Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Segregation In Education
so Michael Gove doesn't like it either according to another paper, don't understand this at all.
of affairs to http://
of affairs to http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by emmie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The bit of the UUK advice I have difficulty with is this...
"Ultimately, 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."
So there are cases where the provision of an unsegregated seating area (in addition to a segregated one) may curtail unlawfully the freedom of speech of a religious group or speaker?
Mmm - needs a test case to clarify perhaps.
The issue here is gender segregation within a gender mixed institution- the question of whether there should be mixed or single sex schools is to my mind a different matter.
"Ultimately, 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."
So there are cases where the provision of an unsegregated seating area (in addition to a segregated one) may curtail unlawfully the freedom of speech of a religious group or speaker?
Mmm - needs a test case to clarify perhaps.
The issue here is gender segregation within a gender mixed institution- the question of whether there should be mixed or single sex schools is to my mind a different matter.
this has nothing to do with, at least for the moment, single gender schools, this is about an organisation Universities UK, suggesting that this should be permitted if it fits in with some cultural, religious viewpoints, however have we not fought the good, and sometimes bad fight to get the genders parity, in schools, equal opportunities, to be treated equally,
this doesn't smack of equality
this doesn't smack of equality
I think Ludwig’s “park bench” demonstrates the folly of this arrangement superbly.
Extend that to the lecture hall (or wherever it is). A section for blacks only, a section for whites only and a section for anybody. A good idea? I think not and one that would be (quite rightly) absolutely slated by people opposed to racism. “You cannot sit there because you are white [or black]“. Yes, I can see that going down quite well. Fifty years ago it might have been acceptable but people have been striving in that half century to eradicate the notion that races need to be segregated. There is no earthly reason to provide such an arrangement.
And so it is with gender. The idea that adult men and women should be segregated in any public place for any reason (with the obvious exceptions such as toilets and changing rooms) is completely outrageous. And it is a purely Muslim phenomenon. No other group has suggested such facilities be provided in modern times and any doing so would, quite rightly, receive very short shrift. Whatever nonsense Muslims get up to in the privacy of their own mosques is entirely up to them. But to suggest that gender segregation be provided at UK universities is quite another matter.
I should also like to comment on Jake’s suggestion that the “thin end of the wedge” argument is raised in desperation. There are many situations in the UK which have developed by stealth. The example that demonstrates this most forcibly is the EU. The euro maniacs know that their Utopian dream of a single nation state would never be acceptable in one hit so the public is worn down salami style, each “minor” change (said to be of little consequence) contributing to a massive overall alteration. The same applies to Islamification of the UK. Gender segregation is but one facet of the way some more radical Muslims would like to see the UK “develop”. If it is accepted at universities, when the next “development” is proposed (let’s say, segregation in shops and offices) it will be said that we already have segregation in universities, so it is not unreasonable to expect young people to be segregated when they go on to work. It is always worth considering where “the thin end of the wedge” might lead.
“Universities UK” (allegedly the voice for all UK universities) is at the centre of this drivel. In its policy document (which takes an incredible 44 pages to guide universities through the extremely tricky problems involved with inviting guest speakers) it suggests that gender segregation may be appropriate in certain circumstances. It goes on to say, astonishingly, that “[if segregated] Both men and women are being treated equally, as they are both being segregated in the same way.” Back to Ludwig’s park bench - it’s quite OK apparently. However, since the public furore they have slightly backtracked and have now asked for a High Court ruling on the matter. Even more recently (today, in fact) they have issued a statement responding to the PM’s comments:
Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK, said: "Universities UK agrees entirely with the prime minister that universities should not enforce gender segregation on audiences at the request of guest speakers. However, where the gender segregation is voluntary, the law is unclear. We are working with our lawyers and the EHRC to clarify the position. Meanwhile the case study which triggered this debate has been withdrawn pending this review." (although it is still contained within their policy document).
A century ago women died in their campaign for suffrage. Now it is suggested they should (voluntarily) sit in designated areas in a university lecture hall just because they are women. Quite simply there is no place for it.
Extend that to the lecture hall (or wherever it is). A section for blacks only, a section for whites only and a section for anybody. A good idea? I think not and one that would be (quite rightly) absolutely slated by people opposed to racism. “You cannot sit there because you are white [or black]“. Yes, I can see that going down quite well. Fifty years ago it might have been acceptable but people have been striving in that half century to eradicate the notion that races need to be segregated. There is no earthly reason to provide such an arrangement.
And so it is with gender. The idea that adult men and women should be segregated in any public place for any reason (with the obvious exceptions such as toilets and changing rooms) is completely outrageous. And it is a purely Muslim phenomenon. No other group has suggested such facilities be provided in modern times and any doing so would, quite rightly, receive very short shrift. Whatever nonsense Muslims get up to in the privacy of their own mosques is entirely up to them. But to suggest that gender segregation be provided at UK universities is quite another matter.
I should also like to comment on Jake’s suggestion that the “thin end of the wedge” argument is raised in desperation. There are many situations in the UK which have developed by stealth. The example that demonstrates this most forcibly is the EU. The euro maniacs know that their Utopian dream of a single nation state would never be acceptable in one hit so the public is worn down salami style, each “minor” change (said to be of little consequence) contributing to a massive overall alteration. The same applies to Islamification of the UK. Gender segregation is but one facet of the way some more radical Muslims would like to see the UK “develop”. If it is accepted at universities, when the next “development” is proposed (let’s say, segregation in shops and offices) it will be said that we already have segregation in universities, so it is not unreasonable to expect young people to be segregated when they go on to work. It is always worth considering where “the thin end of the wedge” might lead.
“Universities UK” (allegedly the voice for all UK universities) is at the centre of this drivel. In its policy document (which takes an incredible 44 pages to guide universities through the extremely tricky problems involved with inviting guest speakers) it suggests that gender segregation may be appropriate in certain circumstances. It goes on to say, astonishingly, that “[if segregated] Both men and women are being treated equally, as they are both being segregated in the same way.” Back to Ludwig’s park bench - it’s quite OK apparently. However, since the public furore they have slightly backtracked and have now asked for a High Court ruling on the matter. Even more recently (today, in fact) they have issued a statement responding to the PM’s comments:
Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK, said: "Universities UK agrees entirely with the prime minister that universities should not enforce gender segregation on audiences at the request of guest speakers. However, where the gender segregation is voluntary, the law is unclear. We are working with our lawyers and the EHRC to clarify the position. Meanwhile the case study which triggered this debate has been withdrawn pending this review." (although it is still contained within their policy document).
A century ago women died in their campaign for suffrage. Now it is suggested they should (voluntarily) sit in designated areas in a university lecture hall just because they are women. Quite simply there is no place for it.
exactly my points, and very well put. I wonder at anyone who can think, condone putting this in place, as i said it's the thin end of the wedge.
something else i have long wondered, if little boys and girls look up to their parents for guidance in life, which presumably most do, then little boys may well see their mothers clad in burkha, veil , and assume that is how all women should look, including their sisters, wives.
After all in days gone by, as the girl in the family it was expected to help with the chores, whilst the siblings went out to play, haven't we moved on...
something else i have long wondered, if little boys and girls look up to their parents for guidance in life, which presumably most do, then little boys may well see their mothers clad in burkha, veil , and assume that is how all women should look, including their sisters, wives.
After all in days gone by, as the girl in the family it was expected to help with the chores, whilst the siblings went out to play, haven't we moved on...
The part of this that puzzles me is this.
"The EHRC’s announcement came after UUK’s chief executive insisted gender segregation was not completely “alien” in British life.
Nicola Dandridge said: “It’s not something which is so alien to our culture that it has to be regarded like race segregation, which is totally different and it’s unlawful and there’s no doubt about that whatsoever."
I was under the impression that "discrimination" laws had equal weight and that discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, religion etc were all equally unlawful.
Is Nicola Dandridge implying that gender discrimination is less unlawful than race discrimination and, if so, is she correct?
"The EHRC’s announcement came after UUK’s chief executive insisted gender segregation was not completely “alien” in British life.
Nicola Dandridge said: “It’s not something which is so alien to our culture that it has to be regarded like race segregation, which is totally different and it’s unlawful and there’s no doubt about that whatsoever."
I was under the impression that "discrimination" laws had equal weight and that discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, religion etc were all equally unlawful.
Is Nicola Dandridge implying that gender discrimination is less unlawful than race discrimination and, if so, is she correct?
And since my last post I have been thinking about the comment made by Universities UK that “…where the gender segregation is voluntary, the law is unclear”
For segregation to be voluntary all those attending must agree to it, otherwise it is not voluntary. If 90% of the audience agree to sit where they are told but the other 10% want to sit where they choose that does not meet my idea of “voluntary”. And the danger is that students will forced to “volunteer” to the segregation. It is a complete can of worms which need never be opened.
For segregation to be voluntary all those attending must agree to it, otherwise it is not voluntary. If 90% of the audience agree to sit where they are told but the other 10% want to sit where they choose that does not meet my idea of “voluntary”. And the danger is that students will forced to “volunteer” to the segregation. It is a complete can of worms which need never be opened.
All the major political leaders have come out against this measure. The idea that an external speaker can demand gender segregation to comply with their religious sensibilities, whilst offering a token "mixed seating area" is completely unacceptable,most especially at institutions of higher education.
It was a weak and feeble position taken by UUK and they have rightly withdrawn that guidance, subject to further reviews.
If people of faith wish to have gender segregation, let them do it in private, or in their mosques/temples. It is not something that faith societies in universities or outside speakers should be making a pre-condition of the meeting, especially in secular buildings in the UK.
It was a weak and feeble position taken by UUK and they have rightly withdrawn that guidance, subject to further reviews.
If people of faith wish to have gender segregation, let them do it in private, or in their mosques/temples. It is not something that faith societies in universities or outside speakers should be making a pre-condition of the meeting, especially in secular buildings in the UK.
Quite right, LG.
But the notion that a publicly funded body such as UUK could even consider countenancing such a measure in among their ridiculous guidance document (I ask you, 44 pages on how to deal with inviting a speaker to address a meeting!) simply demonstrates the awful knots into which UK institutions have tied themselves when trying to defend in indefensible.
No sane person in the UK in 2013 would suggest it is OK to segregate audiences on the basis of colour under any circumstances whatsoever. It would be unthinkable. Quite why gender separation facilities should be even considered just because some followers of a minority religion believe that men and women should be kept apart in such circumstances simply beggars belief.
There is also the question of why universities are inviting speakers to address their students when they clearly have views on matters such as gender equality which are so diversant from those accepted (and legislated for) in the UK. Once again, imagine them inviting a speaker who suggests that white and black people should be segregated in public places - just try to imagine the uproar that would ensue.
I note that UUK has now deleted their "Case Study No.2" from their document, though it was there for all to see earlier today.
As an aside I find it highly amusing that those who would normally dismiss out of hand such blatant discrimination (not to mention downright bad manners) find themselves in a particular quandary when one of their favourite principles is spectacularly flouted by one of their favourite groups. It must be hell !!!
But the notion that a publicly funded body such as UUK could even consider countenancing such a measure in among their ridiculous guidance document (I ask you, 44 pages on how to deal with inviting a speaker to address a meeting!) simply demonstrates the awful knots into which UK institutions have tied themselves when trying to defend in indefensible.
No sane person in the UK in 2013 would suggest it is OK to segregate audiences on the basis of colour under any circumstances whatsoever. It would be unthinkable. Quite why gender separation facilities should be even considered just because some followers of a minority religion believe that men and women should be kept apart in such circumstances simply beggars belief.
There is also the question of why universities are inviting speakers to address their students when they clearly have views on matters such as gender equality which are so diversant from those accepted (and legislated for) in the UK. Once again, imagine them inviting a speaker who suggests that white and black people should be segregated in public places - just try to imagine the uproar that would ensue.
I note that UUK has now deleted their "Case Study No.2" from their document, though it was there for all to see earlier today.
As an aside I find it highly amusing that those who would normally dismiss out of hand such blatant discrimination (not to mention downright bad manners) find themselves in a particular quandary when one of their favourite principles is spectacularly flouted by one of their favourite groups. It must be hell !!!
"The EHRC’s announcement came after UUK’s chief executive insisted gender segregation was not completely “alien” in British life.
What wonderful reasoning, by that logic we should have a death penalty for murder, deportation for theft, bear baiting, child labour and Robber Barons. Ok weve still got the Robber Barons....
What wonderful reasoning, by that logic we should have a death penalty for murder, deportation for theft, bear baiting, child labour and Robber Barons. Ok weve still got the Robber Barons....
// I think Ludwig’s “park bench” demonstrates the folly of this arrangement superbly. //
Thanks. It occurred to me since that alot of people might not realise that the analogy is based on reality and that they actually used to have such benches in apartheid South Africa.
I thought I'd make that clear in case people thought I'd conjured up such an absurd and horrific notion from my own imagination.
Thanks. It occurred to me since that alot of people might not realise that the analogy is based on reality and that they actually used to have such benches in apartheid South Africa.
I thought I'd make that clear in case people thought I'd conjured up such an absurd and horrific notion from my own imagination.
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching7 mins ago
Animals & Nature10 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Film, Media & TV17 mins ago
