows that religious and cultural practices may be accounted for, but only after the primary, recognized human rights are met. The Professor established that such accommodation requests do not have empirical evidence, and inclusions do not have any negative repercussions on others.
Therefore, decision-makers must exercise care to ensure that private beliefs meet the required threshold of fairness and protection of other individuals’ rights.
References
Hopper, T. (2014). York University dean who granted student’s request to keep from female classmates says he wishes he ‘had another choice’. National Post. Web.
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (n.d). Policy on discrimination and harassment because of gender identity. Web.