The decision to allow gender segregation on campus is a shocking betrayal of any notion of equality between the sexes, let alone democracy or socialism.
On November 22, Universities UK issued new guidelines on external speakers in higher education institutions which granted permission for visiting university speakers to separate male and female audience members during debates.
The document stated that ‘assuming the side-by-side segregated seating arrangement is adopted, there does not appear to be any discrimination on gender grounds merely by imposing segregated seating’.
It added that ‘an act of indirect discrimination can be “objectively justified” if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.
The ‘legitimate end’ in this instance is soothing the feelings of visiting religious speakers, who apparently find the prospect of men and women seated together too abhorrent to stomach.
To be clear, we are not talking about men and women voluntarily choosing to sit apart (which is of course up to them), but about granting visiting speakers permission to *impose* segregated seating on their audience.
As long as neither gender is put at a disadvantage by imposed segregated seating – i.e. men and women will be ‘separate but equal’ – Universities UK don’t see any problem with it.
To get an idea of just how absurd this is, imagine for a minute the justified furore there would be if racial segregation were permitted on campus on the basis that black and white people were ‘different but equal’. Imagine if gay people were separated out from their straight friends on the basis that they were ‘difference but equal’, with those refusing to move booted out of the lecture hall for no other reason than their sexuality.
You know this would not be permitted, and yet it is with women. Why?
The Universities UK guidelines state that:
‘Concerns to accommodate the wishes or beliefs of those opposed to segregation should not result in a religious group being prevented from having a debate in accordance with its belief system.’
Fine, except that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. It also surely matters what the ‘belief system’ in question stipulates. Does anything go so long as it is in accordance with a supernatural ‘belief system’? And isn’t our secular democratic belief system, whereby women aren’t treated as distinct alien entities but are valued on the same basis as men, just as important?
On the one hand this is an issue of fundamental freedom: people should be permitted to sit with whom they like in a publically funded university. But it’s also a question of politics: one shouldn’t pretend that those who wish to impose segregated seating view men and women as equals. They don’t, otherwise it’s completely unnecessary. As Yasmin Alibhai Brown put it in an excellent article yesterday:
“Such guidelines, in effect, endorse the most offensive prejudices about women: that they are a social and moral peril and if they sit with men, pornographic fantasies or molestations will make it impossible for anyone to concentrate on lectures, say, on Plato or the Life of the Prophet.”
Separate but equal is never equal, and the decision to allow gender segregation on campus is a shocking betrayal of any notion of equality between the sexes, let alone democracy or socialism. That’s why we’ll be protesting against it tonight. You should too.
The protest against gender segregation in our universities will meet in Tavistock Square this evening at 5pm to start the protest at 5.30pm. More information can be found here.
25 Responses to “Why we’re protesting against gender segregation this evening”
Clara's Bow
We’re basically not. And the fact that you think the rules of religious buildings should leach out into secular ones is a worry in itself
Penny
Gender segregation in toilets and changing rooms are common sense issues of privacy.. Parents choose single-sex schools because they think the education on offer is better. Single sex sports teams generally arise because of physical strength differences and issue of contact injuries arising.
Gender segregation at private venues – be they mosques or hired rooms – is up to the host. Providing the law is maintained the host can do what s/he chooses and invite who s/he wants.
Gender segregation in the public space is the issue here. Not who does the inviting but where the event is held.
With regard to religious rights being respected – this particular *right* is extremely new. Muslim speakers have managed perfectly well for decades.
Penny
It isn’t about the society doing the invited, George. It’s about the venue. A society – any society – can hire a private venue and do what it wants – within the law. A university is a public-funded space where all must be allowed to compete on equal terms.
George Potter
Yes, and that’s precisely what’s happening. If a society decides to hold an event on campus and invites a speaker who wants to segregate the audience then they are competing against other societies who aren’t doing that. Students have free choice as to which events they attend.
Again, what is the issue if this is what people choose to do? It doesn’t harm anyone.
I’ll also point out that, for example, a speaker on feminism might also want to segregate the audience by gender in order to help illustrate a point in their talk or for the sake of an exercise they plan to do with the audience. Is that evil too?
Penny
George – you are missing the point. A university is tax-payer funded and is considered public space. No single organisation has the right to impose its terms and conditions in such a space. Precedents can be set which, in a country of many faiths and ethnic groups has the potential to cause problems. The public square has to be kept free so that all can compete on equal terms.
Competing rights has nothing to do with Society A v Society B. It’s to do with societal values. Supposing I were a Muslim female student firmly against gender segregation. I may not have the right to barge into a private meeting, held in a private venue, to challenge the proposal of gender segregation, but in a public space – I do. So whose rights trump whose here? The right of the cleric to claim his “deeply held religious beliefs” prevent him from speaking to a mixed audience, or my “deeply held values” that I have a right to hear him on equal terms?
No one is suggesting that those who are fine and dandy with segregation cannot hold a private meeting in a private venue. Most arguing this point are simply saying “not in the public square”. It’s an imposition on the values of others.
Your argument about feminists segregating an audience is a little straw clutchy.