Pajamas Media

79 Comments

Peter Gee:

The obvious thing to do here if to take a leaf out of the Civil Right “freedom bus” playbook.

Invade the gym during the segregated times. Refuse to move. Bombard Harvard with lawsuits. Hold make “exercise-ins” during the sharia hours.

This nonsesne will be over as soon as the first judge hears a case.

Which Harvard student(s) or alumni with gym privileges have the moxies, because this is the only way.

Mar 28, 2008 - 3:53 am Ed Wallis:

Peter Gee, What a delicious idea! “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…”!

Mar 28, 2008 - 6:06 am Valerie:

I am a member of a homeowner’s association that operates a fitness club. We already had a separate area for women (one room) and the hijabis demanded that males who work at the gym be banned from coming into that room. So now, men, but not women, must knock and announce themselves before coming into that area when the hijabis are around.

So, how does a hijabi exercise? In sweats. With a scarf. A slow, short walk on the treadmill that would not qualify as exercise in any other context.

We have had Muslim women in this community wearing colorful scarves and colorful long tunics with loose, light pants in this community for decades. When they have exercised, they have done so in ordinary gym clothes indistinguishable from those of other patrons. They have not in the past worn scarves to exercise. The black robes, bandit masks, veils for tiny girls and demands for special accommodation are new, highly political, and not designed for the health and welfare of women.

Mar 28, 2008 - 6:11 am Curly Smith:

Peter Gee has the situation backwards - the Supreme Court has determined that institutional discrimination against the majority is a Civil Right. It’s perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin or sexual orientation if one’s race, sex, religion, national origin or sexual orientation isn’t “in the mainstream”. The fine folks at Harvard will argue that it’s not just legal, it’s a moral imperative to discriminate if we’re to build a more inclusive society.

Mar 28, 2008 - 6:44 am Michael T:

Do they use the swimming facilities wearing a hijab? Please photograph. Probably as funny as watching them eat spaghetti wearing the hijab(available on YouTube)

Mar 28, 2008 - 7:04 am Patrick R:

At least Harvard had the honesty to admit whom they were appeasing with this segregation. At my local swimming pool in London they now operate women-only sessions, attended almost exclusively by Muslim women. When I asked why, as a man, I was being refused access to municipal facilities I had paid for through tax, the answer was that “some women had requested it”, with no reference to the religious motivation.

This is appallingly disingenuous and a dreadful precedent set by a public sector so terrified of appearing anti-Muslim that they will accept the superstitions of a vocal minority as grounds to enact segregation.

Mar 28, 2008 - 7:35 am mwl:

I’m still waiting for a Harvard student or alum to file a
Title IX sex-discrimination lawsuit, because I’ve heard
nothing about male-only hours.

Mar 28, 2008 - 8:26 am Kathy Mary:

I always feel that I have walked into some kind of Twilight Zone when I read this sort of thing. I am a conservative, I am also a 56 year old woman. I didn’t burn my bra back when - but I didn’t wear it much, either. I didn’t become a feminist, either - just living a really great life in a free country. I agreed with some of the feminist ideas, disagreed with others. I agree with some things people term liberal while think the general mindset of modern Liberalism is philosophically a dead end - and here is my problem :

NOW the democrats/liberals are saying that:
1. Christianity is a lot of nonsense & we should do away with Christmas, Easter and the like, Christ is a myth & the religion a delusion … now, Christian women - women like me- have all kinds of rights. We can vote, own property,divorce in most Christian sects, marry who we want, don’t get stoned for sin, wear what ever we want & be Christians, we pay our taxes on time and obey the laws of the land - my life isn’t that far off from what feminism spoke of back in the 60’s as a good life.
2. But they also say : That we must respect the Muslim religion, even making special times and places for them in our gyms etc. A priest in the Anglican church said England will have to come to terms, even adopt Sharia law. It is becoming increasingly hard to criticize Islam for its human rights abuses without being called bigot, paranoid, and sued or even killed, world-wide.
3. They are against any war against the Muslim extremists - people, who would destroy everything that modern Liberalism has been working for since the turn of the LAST century - that’s the 20th, people.
And this is only the tip of this massive iceberg.. does anyone see Liberalism setting itself up for a really big fall, does anyone besides me (and my husband) suspect that they are setting themselves to be the first people beheaded when Sharia law becomes the law? Do they really believe that Sharia law can live in peace with modern liberalism? Like I said, Liberalism isn’t thinking itself through any longer, its all feelings and trying just to be nice & accommodating but why accommodate a religion that is against everything you believe in, while despising a religion that is very close to your ideas? .. Making special places and times for women is segregation, accommodating one religion while trying to destroy the creditability of another is giving one religion preferential treatment.
Are liberals just plain crazy? Or are they in the Catch-22 that their philosophy has created for them?
Doomed, is what they are. They are digging their own graves -some poor generation in the future will harvest what liberals have sown in ours, and, Lord, do I pity them!
As for me, I am 56 - I don’t suspect I will see the outcome of this era (in 50 or 60 years)???, but I will bet you its going to be very interesting - and, I suspect, even bloody.

Mar 28, 2008 - 8:28 am Roark:

Harvard is pathetic. The oldest university in America succumbing to islamisation. Disgusting.

Mar 28, 2008 - 9:43 am ellsworth charles:

It’s interesting how generous universities can be about a religous requirement when it involves islam. Usually requests like this induce a fit of madness and liberal hysteria.

Mar 28, 2008 - 9:51 am Anthony (Los Angeles):

Also disturbing his how a “liberal” columnist for a major national newspaper can consider see this rebirth of Jim Crow at Harvard as progress.

Mar 28, 2008 - 10:02 am Jonathan Burack:

I am a Harvard grad, class of ‘64. Am I qualified to take part in a law suit against Harvard based on Title IX or any of the other discrimination laws.=? If so, I would be happy to sign up. Anyone up for doing this and who knows how to, can count me in. What a contemptible disgrace. What’s that phrase, “so stupid only an intellectual could believe it”? And not only stupid, down right dangerous. Take a look at what is happening to free speech rights in Holland today, if you doubt me.

Mar 28, 2008 - 10:12 am Dana:

How does Harvard then justify their discrimination toward men with this new favoritism toward women? Isn’t this simply a reverse discrimination and isn’t there some law that forbids said discrimination toward any gender???? I would think that true feminists who espouse equality for all, would be utterly up in arms about this….

Mar 28, 2008 - 10:41 am Jeffey:

Not mentioned: the number of college men’s wrestling teams that were forced to disband due to Title IX.

Mar 28, 2008 - 10:50 am Techie:

To paraphrase Neal Boortz:

“Next thing you know, they’ll be demanding their own drinking fountains….”

Mar 28, 2008 - 10:52 am uburoi:

When I was at a large university several years ago, I was in the school fitness room, working out, and there was a Muslim woman on the treadmill, with her hijab and the whole head-to-toe get-up on pretending to work out. It was so ghastly and unsettling I could hardly prevent myself from laughing out loud. Here were all these western women, healthy and lithesome and vital, in shorts and Lycra and form-fitting clothing, vigorously exercising, confident and assured of their lovely bodies, and there was a black, woolen blob, an anachronism of the first degree, right smack in the middle of this display of athletic, western femininity. Frankly, it was vile, and utterly incompatible with every sensibility, aesthetic and moral, of a civilized western man. She may as well have been carrying her chains around with her.

The image remains in my mind of why I find Islam so repellent at all levels. Give me western women, athletic and muscular, the cowgirls and swimmers and volleyball players, the girls of the US Army and Marines, and all the sexy tom-girls who can frame a house and shoot a 12 gauge, and drink straight whiskey over those poor black, blobs of wool any day. Islam is not a religion, it is a death cult.

Mar 28, 2008 - 10:54 am rattlerd:

“A group of Muslim women made a request, we thought it was reasonable,” Harvard athletics spokesman Matt Lavoie told me in an interview. “It’s a religious issue, that’s all.”

Since this story broke, I have wondered what the response would have been if the women requesting this accomodation had been Pentecostals or Mormons…

Mar 28, 2008 - 11:18 am pst314:

“Next thing you know, they’ll be demanding their own drinking fountains….”

Well, they do regard us infidels as “unclean”….

Mar 28, 2008 - 11:22 am Vinny Vidivici:

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. The academy’s identity-group fetish has already given us ethnic- and race-based living quarters on campuses.

Techie’s paraphrase of Boortz has it just about right. We’ve come full circle in a little over a half century.

Mar 28, 2008 - 11:39 am Andy:

Yale faced a similar issue a few years ago - different religion, different results. Orthodox Jewish students who preferred not to live in coed dorms asked for the right to live away from campus and not pay the board fee. Denied, they sued and lost at the trial court and on appeal. The school argued that there were plenty of colleges that would have accomodated this request — if they wanted gender separated housing - they should have gone somewhere else

http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxxi/2001.01.12/news/p6yalefive.html

Mar 28, 2008 - 11:41 am el gordo:

I am fat. Working out next to athletic people makes me uncomfortable. Therefore I demand that the fat community gets separate facilities, too! What about MY RIGHTS?

Mar 28, 2008 - 11:45 am Paul Shea:

Since this policy was put in place has anyone looked at the usage of the gym by Muslim women during the time frames it is open exclusively to them?

Mar 28, 2008 - 11:47 am Harvard@Cal:

As an adherent to the teaching of the Most Holy Crow of James, I need to have my religious scruples honored, to wit, no folks of darkness may be allowed to exercise in the same room as those of us who follow the tenets of the Most Holy Crow of James.

Harvard University spokesman Robert Mitchell must realize this has to be done for those of us whose religion does not allow them to sweat or exercise in the presence of people of dark colour.

Indeed, Crowian Law requires one group of people — followers in way of the Most Holy Crow of James — have separate facilities for activities including sleeping, eating, worshiping, and exercising apart from another group of people, the unclean people of darkness.

Since we of the Crow (Most Holy of Birds)have made a request, we believe it will be found reasonable to Harvard athletics spokesman Matt Lavoie. It’s a religious issue, that’s all. Those of us who follow the Crow (MHOB) find it most unholy and intolerant that we must compromise our beliefs just so the people of darkness may corrupt our people with their filthy lives.

As director, Susan Marine, must know, it’s just not possible for Crowians to be in a mixed environment, especially where the forbidden fruit, the Melon of Water, may be consumed, and where shoes of excessive looseness may be worn. So sayith the Crow of James (MHOB).

Mar 28, 2008 - 11:56 am Mark Buehner:

The thing is, Harvard is claiming this isn’t political, but the way they have handled it is CLEARLY political.

Harvard could very easily have segregated the gym for 6 hours a week for women, and 6 hours for men. They could have explained the rationale as purely a service to ALL men and women who like to work out in same gender facilities (like Curves). Very few outside the radical feminists would have a problem with this.
But instead Harvard specifically endorsed the religious views of Islam in this matter, while descriminating against men in the same stroke. The money connection is entirely valid in my mind. Unless Harvard felt they needed to make a political statement in favor of Sharia, I don’t see why else they manufactured this scandal in this way.

Mar 28, 2008 - 11:59 am Jblog:

You know, no one is ever going to accuse me of being a bleeding-heart liberal — frankly, I’m so conservative I make Rush Limbaugh look like Jeanene Garafalo (okay, maybe not, but still…)

That being said — *sigh* — can’t we all just get along? Do we HAVE to turn EVERYTHING into a political and cultural foodfight?

If a group of women ask for some private time in the gym away from men a few hours a week out of respect for their faith and modesty, can’t we find a way accommodate them? I mean, so freakin’ what?

If we want to show the Islamofascists the superiority of our political and social system, we might start with not getting all torqued out about this (like THEY would) and showing a little of that “it’s a free country and you can do whatever you want as long as you aren’t hurting anybody” attitude.

You wanna really tweak their noses? Show their faith a little bit of the respect they’d never show to someone else’s.

I mean, I really don’t think allowing these women a little privacy is one step away from instituting enforced Sharia law on the Harvard campus. Do you?

This assumes, of course, that everyone involved is willing to be reasonable, and accept reasonable accommodations for others as well — like, for example, if male powerlifters want a few hours of men-only gym time to grunt, and strain and drop weights and stuff.

What it doesn’t mean is coming up with every possible ridiculous potential request and accommodating every dumbass “I demand my rights” scenario conceivable.

Let’s just — everybody — take a breathe, or a beat, or a walk around the block — and try to act like mature adults living in a free society here.

Mar 28, 2008 - 12:17 pm Assistant Village Idiot:

Curly Smith touches on an important point. Most of the commentary here is appalled at the obvious unequally-applied standards and at pains to point out how unreasonable all this is. Andy provides an excellent analogous example of what happened to another, less approved group, in a similar situation.

Rational thinking is irrelevant to this topic, and will only frustrate you. This is about making other people do what you want because you can get away with it. It is a weird victim/rapist charade in which Muslim males use Muslim women to assert dominance over infidels. It is unchallenged by too few on the left because the ultimate target is the same for them, and if Muslim women are further ground into submission along the way, so what?

This is the behavior of an entire culture which has a personality disorder (something in the borderline & narcissistic range).

Mar 28, 2008 - 12:38 pm Jay Lewis:

I remember this argument when I was growing up in the segregated South: “You people have the whole back of the bus. What are ya’ll complaining about? We’re just trying to accommodate everybody.”

And when marshals and paratroopers came to inform the local officials that the government would have to obey its own law, the segregationists switched to a cultural argument: “Why are they down here interfering with our way of life?”

I can understand this coming from the Committee for the Commendation of Virtue and the Condemnation of Vice, because they are just angry, ignorant men. But you, Harvard, have joined the same rogues’ gallery as Orval Faubus, Bull Conner and Robert Shelton, done it with a self-righteous smile.

Mar 28, 2008 - 12:43 pm Alan:

quoting: “I mean, I really don’t think allowing these women a little privacy is one step away from instituting enforced Sharia law on the Harvard campus. Do you?”

No, it’s not ONE step away from instituting enforced Sharia law, but you do pay attention to what’s going on in other venues, don’t you?

quoting: “This assumes, of course, that everyone involved is willing to be reasonable, and accept reasonable accommodations for others as well..”

Now I know you’re not paying attention to what’s going on in other venues.

I believe that Harvard as an institution doesn’t WANT to have taken the action they did, but from their culture they have no way to turn down the request. If they are forced to back off by a combination of rational argument, lawsuits, and significant public comment, they will do so, with apologies and a public posture of, “Hey, we tried to support your rights, but…” and will not ever admit they are happy to have been forced to reverse course.

Mar 28, 2008 - 12:50 pm Andrew X:

It is utterly predictable that, to paraphrase Marx, the “internal contradictions” of leftism now see the two concepts of “we must respect and honor ALL ‘other’ cultures”, and “we must empower women, minorities, gays, etc”, clash headlong into each other.

And it is beyond astonishing to imagine for even a moment that any Western leftist, if forced to make the choice between the two, would not choose the latter. Yet how many GOP hating, athiest minded, etc, are vociferously and passionately prepared to go after those “other cultures” who go against every single solitary damn thing that the left has marched for for decades? (Chris Hitchens comes to mind, one of a number that can be counted on one hand.)

The fact is, it is beyond belief how few on the left are prepared to fight for their own professed values, and how many will cave in the most craven and cowardly fashion to those who oppose everything they stand for simply because those others are not of the West. Where they white Christians doing this, the left would be at the barricades. Alas, wrong color. So often the case.

Does this beg a question? Just what do these people REALLY stand for? Just what is important to them? Women’s rights, gay rights, minority rights, the right of personal faith without consequence, these all have been used to oppose that “patricharchal, racist, misogynist, Christianist” American (and other Western) society. Surely if our societies were NOT that way, there would not be such opposition to it…. right?

Yet here is the proof. It’s not that way at all. It is the undermining of the current order, NO MATTER WHAT IT MAY BE, that is the most important. That is where the delightful frission of the movement comes from.

Women’s rights? Gay rights? Minority rights? Religious rights? Feh. Convenient when useful, DISCARDED when they get in the way.

People on the left are being forced to choose. The survival of liberty depends on forcing the ramifications of what they choose and why into the light. And let them be judged.

Mar 28, 2008 - 12:51 pm Kelly:

Jblog: “I mean, I really don’t think allowing these women a little privacy is one step away from instituting enforced Sharia law on the Harvard campus. Do you?”

Harvard isn’t “allowing these women a little privacy,” it is acquiescing to the women’s demands that men be excluded. The university gym exists for the use of the entire university community, but now a portion of the community is barred from using it solely on the basis of sex. The motivation — whether it be religious, political, racial, or otherwise — is immaterial.

Mar 28, 2008 - 12:58 pm Bacchus:

As long as a part of society is hellbent on living in the middle ages, why stop at the segregation of Muslim women? Why not segregate Muslim men from the male population, too? Would that argument stimulate an honest discussion among Muslims?

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:07 pm Chuck:

“Are liberals just plain crazy? Or are they in the Catch-22 that their philosophy has created for them?”

Well said, Kathy Mary.

“I mean, I really don’t think allowing these women a little privacy is one step away from instituting enforced Sharia law on the Harvard campus. Do you?”

A little privacy? This is a public facility for the Harvard community. If they want privacy they should exercise at home.

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:14 pm Abish:

Jblog,
There are at least two reasons why it is not just a matter of getting a little more relaxed and going with the flow as you suggest.
1.) Some religious people in America have been required to accommodate America in their religious beliefs. The example of the Jewish people who were denied the housing exception they requested. Along the same lines would be the Mormons-I am Mormon- who are not allowed to practice marriage the way they wish, in fact we cannot even speak in church about plural marriage without the fed’s interference. That last is a long history, but clearly laid out in American history. So, when we accommodate just Muslim women we are saying to every other person that they are not quite as “equal” as Muslims.
2.) When we look to European countries that have done accommodation for Muslims we see only increased demands and increased and respect for the host culture did not increase.

I don’t want to see my culture put in a position of being discarded out of my neglect to stand up for it!

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:27 pm Andy:

I think I figured this out.

Harvard regarding US Military: We don’t like ROTC or the US Military because of their stance on homosexuals.

So Harvard stands up for gay rights….

Harvard to Muslims: We respect your religious right to exclusive gym hours and homosexuality is a non-issue in this case… which is good because Muslims tend to be pretty tough on gays (google muslim gay beheading).

So Harvard must not like the military… unless you want to attend Harvard and pay using the GI Bill… then your money is good, but that doesn’t mean Harvard can be bought off.

So the key must be… Harvard stands up for religious freedom…

Harvard welcomes Muslims from everywhere, including Saudi Arabia, where they search your luggage at the border and destroy any bibles they find…. so religious freedom is narrowly construed. (In their country, they do what they want, in our country, they do what they want… simple).

Recap - If you belong to a religion that squashes women, gays, freedom of speech, and other religions, we will treat you better than other students… and if you fight for the US we take issue with you, unless you no longer fight for the US and simply want to pay to attend, then all is forgiven.

Ok, I’m lost.

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:32 pm Orson:

“segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Until we kill the “fun” in “fundamentalism”.

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:35 pm SteveB:

I have to say I’m with JBlog on this one. Not too many years ago JBlog this *was* the conservative position. So take heart, you’re still more conservative that Rush Limbaugh, and this is proof.

Rather than fight this just because it’s proposed by their ideological opponents I think conservatives should declare victory and embrace it. The campus republican group should throw it’s full-throated support behind it, and the campus christian groups should do so as well it and announce their intention to participate. Rejoice that Harvard is becoming a bastion of conservative sexual mores.

There’s two potential positive outcomes from such an approach:
1) If you are actually opposed to the policy nothing will kill it faster (in the campus environment) than conservative & christian support.
2) If your a conservative or christian of the somewhat more old fashioned sort your support will leech the multi-culti/anti-western poison out of an otherwise OK policy.

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:39 pm ALLAH ROCKBAR:

Gee, if I ride on the same bus as these Muslim women on their way to the Muslim women only gym time, do I have to sit in the back of the bus so I don’t offend them?

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:40 pm Jblog:

“Harvard isn’t “allowing these women a little privacy,” it is acquiescing to the women’s demands that men be excluded. The university gym exists for the use of the entire university community, but now a portion of the community is barred from using it solely on the basis of sex. The motivation — whether it be religious, political, racial, or otherwise — is immaterial.”

I stand corrected — apparently, we DO have to turn everything in a pants-drenching political and social frenzy.

But why stop at the gym? How about bathrooms — how DARE they segregate them by gender? After all they are PUBLIC bathrooms.

Goldang it, it’s not about privacy — its the PRINCIPLE of the thing.

By all means, let’s carry this to the silliest extremes possible. That’ll show those Islamofascists — we CAN be just as idiotic as they are!

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:43 pm Diggs:

Jblog, these women aren’t asking for a little privacy. They are asking that all the students and faculty at Harvard surrender to the requirements of islam. If these women don’t want to exercise around men, they don’t have to. Neither Harvard, nor islam, requires that they exercise in that gym.
Had Mormon students asked Harvard to segregate the gym because they didn’t like to be near people who drink coffee while they exercise, they would have been laughed off campus.
This is fear, pure and simple. Islamic women are asking for special treatment at Harvard and expect to be accomodated (and in fact were accomodated) because their fellow muslims are willing to kill infidels at the slightest provocation. Anyone who pretends it is other than that, is lying.

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:43 pm Increase Mather:

You know…ya can’t make this stuff up…can anyone have imagined even ten years ago that HARVARD would engage in religious segregation?

As a practicing Catholic, I think Harvard should put gym time aside for Catholics without having to rub shoulders with those who support divorce and abortion.

Would somebody tell me the difference?

Mar 28, 2008 - 1:50 pm Kevin R.C. O'Brien:

I’m reminded of the wacky protest a couple years ago, that with all the other perpetually offended losers that habitually attend Grievance Theater grand-openings, featured “Gays for Hezbollah” (or it might have been Hamas).

Of course, different tribes of mohammedans have different views on how gays should be treated. Some say stoning, some hanging. When the Religion of Peace® puts that question to her, which will Faust choose?

Mar 28, 2008 - 2:19 pm AnnaS:

It’s a kindness to try to accommodate other cultures, to compare opening a gym for 6 hours for women only to Jim Crow laws is insulting to people who have suffered through a lot of injustice.

This should not be viewed as an accommodation to just Muslims, it is a start in accomodating religious people. There are modesty rules in Christianity and Judaism as well. Perhaps Orthodox Jewish women and Mormon women can use it as well?

Perhaps Harvard should start men only hours for 6 hours a week, that way Orthodox Jewish men, Mormon men and men that grunt too loudly can join in with the Muslims and work out.

Mar 28, 2008 - 2:39 pm Undaunted:

Annie; you were a hockey player? And Captain of your team.
No wonder you’re so tough.

Great article, as usual.

Mar 28, 2008 - 2:58 pm Chip:

This is just the beginning. There is no limit to Muslim constraints on daily life or its segregation of believers and unbelievers, men and women.

In Saudi Arabia (to name one) it’s not uncommon to visit a house and never see the women at all. Food ‘magically’ appearing is the only suggestion they exist.

Just another example of the Worthless Generation in action.

Mar 28, 2008 - 3:16 pm mike d:

I don’t want to see my culture put in a position of being discarded out of my neglect to stand up for it!

—Well said.

Mar 28, 2008 - 3:23 pm Jim C.:

A quibble: the frog comparison is an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

Here’s another way of putting it (if you don’t mind the religious context): “The safest road to Hell is the gradual one — the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

from “The Screwtape Letters” by C.S. Lewis

Mar 28, 2008 - 3:47 pm John Corn:

If the complaint by the muslims was that the women couldn’t remove their garb in the presence of men, the response should have been let them work out in the 9th century garb. It’s not as if the policy was to exclude the plaintiffs, and I’m sure that burquas and hajibi don’t violate the gym’s dress code.
There is simply no room in our society for any concession to sharia. Period. Nor to any religion, the practice of which is a private one, not to interfere with public life.

Mar 28, 2008 - 3:59 pm Gilligan:

Jblog does have a point in that we should show some sensitivity to the requirements of Islam.

But how can we do this without sacrificing our own principals of freedom and equality? Fortunately, Islam itself provides us with a solution. The hadith of “Rida’ al-Kibir” permits a modest Islamic woman to spend time with men to whom she is not related if she breastfeeds them, making them like sons to her and hence haram for sexual lust. It is apparently not required that she actually be lactating. Just going through the motions will suffice. Perhaps a blanket can be provided for modesty just like any other situation where a woman is breast feeding in public, although good manners suggests that others should not stare at this private activity. Of course, any man who is so culturally insensitive as to refuse to suckle the breasts of all the hijab clad women present should probably be excluded from the gym during the times alloted for Muslim women to exercise.

Hey, don’t get mad at me. I didn’t make up these rules.

Mar 28, 2008 - 4:31 pm Jonathan:

Oh come on… I remember women-only hours at the University of Toronto gym in the early 1990s. This had nothing to do with Islam (or with any other brand of religious or cultural feminine modesty) and everything to do with protecting women from the phallocratic male gaze. That it happened to coincide with what may be considered a conservative position was embarrassing, but not overly so.

I would wager that the Islamization of Harvard’s gym has less to do with Saudi money and more to do with its Women’s Studies Department.

Mar 28, 2008 - 5:22 pm WiseOlBird:

Somewhere, there a bunch of Keydets, quitely laughing to themselves…

Mar 28, 2008 - 5:57 pm David:

This may be wrong, but it’s a concept I haven’t yet seen expressed. My apologies if I simply missed it elsewhere in the comments. While I’m no fan of the ivory tower, I’m going to assume that people at Harvard are at least as capable as we bloggers/commenters of seeing the discrimination issues inherent in their decision. Further, as many commenters have pointed out, two doctrines are now running headlong against one another: the need for equality and the need to help minorities. So how about this . . .

Harvard knows its policy is wrong, and it knows it’s going to be sued over this. It also knows it’s going to lose when it does. However, by denying the women’s request immediately it would look bad to (1) its princely benefactor of $20M, and (2) the political correctness constituency generally. Both of those are bad for Harvard’s reputation (at least with respect to its typical constituents).

Yet, Harvard curries much favor with its constituents by approving the women’s request. And, since it knows it’s going to be sued soon, lose soon, and have an injunction slapped on it soon, it also knows that its men will soon be allowed right back into the gym. Difference being, now Harvard has the ability to say “well, at least we tried to do the right thing; the court disagreed though so what are we to do; sorry.”

End result: (1) men are mildly and temporarily inconvenienced, but ultimately not likely to make a continued big deal out of it; (2) women are happy that Harvard gave a good effort; and (3) Harvard still appeals to its blue-blood, politically correct constituents. I’m not typically a conspiracy theorist, but this makes a bit too much sense here to be immediately dismissed.

Mar 28, 2008 - 9:06 pm Laika's Last Woof:

“Show their faith a little bit of the respect they’d never show to someone else’s.”

Poor strategy. Giving unearned respect only generates disrespect for the giver. Case-in-point is the disrespect Islamofascists show our culture and tradition of civil rights by demanding segregation. Harvard’s sell out will only embolden the fanatics.

We should be politely explaining to these religious nuts that we do things differently here in America, not turn back the clock out of misguided “respect”.

If these Islamofascists want segregation they should go back to Saudi Arabia instead of being granted the power to send the rest of us to the back of the bus (or have us kicked off the bus completely).

In the meantime can’t we get public funding to Harvard cut off? That’s the classic response to private universities that practice segregation, isn’t it?

Why not just give them the footbaths? That’s a way we can show respect without disrespecting our own values in the process.
“Segregation now, segregation forever,” isn’t “respect” — it’s the reintroduction of a vileness we were supposed to have put behind us. And so we did until the Muslims started blowing things up and making demands. Now some of us are ready to dance the old Jim Crow. Disgusting.

Mar 28, 2008 - 9:28 pm P. Ami:

I think we are all taking this “Jim Crow” thing a little too far. Jim Crow was enforced on the black population, not chosen by them. As regards Harvard’s decision, they are not forcing these women to exercise alone, they are providing an opportunity for these women out of deference to their own religious beliefs. Jewish women, who practice according to the laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai and through the interpretations given to us by the Rabbis, would also exercise separately for modesty’s sake.

Will you now be offended that planes offer Kosher, Vegetarian or Hallal meals to their patrons? When Muslims kill their daughters in our country then we need to seek justice. If other Muslims seek “justice” against a Muslim woman who chose to exercise in mixed company, then I will have a problem with it. I am not terribly bothered by what Muslims do to other Muslims. Let them circumcise their daughter in their countries. I don’t think it different then my decision to circumcise my son when he was 8 days old. In their country, let them marry their daughters off when they are children. It is not my problem. When they want to enslave me, when they insist that my daughter be circumcised, when they insist that all Americans swim and exercise separated according to their standards, then I have a problem with them. The situation in Harvard does not offend me.

I want us to be rid of the Jihadi’s ability to force us to follow Islam. I want the enemies of America dead or incapacitated. I am no friend to terrorists but, lets not get hysterical here. A private institution decided to accommodate the unique and inoffensive requests of some of their patrons. Big deal.

Mar 29, 2008 - 12:00 am Dubaiite:

You’re quite an ignorant girl. How about learning more about Islam and taking a class or two on history before picking up a keyboard?

Mar 29, 2008 - 1:31 am Sue:

Let’s sign together:

Oh where, oh where have the feminists gone? Oh where, oh where can they be? Behind their doors quietly hiding because they are deeply afraid of what they have wrought. It always, ultimately, comes for thee. The bell is tolling!!

Mar 29, 2008 - 7:57 am M:

Dubaiite: “You’re quite an ignorant girl.” It’s comments like that that make me want to keep sharia law and its culture of violent patriarchy as far away from me as humanly possible. How on earth would learning more about Islam and history inform an opinion on whether Western culture should accommodate a segregationist ethos? The problem here is that it isn’t about Islam. It’s about how Western culture responds to a different culture that contradicts some of the values it holds dear (or tries to). So here’s my response: “You’re quite an ignorant boy. How about learning more about Western civilization and taking a class or two on its history before picking up a keyboard and/or demanding that Western institutions roll over and do whatever you demand?”

Mar 29, 2008 - 8:35 am albert Kanda:

Sharia law is gradually being implemented in West while the West is sleeping. The problem with the West is they have created laws to allow Islam to flourish. Laws as such as political correctness, tolerance, Multi Culturalism and Relativism are destroying the West from within. Neither Muslims nor Islam believe in these sacred cows of Western Culture. They are used as a vehicle to get Islamic Agenda implemented in The West. The current Prime Minister of Turkey said, “Democracy is like a train. You get off it when you get to your destination. One day the West will wake up to marinates broadcasting the call to prayer 5 times a day. No eating in public places during the month of Ramadan. Segregation of men and women. The West will return to AD 573. Who is to blame for all of this? Islam or the West? The West is responsible for allowing so much to come in while they are sleeping. No one should take democracy and freedom for granted.
The West needs to wake up and go back to its Judeo-Christian roots. May God help us.

Mar 29, 2008 - 9:57 am ddc:

How sad.

next on the list:
* muslim pharacists being granted to refuse filling prescriptions for birth control (now in the UK)
* sharia law (now in the UK)
* polygamy (now in the UK)
* forced marriage (now in the UK)
* Muslim convenience store clerks refusing to ring up customers with alcoholic beverages - to which the employer must call a non-muslim clerk to ring up said customer (now in the UK)
* muslim female physicians who refuse to work with male patients whether an emergancy or not (now in the UK)
* Muslim female physicians refusal with lift their hijab sleeves to scrub their forearms for fear of “showing too much skin” (fought for in the UK - still being litigated)

** I am glad to report that the legal fight for the taxi unions was won against muslim cabbies and (CAIR) refused customers with either dogs or unopened bottles of alcohol in their possesion. footbasins however are still being fought for and against.

I could go on.

This religion is nothing more than reverse segregation. Since when has any other group been given such special considerations, other than the handicapped who for poorly physical reasons need them? Islam is a divisive, exclusionary ideology that will do more to SEPERATE people than to assimilate or unite people. And the wonderful part is that we are being laughed at due to this ridiculous notion of political correctness.

It’s called Islamo-creep. It is here and it is a virus gaining power through useless idiot liberals and apologists. Never say never to the cleverness of these people using our useless idiots to acquire more and more. Whatever did happen to “your religion stops where my freedoms begin” in relation to seperation of church and state?

Mar 29, 2008 - 10:07 am ddc:

To Dubalite,

How about joining the 21st century. Christianity had its enlightenment. You are way past yours.

Mar 29, 2008 - 10:11 am JZ:

Shouldn’t we be calling this Gym Crow?

Mar 29, 2008 - 12:46 pm Mike:

As a recent Harvard graduate I need to point out some context that is missing from this article.

The gym affected QRAC is the most obscure on at Harvard, practically off-campus, and in my four years there, I literally didn’t know anyone who used it for anything other than team sports practice. THe main gym, the Mac, is vastly more popular and also vastly more conviently located for 80% of the dorms. And vastly better-equipped.

So I think the suggestion that is a title IX violation is ill-informed, since there is plenty of access to facilities elsewhere on campus at all times. It also doesn’t seem any different to me than reserving some of the toasters in the Harvard dining hall for kosher-only use (which also caused some campus controversy, which i why I bring it up.)

Mar 29, 2008 - 1:38 pm brooklyn red:

This is not America.

“Gym Crow” LOL! good one.

Mar 29, 2008 - 1:42 pm gnubi:

You can search for the rest of your life for an immutable liberal principle. Or a definition of ‘equality’ that has applicability beyond any single issue. I think it all just boils down to taking the position that benefits them the most. Argument is pointless. All you can do is punish them economically.

Mar 29, 2008 - 7:48 pm oman:

If Harvard takes Federal money (and they do) and if it has any tax-favored bonds (it might) whose proceeds touched in any way the gym in question, it is worth asking if this discriminatory practice is a violation of Federal law. That said, the more direct way to tee this up is probably for some male students to demand guy-only hours. If they can base this demand on the dictates of their “religious beliefs” (however cockamamie and ad hoc these might be: after all, one’s religion is a matter of faith and not open to challenge or even inspection) then all the better. Go for it. This rubbish needs to checked at inception.

Mar 29, 2008 - 8:42 pm Pro-Zionist:

- Andy

The Yale and Harvard situations are only partially comparable.

The situations are similar in that a religious group asked for special consideration, and American society granted it to Muslims while denying it to Jews.

The situations are dis-similar is that the religious Jews at Yale were not asking to inconvenience their class-mates in any way, and simply wanted the right to do their own thing without bothering anyone else. The Harvard situation, however, is completely unacceptable discrimination against the male half of the entire student body. (No puns intended.)

Please allow me to point out that religious Jews maintain their distinct practices usually discreetly, out of religious conviction, while most interviews with Muslim women wearing hijab say they do it out of “identity” - that is, Muslim pride.

Jews do not ask for religious accommodation as the camel’s nose of a “strategy of slices” to take over the world. Many Muslims DO have that basis for their demands for religious accommodation - backed by numbers ONE HUNDRED times that of the Jews.

The increasing Muslim population of the USA is bringing with it several catastrophic consequences:
- dhimmification
- discrimination against Jews and Christians
- threat to the USA-Israel alliance.

Liberal Jews should not naively insist on “non-discrimination” and should instead throw their political efforts in whole-heartdely with the pro-Israeli Christians to stop Muslim immigration and dhimmification.

- Mark Buehner

You are correct - but in the west it is acceptable to discriminate against men.

- Jblog

The error in your reasoning is that the Muslim request is nevertheless discrimination against men, no different from discrimination against blacks or Jews. It is illegal on the same basis and precendent of the lawsuits two decades ago which out-lawed sex-segregated eating societies on campus.

- Andrew

You’ve made a very good point concerning the left’s internal contradictions. I personally support socialist economics, but reject the identity politics of the left as an institutioalised means to discriminate against the 35% minority of the population which is white male. The slug-fest of accusations of racism and sexism within the Democratic party has been a joy to behold, an effect of the internal contradictions of the left.

- Jonathan

“I would wager that the Islamization of Harvard’s gym has less to do with Saudi money and more to do with its Women’s Studies Department.”

That may be, but it remains just as illegal as the cases I mentioned above. Discrimination against men is just as immoral as discrimination against infidels.

- Laika

“In the meantime can’t we get public funding to Harvard cut off? That’s the classic response to private universities that practice segregation, isn’t it?”

You are correct in principle, but since the victims are men, the (administrative or juridical) law will never be applied.

- P. Ami

Your err significantly. Offering kosher airplane meals does not inconvenience or discriminate against others. The Harvard plan illegaly discriminates against the male half of the planet.

- Sue

Brilliant comment.

- Albert

“One day the West will wake up to marinates broadcasting the call to prayer 5 times a day.”

Doesn’t one Detroit suburb already do so?

Mar 30, 2008 - 11:25 am Laika's Last Woof:

“Jim Crow was enforced on the black population, not chosen by them.”

So men can choose to use the gym their fees paid for any time the gym is open?

You’re either stupid or you think we’re stupid. Of course segregation doesn’t discriminate against its perpetrators and beneficiaries. It’s the men being thrown off the bus.

Same-sex hours might’ve been a workable alternative — there are some men out there who I can imagine would be quite embarrassed to work out in the presence of women — but this was never about providing men and women privacy in their workouts. From the beginning this has been about religious thugs reopening a dark chapter of American history simply because in their world the power to intimidate is a marker of respect.
When we pay the price of respecting others by disrespecting ourselves we only pave the road to more demands for surrender of our basic values, more intimidation, and ultimately more terrorism. It’s the “Strong Horse Theory”, an aspect of Muslim culture one must understand in order to effectively respond to their demands. A Weak Horse, by allowing itself to be pushed around, only invites further victimization.
We don’t do Jim Crow because it’s wrong. We don’t do wrong to appease others because we’re the Strong Horse. From our core values, then, comes the appropriate response to religious intimidation.
All these things are interconnected; all these decisions have consequences. Bringing back Jim Crow is wrong and unpatriotic on a multitude of levels, and Harvard’s decision reaches deeper than anyone who made it seems to understand.

Mar 31, 2008 - 2:23 pm Yaakov Watkins:

The fact that in the US, most women have abandoned modesty, does not make modesty bad. As a man who does not want to be around half-naked women (except the one I’m married to), I avoid shopping malls. I do as much shopping online as possible. I don’t watch television and I don’t go to sports events. I applaud Moslem women’s modesty and determination to not be sex objects.

That being said, nobody is noticing the obvious about why Harvard is willing to fire a president one year for suggesting that boys and girls are different and then to introduce gender-segregated exercise facilities the next.

I would bet that some Moslem donor, (probably Saudi) made a series of large multi-year donations on the condition that Harvard change the rules for the gym.

Apr 2, 2008 - 10:45 pm jw:

Yaakov Watkins has made a good point; the so-called feminists at Harvard forced Larry Summers out as President because he dared to suggest that there might be differences in cognitive abilities due to biological differences between the sexes. (By the way, Doreen Kimura, a distinguished psychologist, published a book by MIT Press in 2000 entitled “Sex and Cognition” in which she shows just that.) Now Harvard allocates a gym for six hours to women-only, but none to men-only. (My college allocated hours for the swimming pool for women-only and for men-only.)
Why did Harvard accept $20 million from the Saudi Arabian millionaire in the first place? Harvard is swimming in money. Do the administrators have an unquenchable desire for an infinite amount of money?

Apr 4, 2008 - 4:49 am Steve Skeete:

I have not been fortunate to attend a university as prestigious as Harvard, so please forgive me if these questions appear stupid.

When a muslim woman wants to go for a swim does she ask the authorities to set aside two hours of a certain day and bar all males from the beach for that period?

How about when she wants to go jogging? Does she ask the park authorities to ban all males from being in the vicinity of the park for a few hours of a specific period?

What if she wants to go for a vigorous walk cross country? etc., etc. I am sure you are beginning to get my meaning. (By the way, how many moslem female athletes are they at Harvard, and what do they wear when representing Harvard?)

So if moslem women manage to exercise outdoors, swimming, jogging, walking in public (that is assuming that they do, since I have never seen anyone in full moslem regalia out jogging), then I am sure they can find a way to do it at Harvard without seeking special privileges.

And the fact that they are requesting (demanding?) these privileges, that they really do not need since they do all of the above without it, suggests to me that moslems in America are beginning to flex either their money or their political muscle in a way that not even a fool like me would accept.

Apr 6, 2008 - 4:53 pm Laika's Last Woof:

“… suggests to me that moslems in America are beginning to flex …”
Exactly so. On a subconscious level they’re disrespecting us as a test to see how we’ll respond. It’s in their nature, or at least in their speeches and literature.
If we respond with Harvard-like blind appeasement they’ll turn America into France. If we set boundaries and stick to them we’ll be choosing a future in which all religions, Islam included, coexist in harmony and relative peace.

Apr 8, 2008 - 7:52 pm Sam Spade:

This is an interesting discussion to read. I do find myself continually puzzled by the liberal establishment’e willingness to shoot it’s own kneecaps off. Do they realize they are bringing to pass the death of everything they allegedly believe and fought for these last 50 years? The only logical answer that occurs to me is that they do not really believe in them. Or, they are morally bankrupt and the movement has been hijacked by idiots.

Apr 11, 2008 - 1:44 pm Bob Douglas:

How about you do some more research before writing Annie? None of what you say is even close to being right concerning the Islamic faith and I’m pretty sure your ass isn’t in the gym the whole day so how about you let these women have their 6 hours of peace?

Apr 15, 2008 - 9:36 pm Laika's Last Woof:

“I do find myself continually puzzled by the liberal establishment’s willingness to shoot it’s own kneecaps off.”

Liberal pacifism requires them to appease anyone who belongs to a group willing to use violence to get its way.
It makes them slaves to the “heckler’s veto”. The only difference this time is instead of censorship the veto is cast for segregation. There wasn’t even a specific threat this time; liberals have just gotten so used to surrendering they do it preemptively now.

Apr 16, 2008 - 1:40 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: