If you ever find yourself in charge of a public university, make sure you have some good lawyers. You are required under the Constitution to approve reasonable accommodation requests. It’s not optional.
Much2learn, my point is just that different groups may not get the “same” accommodations. That isn’t the standard. Indeed, although I haven’t looked up the law, I suspect that you can take into account how many people will benefit from the accommodation in determining how reasonable it is. That is, if you are asked for a single-sex pool time, it might matter whether there are 5 or 500 people who, for religious reasons, can’t swim with members of the opposite sex. If you balance the benefit to the group against the inconvenience to others, you can have different results depending on the needs, or size, of the group asking for the accommodation. It might be reasonable for a public college in Brooklyn to provide a kosher dining room, but not for a public college in Mississippi to do so.
@pizzagirl " it’s important to note that no free speech principles were violated. Free speech has to do with the govt shutting speech down, not private entities."
Agreed. I am not suggesting that Brandeis was not within their rights as a private university.
I am concerned if we are so PC that unpopular opinions can not be heard. Trying to equate dissenting speech with hate speech is also very concerning. It seems that some religious groups think that the freedom to exercise their religion also provides freedom from the ability of other to criticize their religion, which it does not.
@Hunt I agree with you that all groups may not receive the same accommodation, but I think that if a group requests an accommodation that another group has been granted, it would seem reasonable that they should be allowed to have it. Some should not be “more equal than others.”
The public college where I teach recently settled a lawsuit after the student life people did not give members of one Christian sect the same privileges it extended to members of another Christian sect. It was a simple matter of painting windows during Homecoming week, but the principles at stake were not petty.
“If it doesn’t apply to you…just keep walking and ignore. Why is this an issue?”
What if it’s not so easy for all to ignore? Let’s suppose that there are students and staff on campus who lost friends or family in the 9/11 attack. If hearing these prayers broadcast is a regular and painful reminder to them, does that change anyone’s thinking?
There is no obligation for the college to protect you from things you might find personally hurtful. If my ancestors were murdered by Catholics in pogroms in Poland, does that mean the Catholic center on campus shouldn’t be allowed to display a cross? What if I’m Palestinian and I believe that Jews have hurt my loved ones? The college is not in the business of just making sure everyone’s feelings are soothed at all times and no one ever comes across something that is personally upsetting.
Many of the arguments presented here hinge on how inconvenienced or annoyed other students would be by any accommodation made to religious groups. I just wanted to point out that for some people it might not be so trivial. I would say the same on behalf of the Palestinians if it were the Jews asking to broadcast their services. Just challenging the assumption that none of this could possibly be disturbing to anyone, they can just walk by and have a nice day. At what point does the University also have an interest in creating a welcoming climate for everyone?
People also need to get over perpetual victimhood, too. It seems to be quite the thing on college campuses these days.
Do you think the Muslim center on campus itself should not exist because some students might have lost loved ones in 9/11 and the mere presence of Muslim students is offensive? Why or why not?
My objection to this prayer was about the noise disruption that (I perceived) it might cause, not because I think that Muslims have a special duty to hide.
What happened in the Duke case, that is, regarding the Muslim calls to prayer, is that news media have reported that Billy Graham’s son called donors and told them that they had better call Duke’s office of giving and tell them they will stop giving if they broadcast Muslim prayers. He told the donors to “withold their support until the decision was reversed”.
So either Duke needs to find more secular minded large donors, or deal with it.
As for feelings soothed - where do you draw the line? Back when people were protesting Apartheid, if any actor or singer had ever performed in South Africa, students protested if they were supposed to perform on campus. Blackballed. Even if there was no indication of any support of the government.
And nowadays, the same thing is happening with college endowments that have petroleum company investments. Some students picket and protest that. Yet they ignore that wind energy kills thousands and thousands of endangered birds like Bald Eagles, and millions of birds and bats that aren’t endangered. But popular opinion says oil bad, wind good. As in “ultimate bad” and “ultimate good”.
Well, where do you draw the line? My D’s college installed a controversial statue of a partially-clothed man (very realistic looking). Some people protested because they simply thought the statue was ugly / unbefitting the beauty of the campus (my D didn’t protest, but that was her personal belief), and others protested because it was triggering to them as past victims of sexual assault. Ultimately, the college kept the statue on the belief that art is meant to provoke and make the viewer think / reflect (though the coda is that one drunk student wound up vandalizing it and getting suspended as a result, as she should have been, and the statue was ultimately pulled at the time it was intended to be pulled). Some say - good for those strong women to protest something invading their safe space. Others say - why are these women such victims they can’t handle a statue that is obviously not coming after them.
I didn’t in any way suggest (or think) that they should hide or be banned from campus. Not sure why you would even think I did. Hiding is rather different than a regular public broadcast of their prayers. Are all those campus religions that don’t broadcast prayers to the campus “hiding” in your opinion?
If noise is the concern, then shut down the church bells. They are noisy. My daughter is hoping to get a room next year where she will not be disturbed by bells ringing.
“Not sure why you would even think I did. Hiding is rather different than a regular public broadcast of their prayers. Are all those campus religions that don’t broadcast prayers to the campus “hiding” in your opinion?”
I think Hunt has been trying to make the point that in this particular case, they are not asking for “public broadcast of their prayers” (in the sense that therefore the campus is obligated to give every other religious organization the same X minutes and access to a loudspeaker every day to broadcast their own point of view), but they are asking for reasonable accommodation by asking for the facility to enable them to carry out a part of their religious tradition which just so happens to be public in nature.
I am not familiar enough with Duke’s campus to speak to how loud it would be - my personal concern would be with noise disruption, not because I’m some special snowflake who doesn’t like a particular religion and thinks I should be “protected” from it.
It was not clear to me that Duke changed their position because of Rev. Graham or because of the alleged threat.
As we have seen from the length of this discussion, this is a complex issue irrespective of the Christian Conservatives. Perhaps the administration realized that there were some legitimate questions and concerns (admittedly mixed with some non-legitimate concerns) and decided that they should pull back the decision until they have thought through the issue in a more comprehensive way. That would seem to be completely reasonable.
Broadcasting the call to prayer is not a free exercise issue because Duke is a private college. Whether the request is a “reasonable accommodation” is irrelevant. The decision is purely a discretionary one on the part of Duke, which it claims was made to enhance “diversity” on campus not to accommodate religions.
“not because I’m some special snowflake who doesn’t like a particular religion and thinks I should be “protected” from it.” “Special snowflake?” Can we have a discussion without you flinging insults at staff and students who may have lost family members?
Oh come on. Is hearing a 3 minute prayer really a “triggering” event for people who lost loved ones in 9/11? If so, then maybe they are not in a proper mental state to be at a sleep-away university. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I would hope they would get the help that they need as this seems like a crippling, debilitating issue. Further, considering that it’s now common knowledge when and where it could be heard, steps can be taken to avoid hearing it.
Perhaps they should choose to go to a Christian or Jewish school to ensure that they don’t hear anything that may potentially trigger a memory.
I understand triggers, but I am sick of universities tip-toeing around “triggers” because some hypothetical person may or may not be able to handle the real world. It is OK if you have PTSD, but the world shouldn’t cater to you.
No, of course not. Seeing anyone who looks Muslim could be a trigger. So could planes flying overhead, or seeing George Bush on TV.
We can’t keep people from being sad. We don’t protect students who have lost loved ones because of alcoholism or drunk drivers from the sight of college drinking, which affects far more people than 9/11.