I was never popular in the Bible Belt.
Creation ‘science’ was the push in public schools during my time down South. A handful of parents didn’t want their children’s religious indoctrination unwound by schools. So, in the name of ‘religious accommodation,’ they demanded school boards adopt their personal religious teachings as part of public school curriculums.
These fights were long, loud and complete distractions for these school districts, among the nation’s worst, already dealing with funding shortfalls, economically distressed families and a lingering racial divide. (Although, I believe that attitude has led to two in five Americans being unable to locate their home continent on a map, while eight in 10 believe in angels.)
These debates always left me asking one question: Just because you curse the light, why must everyone else stumble around in the dark?
I was reminded of those days while reading about the York University student who refused to do group work with women for religious reasons. While his professor denied the request, a university dean sided with the student and ordered the professor to comply. Since, the university has clarified its position a bit saying this accommodation was allowed because of the online nature of the class, and would not have been granted in a regular classroom setting.
This hedge, however, has not slowed the outcry across the nation.
Certainly, the notion of religious accommodation appeals to our better selves and the desire for a just, tolerant world. But while the concept sounds inclusive in theory, its practice can be messy business – giving my beliefs more sway usually limits yours.
Ask anyone who needs to turn these squishy notions into public policy. The potential for chaos is great.
It’s important to remember the York situation is about religious accommodation, not university accessibility. The doors to our universities are open to anyone who makes the grade. Gender, race and faith do not matter. Once inside, barriers to learning – be they language skills, financial assistance or physical obstacles – are constantly re-evaluated and addressed.
But religious accommodation is not a barrier to learning. And that’s a tough fact of which to convince the devout. As we know, religions don’t operate in grey areas, as public institutions are so often forced to do. The Old Testament god, for instance, is not quoted as saying, ‘Thou shalt consider …’
Rules on religious accommodation must be accompanied by rock-solid convictions on the part of an institution. Hard lines need to be drawn to define where religious accommodation turns into institutionally approved hate. That’s not easy work.
In this case, York’s sin was folding on women. Imagine if the student did not wish to work with Jews or gays or Native Canadians? A mandatory awareness campaign would be launched across the nation. But he didn’t want to work with women, and that was deemed OK.
This blunder will resonate for a long time. And you think shaking a ‘party school’ image is tough.
I also wonder about the student. His beliefs, no matter how archaic, are protected. But what is he doing in a public university in the first place? Universities are not a mandatory four-year sentence, and if you read the papers, we’re not even necessary for a job anymore. If this student is unwilling to leave his preconceived notions behind, and unable to challenge his own belief system, then maybe a publically funded university is not the place for him. There is no shame in that.
A university’s mission is broader than a single doctrine. We are based on science and reason, not superstition. And while we welcome all beliefs, I hope our mission remains to educate all about the world.
Our job is to shine light into darkness, no matter who curses it.