<p>Really?</p>
<p>I thought Harvard’s endowment was large enough to avoid good ol’ government monies. Guess no one’s free of the taxpayer-supplied coffers anymore.</p>
<p>In that case, I’m going to have to change my perspective.</p>
<p>razor sharp, if you feel that way, then let the men ask for their own time in the gym with no women if they really want to, that probably would not be an issue. And just because you get some money from the government doesn’t mean you should ignore religion. Some money obviously goes to religious buildings and organizations on campus, like the Hillel building, the chapels, churches, and much more. So are you saying that Harvard should stop funding those groups as well because they are religious and Harvard gets some money from gov.</p>
<p>I don’t think either me or razorsharp is saying that Harvard “should ignore religion” (though I can’t speak for razor). </p>
<p>However, I assume that if federal money is indeed spent on those religious projects (which to me seems to violate some principles I hold near, but I accept the supposition for the sake of argument), then those projects must receive equal funding - or the funds ultimately balance out so that no group is being discriminated against (with reservations, of course. I don’t think someone can start their own religion, waltz in, and claim equal funding).</p>
<p>Harvard should definitely be able to cater to various segments within its larger student population, but not if that catering ends up oppressing other students. I don’t think that the mere presence of a chapel oppresses members of non-participants. But when someone’s literally locked out of a gym…that’s a little different.</p>
<p>Providing the option is one thing. Favoring one group over another group is a different animal altogether. It’s a thorny issue.</p>
<p>WorryNoMas, you stated earlier,</p>
<p>“The First Amendment really doesn’t really have much to do with this case. The Bill of Rights limits what the federal government (and by selective incorporation, the states) can do to inhibit certain freedoms we take to be inalienable. As I stated earlier - I think Harvard should be able to do whatever the hell it wants. It’s a private entity.”</p>
<p>If you really take this to be true, there is something gravely wrong about your conceptions of American law. The First Amendment applies to every facet of American public life, and to a certain extent, even the private life. I, for example, cannot open a “whites-only” restaurant or hotel because that would violate federal statue. Companies, yes even private ones, cannot discriminate with respect to race when hiring employees. As the overriding vehicle of sovereignty in the United States, the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court permits explicitly for the enforcement of these inalienable rights in as much a capacity as possible in civil society.</p>
<p>I acknowledged that distinction (not necessarily directly) in my explanation. I mentioned that if you confuse “race” with “religion,” then the government immediately has the right to intervene in the name of fairness.</p>
<p>It’s important to maintain the distinction, because while discrimination in the name of race is always unfair, regulation of religious practice is a valid and often necessary utilization of law. (EDIT: Whoops, didn’t even realize my slip of the tongue. Discrimination against members of a religion is unfair as well; however, religions shouldn’t be able to cry discrimination when their practices are regulated)</p>
<p>Sorry for not making the point clearer.</p>
<p>WorryNoMas, </p>
<p>Instead of building a chapel right in the middle of Harvard Yard (or wherever the chapel really is), they could have built a synagogue. Isn’t that oppressing the Jews because now they have to talk an additional fifteen minutes (or however long it really takes) to where they want to go? Or how about serving Kosher food in the cafeteria. You say its merely another option, but there is only a finite amount of funds used for cooking, and instead of preparing a Kosher dish, they could have cooked something non-Kosher I like. Wouldn’t that be oppressing the rights of non-Jews? </p>
<p>“I don’t think that the mere presence of a chapel oppresses members of non-participants.”</p>
<p>Sure it does. If we argue in your absurd paradigm of thought everything that can be considered in the special interest of one group can be seen as oppressing the majority. </p>
<p>“or the funds ultimately balance out so that no group is being discriminated against”</p>
<p>Hmm, let’s see if the “funds” really do balance out. For six measly hours a week in one gym, might I add not even during prime-time hours, you are forced to accommodate the interests of a minority group. I think inkspill mentioned there are two other major gyms, not to mention fourteen residential college facilities open eight hours a day at your convenience. Can you tell me how the funds are not balancing out? </p>
<p>Hell every time I go to a cafeteria I see Kosher food. That’s potentially twenty one times a week, and if we assume it takes me an hour to eat a meal, twenty one hours a week at every cafeteria I find on campus. Maybe we should be holding sit-ins against the Jews? After all, I really do want my steak medium-rare, cook and butchered the American way.</p>
<p>And no, I am not Muslim.</p>
<p>EDIT** Thanks for elucidating your other post.</p>
<p>I’m not entirely sure how you can compare looking at a kosher weiner twenty one hours a week to being locked out of a gym.</p>
<p>Clearly, this is a difference of opinion that won’t be resolved online.</p>
<p>We’re blowing this out of proportion just because of the religion of the students. I’m sure other girls have felt uncomfortable too and just have not been compelled enough to voice their opinions. These Muslim students helped to start a tradition which benefits both themselves and other girls who’d prefer to work out without guys. Heck, even I think that’s less awkward. </p>
<p>Being locked out of the gym for a few hours isn’t the end of the world. Note how typically inconvenient those times are anyway.</p>
<p>To America: Why are you letting yourself be bullied around? STOP BENDING OVER BACKWARDS. </p>
<p>To Others: It’s not like it’s a god-given right for them to be there. No one said they had to stay. They can just leave. Part of living in America is to adapt to American customs and traditions. If they can handle that, get OUT of America. Again, no one is stopping them. For them to live in such an awesome place like America, they will have to make some sacrifices, and I don’t think that sharing a gym is too unreasonable.</p>
<p>Then again, Harvard is private property, so they can do whatever the heck the want. (legally of course)</p>
<p>But still, if stuff like this is continues, America is *******. We’ll have to move to the land down under - if it’s not too late already. ;)</p>
<p>I’m a Muslim female and I don’t think the conflict here is whether Muslims are capable of sharing.</p>
<p>Whenever I go to the gym, I try to wear long pants and have never worn one of those sport bras. It’s always a t-shirt and long pants. Islam’s philosophy for women is MODESTY, not oppression. </p>
<p>When I go back to visit relatives in the Middle East, if I end up wearing shorts, I get a lot of degrading looks from men. Not because wearing shorts is absolutely horrible, but because wearing shorts is a mockery of your modesty. You’re basically inviting men to look upon you lu****lly.</p>
<p>I applaud the women who asked for some female-only hours. Yes, that’s quite a change and people will have to adjust their schedules, of course. But in my opinion (and I guess my background adds some bias here), their request was for something unselfish and not to take advantage of the schism between Islam and the West. </p>
<p>I’m not sure if I did a good job explaining this, but please let me know if you have questions if you still think this is an “outrage”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and to be perfectly honest, having to sit at the back of the bus really wasn’t a particularly bad hardship for Rosa Parks, either.</p>
<p>We don’t fight these things because they meet some arbitrary test of “how bad” discrimination has to be before it is bad - we fight them because discrimination is bad.</p>
<p>If a group of female Muslim students wanted a “women only” gym time, what’s the hitch? Two time slots a week won’t lead to sweeping changes in a student’s schedule book, would it? Let us not snowball this into a bigger issue.</p>
<p>If a previous system was obstructing certain women from accessing the gym, I think the least Harvard could have done was to make an exclusive time slot for them. I commend Harvard for having paid heed to the needs of it’s student body.</p>
<p>Wow binghamtonrocks…
Where do I begin ? First of all, my comment about Muslims disdain for dogs is not something I made up. Muslim lore has it as dogs being considered impure and something to be avoided. Pious Muslims are more likely to stay away, and I never claimed that ALL Muslims take this to heart and have issue with it. There are several documented cases of cab drivers, and shop owners refusing to service blind customers with seeing all dogs, some of which have resulted in arrests .
Did I infer that this applies to every Muslim ? Look it up, I am sure you can manage a search engine and would suggest you give it a try before labeling me " evil " or racist , in need of your enlightenment. OR calling me ( on other posters here ) @#%^&* morons. You sort of lose your credibility when you cannot control your temper and resort to name calling and symbolic internet cursing.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is completely out of the realm to question what is next ?
Does it affect me personally ?
No , not yet…but I wonder when it will.</p>
<p>Now , flashback a couple of weeks ago if you will to a topic that was posted here from a student with some serious issues he had with a college he wants to attend . The poster has some allergies and immuno-deficient challenges that puts him at risk for getting ill. He was quite irrate that the college would not succomb to his demandsto change their policies to accomodate him.
He came across here, as being unreasonable to deal with, throwing around vague threats of lawsuits, etc.
Most of the posters on the thread were all over him like white on rice…not because of his health limitations, but because of his unwillingness to compromise and not demand that everyone else in his environment not re-arrange everything for him.</p>
<p>And for the poster here who has asked if anyone who objects to Harvard’s decision to accomodate this request , if we would object to other similar requests. I speak for myself here, but yes , I would. Thought I was pretty clear about that in my previous post.</p>
<p>Posted at Harvard Crimson
by Nicholas Wells</p>
<p>…It is especially the morning hours from eight to ten that are so crucial to those who live in the Quad. The whole reason for having a nearby gym is that you can use it whenever you are home. Morning hours, like evening hours, are important because those are times when students who live in the Quad are actually there. Morning hours are also the least convenient hours in the day to draw women and religious minorities from river houses that the new policy is supposedly aimed at benefiting. Why make a trek at eight in the morning when theres a gym right outside your doorstep? Well, for us Quadlings, the QRAC is right outside our doorstep.</p>
<p>Not only are Harvards policies harsh on those who live in the Quad, they are unfair to men. It might be possible to make a case for these hours were they actually advantageous for anyone. However, seeing how the policies are of effectively little use to anyone their only real effect is to discriminate against men who keep regular morning or afternoon workout hours. This seems fundamentally unfair to me.</p>
<p>Inevitably, someone loses a little bit either way. Either women and religious minorities who feel uneasy or intimidated working out around men are deterred from going to the gym, or Quadlings face restricted hours when they can work out. The policy as it now stands, however, is lose-lose. Its all downsides. Men in the Quad have to deal with restricted hours, and the women only hours are so impractical that they dont actually encourage anyone to work out who wouldnt otherwise.</p>
<p>If Harvard truly wanted to support women by designating specific gym space for them, it would do so by mandating hours and location in a way that were actually practical. But rightfully seeing that inconveniencing a significant portion of its campus was not a viable option, Harvard has instead decided to burden a minority in the Quad…</p>
<p>Some comments on this articles:</p>
<p>by ron
Capitulating to a small minority is a sure way to destroy democracy.This is not a country where the few are supposed to control the many.This is anarchy of the minority at work.America cannot afford to let minorities set the rules for the rest of the population.These six Muslim women now control a portion of this university and they will be casting around for more.</p>
<p>by GTS
This is a tricky road that the university has gone down. Which rights do you infringe on and at what times do you infringe on them. In this case, you give the minority group (not referirng to race or sex, but purely numbers) the poor hours and the majority of gym users the good hours if you wish to make rules like this.</p>
<p>Seeing how this is a private university I can understand making rules like this, but this would insane to do in a public university where everyone should be seen as the same and everything is open to the public.</p>
<p>Different religions have different rules, but it is not an institutions responsibility to make special rules for a religion. It is a person’s right to choose their own religion and when choosing said religion they need to realize that there maybe certain limitations on what they are able to do in the world. It is called personal accountability. Something I think most of the world has forgotten about.</p>
<p>by Kerry
This is sexism, and I am a feminist, yes an egalitarian feminist who resents special quotas and rules for gender, race or faith. The Muslim community can build its own private gym for Muslims, and not use tax paid dollars for discriminatory rules.</p>
<p>by cmnsense
A well stated argument and one that I happen to agree with. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of hearing of many institutions and often times our own government, continuously attempt to “take away” liberties that have been a cornerstone on the very foundation of what America was built on… Especially for minorities that represent a very small percentage of our overall population. You can’t be everything to everyone!! You know the small dog who barks the loudest usually gets their way… kind of like the change from “Christmas Break” to “Holiday recess”… Thank you for expressing yourself on this topic and approaching it like you did. You’re challenging the policy rather than the muslim community at large. Good Job!</p>
<p>by Deana
This is total discrimination…and I’m a woman! If modesty is so important to them, why didn’t they go to an all girls’ school? Get used to it people. The good old USA has lost its balls and we can’t tell anyone no anymore…we might offend someone.</p>
<p>The link to this article is [The</a> Harvard Crimson :: Opinion :: Women Only Hours are Unfair](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521977]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521977)</p>
<p>^^^ Thank you for posting this. I was curious how the scenario played out with the students at Harvard.</p>
<p>" Whenever I go to the gym, I try to wear long pants and have never worn one of those sport bras " </p>
<p>to beirut08, I am not trying to pick on you, but your reference to your chosen clothing is really not that much different from most women when working out in public.
" those sports bras ’ are not meant to be an article of revealing and or sexually provocative apparel. They are functional and IMO necessary for a woman to wear when working out… not to mention can easily be worn under a t-shirt:)
Wearing an ordinary , everyday bra is a little gross, and inappropriate for working out.
Just as necessary as a certain article worn by male athletes, if you catch my drift.
While I respect your decision to adhere to the traditional garb worn in your family’s native land, please understand that we , in the USA generally do not share the same urgency to cover up, as in traditional Muslim dominated societies. Live and let live, I say.
I wouldn’t dream of trying to tell you that your chosen clothing is wrong for your lifestyle and value system, any more than I think you or other members of your faith should decide, or try to influence what is acceptable in our culture.
So if I ever go to Lebanon or another Muslim dominated country, I would respect the culture…wouldn’t exploit my freedom to wear revealing clothing, nor would I don a veil or any other ornament to cover myself up in a way that is not consistant with what I have known my whole life.</p>
<p>I also wouldn’t try to influence the born and bred folks that adhere to the norms of their faith and society to conform to the beliefs of my society.</p>
<p>There are many subtle differences within the western society. Having a Scandinavian born husband, we experience many societal differences in our upbringings…luckily my husband has adopted the more conservative notions and morals of his adopted country ( USA ) when it comes to the upbringing of our children.
And I have to admit, I have a little embarrassment when I have to explain some of the lifestyle choices of his family members, including his elderly parents. Some things that are universally accepted in his native country are taboo here in the USA.</p>
<p>Would those opposing these ladies, be opposed to Harvard building a gym devoted entirely to ladies? </p>
<p>Because, to be honest, all of you base your argument on either hate, such as “these Muslim-only hours are ridiculous (I have no idea where you got the notion that these were Muslim hours)” and “these Muslims will ask for this one day then they will ban seeing eye dogs”, or the idea that this is discriminatory. Some say it is simply inconvenient</p>
<p>First off, the hate is unreasonable and I will not even argue with it. In order to have an intelligent debate, you have to have two reasonable sides. </p>
<p>I agree that this act is sexist and discriminatory to men. However, to me these gym rules are not any different from gender-segregation in the rest of society … dorms, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletics are all accepted. By the way, Rosa Parks’ situation no way correlates to this. Please do not compare the situation of a race that has been oppressed for hundreds of years, to (predominately) well-off college students crying DISCRIMINATION. </p>
<p>Finally, the only legitimate point is the inconvenience factor. Despite the fact that there are various places to work out at Harvard during the specified ladies-only hours, I can understand why spoiled students (don’t take offense to this, but the fact is it’s really not the world’s greatest problem) would like to work out in THAT gym at THOSE hours. So, why not build a gym specifically for ladies? Harvard’s got plenty of money. And as mentioned in previous threads, Harvard does designate programs (and PLENTY of money) in order to better serve other religious groups. I shouldnt have to specifically mention this, but this is not a Muslims-only gym (its ladies only), but let me guess the next thing you know these Muslims are gonna want their own gym </p>
<p>Please don’t say ‘spoiled students’ and imply that it’s Harvard students who are doing the ■■■■■■■■ on this board. Other than that crimson article, I haven’t heard a single student on campus complain about this thing, we’re all too busy lobbying HUDS to bring back whole-grain pasta (which they did today!). </p>
<p>If y’all want to have a bigoted and ultimately insignificant debate on the Harvard board that’s fine, but don’t think it’s reflective of Harvard itself at all.</p>
<p>As the OP on this thread, I’d like to say that I posted the article not to inspire hate speech, because I thought it was a lovely example of how Harvard attempts to accommodate people of all religious backgrounds</p>
<p>Although I’m not Muslim, I don’t see anything wrong with the changes that Harvard made to meet the needs of the Muslim females. The inconvenience to others is minor.</p>
<p>I also think that if Harvard could figure who some of the Harvardwannabes are who are making the derogatory statement toward Muslims, those students applications would be put quickly into the rejection file. I remember asking an Ivy admissions officer what are sure fire things that could keep a high stat, excellent EC student out of the Ivy. The admissions officer answered that any evidence that the student rejected people because of things like their race, religion or sexual orientation would mean that the student definitely wasn’t the type that admissions wanted on campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>What I want to know is those of you who support Harvard’s postion, would you support Harvard building a gym devoted entirely to men? </p>
<p>How about if Harvard medical school creates a wing where only Muslim male patients can stay and only male doctors and male medical interns can treate them? In other words, female doctors need not apply. </p>
<p>For years women were prohibited from entry into certain buildings, jobs, professions etc simply becuase of their gender. What Harvard is doing is applying the same principle used to exclude women from traditionally male activities to exclude men.</p>