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.

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.

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.

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.