UKC

Gove actually said something sensible. Which was 'No'.
Is there any counter argument to support segregation?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/13/michael-gove-university-gen...

In reply to MikeTS:

I think this is the counter argument

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2013/ExternalSpea...

In reply to MikeTS:

Listening to R4 this morning and there was a muslim cleric or imam talking about this. It is plainly an interpretation of what the Koran says should happen i.e. men are 'distracted' by women and won't engage with the speaker because of this. He used some bullshine about segregated boys/girls schools perform better than their mixed counterparts because of this fact. There is no place for gender, racial or other kind of segregation, voluntary or not in today's secular society and indeed in religious society either.

In reply to MikeTS:

Actually I'm not sure the link I posted is the right one, but the argument, I believe, is that if you don't pander to the nutter's demands for segregation, there's a risk that the nutter will refuse to speak. Therefore you are not presenting the full range of opinions, therefore you don't have free speech.

This is, of course, bollocks.

In reply to knthrak1982:



Exactly, If the speaker decides not to show up because they can't have their way then that just reflects on them, not the host.

In reply to MikeTS: God says. Is that a reasonable counter argument?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I rather like the idea of a series of speakers

Speaker 1) Requires segregation of men and women, left and right
Speaker 2) Requires segregation of Catholics and others, left and right
Speaker 3) Requires segregation of whites and others, left and right

Mass shuffling between speeches.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I do not!

In reply to MikeTS:
The counter argument is here: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2013/11/27/rights/

In reply to MikeTS:

Update - above now withdrawn

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/13/universities-uk-withdraws-...

In reply to knthrak1982:

I am failing to see a downside.

In reply to MikeTS:

Study electronic engineering. 120 people on our course, 2 women.

In reply to philipivan:

Yeah but they can sit with the bloke if they want...

In reply to philipivan:

Unlucky - we had a ratio of 3/110 on my EE degree course!

In reply to Removed User:

Your places were shit, we always had 5-8% before my department was closed.

In reply to philipivan:


The new legal advice from Universities UK is that debates involving 'Islamic Scholars' must start off with a short guest lecture on Electronic Engineering. This ensures that all the women will leave before they get on stage.

In reply to MG:






and don't forget about gay people - male and female - and also do we have to run a check/test or could a few slip in on the wrong side...

In reply to auld al:


And don't forget those in red jumpers and those in blue and those who don't believe in jumpers.

In reply to Offwidth:
Your place must have been shitter if it closed?!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Haha :0)

A mate of mine who was doing an engineering degree at Brunel reckoned the favourite joke on site was "What do engineering undergrads use for contraception? Their personalities".

In reply to GOD:


Not you, obviously, one of the other ones.

In reply to MikeTS:


Free choice if people wish to self segregate?

This whole thing smacks faintly of manufactured anti-religious outrage given we have (and most of the current 'outraged' cabinet have been through) segregated schools.

jk

In reply to jkarran:




Like in the US black people could self segregate if they wanted to travel on buses? Freedom of choice really.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No, not anything like that so far as I'm aware. That said, you're a smart guy and I'm probably missing something obvious, perhaps you'd care to explain how US racial segregation enshrined in and enforced by law and vigilante violence was voluntary/consensual? Also how it was/is in anyway comparable to allowing people to sit in gender groups if they all choose to?

jk

In reply to jkarran: Because, just as black people in the US could still travel on buses if they sat in the proper place, so too can women listen to the speaker if they sit in their proper place.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
So too can they listen to the speaker from the 'male' seating or the 'mixed' seating if they so wish without fear of arrest, beating or worse, it's a choice and nobody is suggesting it should be anything but. America's black population had no real choice.

Again, perhaps I'm missing something but I doubt anyone having the audacity to sit in the 'wrong' seat is going to find themselves swinging from a tree or dragged from their bed and kicked to death with impunity.

jk

In reply to jkarran: What you appear to be missing, or are happy with, is that the speakers will not speak unless the audience is segregated. So the choice is segregate or don't have the speaker.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


That seems to be the original university proposition: that free speech trumps mixed seating rights. So it's values really. Me, I'd say that not having a speaker who insists on segregation is the correct choice.
Why does it seem that gender segregation got traction in university policy whereas there was no chance of segregation by skin colour to enable race supremacists to exercise their free speech rights? Are women more offendable than blacks?

In reply to MikeTS:

A little bit of islamic fundamentalism never hurt anyone, did it?

In reply to Removed User:
No the management in my place were just more shit. If you are from where I think you are the depts were both good and much of a par if not ours slightly better than yours: we all knew what's what as we were all externals in each others institutions. Some other places that closed were good and some still open are below par. The extra women at my place were mainly Malaysian (and of those, the few Muslims didn't feel they needed segregating outside the Mosque).

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's not the situation Universities UK appears to have provided guidance on. That situation implies compulsory/enforced segregation which is not what they've suggested at all.

jk

In reply to MikeTS:

It's ridiculous of course, lets have racial segregation too, or religious segregation. It is just another example of the danger and lack of tolerance of Islam as a religion as pursued by a frighteningly large minority of its adherents..

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

>[...] what the Koran says should happen i.e. men are 'distracted' by women and won't engage with the speaker because of this. [...]

Surely if men and women mixed more, us poor feeble men would stop becoming distracted quite so readily.

In reply to jkarran: Perhaps you should go and look at how this came about, the guidance arose because speakers were demanding segregation.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

And the guidance was that in that situation segregation was ok so long as *everybody* consented. I'm not a fan of the mindset but I struggle to find much in that to really object to.

I'll come back to my earlier point: Why do our segregated schools, many of them extremely prestigious and deeply ingraining wealthy-white-male privilege/power not attract anything like the same ire as a beardy fundamentalist? Arguably they do much more social harm.

jk

In reply to jkarran:




And I'll come back to my earlier point, were racially segregated buses OK so long as "everybody" consented?

And if you think gender segregated schools do much more harm then make that argument.

In reply to jkarran:


No, that is not what the guidance said.

In reply to jkarran:
Regarding schools, I think there are arugable benefits in having segregation that don't rely on assumming men are better than women. I don't believe this is the case for listening to a speaker. It is also dishonest I think for muslim speakers to pretend this is about anything but trying to make women second class citizens.

In reply to jkarran:


Yes, the UUK guidance did suggest that that might be the thing to do, if the speaker demanded it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Is there a link to document anywhere without case study 2 removed?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
In which case either the BBC are misrepresenting this or my comprehension skills are wanting. From the BBC:

The UUK guidance - published last month - stated that, when considering the request, university officials should consider both freedom of speech obligations as well as discrimination and equality laws.

It concluded that "if neither women nor men were disadvantaged and a non-segregated seating area were also provided, it might in the specific circumstances of the case be appropriate for the university to agree to the request".

A non-segregated seating area is to be provided therefore my understanding of the situation is that segregation of the audience (of adults) if it occurs is by consent.

jk

In reply to jkarran:



It concluded that "if neither women nor men were disadvantaged and a non-segregated seating area were also provided, it might in the specific circumstances of the case be appropriate for the university to agree to the request".



But whose consent? This is not clear. Of the speakers? Of those left in the room? Those who might have come if the room were not segregated?

One of the triggering situations was that an anti-Islam speaker did not consent, and this was considered unreasonable of him.

I think it is the UUK that was (deliberately?) being obscure in their use of language

In reply to jkarran:


Yes, but it BBC report is not the whole of the advice. First, note that that quote says nothing about consent from everyone, it only says that providing both a segregated and a non-segregated area might be appropriate.

The UUK guidance then goes on to consider the situation where the speaker wants the audience fully segregated and won't accept partial segregation. It then fudges and hedges, but suggests that acceding to this request might be appropriate.

In reply to jkarran:


That's not the same as everyone present consenting to having the segregated portion of the seating area.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Not exactly no. But everyone present can consent to sit where they're sat,they still have a seating area that is non-segregated, they also have the choice to sit in the 'wrong' area, the choice to not attend, the choice to protest and appeal without fear. They have several options to participate and are attending of their own free will. This is hardly comparable with 1950's America as someone was trying to imply earlier.

jk

In reply to jkarran:
The three-way option is superfically fair.

However, isn't the important point here the subtext of what is going on? We are talking here about potentially quite charged events with relgious extremists. Basically one speaker is laying down all sorts of ground rules that frame what they are trying to say as "normal" when it is anything but.

If the BNP insisted on "voluntary" separation of Britons and foreginers before addressing an event, would that be OK too if there was a mixed area as well? I would say not because such a request would clearly stem from their belief that Britons are better than foreigners and would be an attempt to normalise this belief. Similarly, I think this segragation request stems from muslims believing men are better than women.

People have the right to make the case for unequal treatment by gender or nationality by using free speech and then ask for a change in the law and common practice if they win their case, not in the reverse order.

In reply to Al Evans:


Well said sir!

In reply to MikeTS:
It may be interesting to note that, in the legal guidance provided, it states that the law says that segregation based on racial grounds is AUTOMATICALLY discrimination, whereas segregation based on sex MAY (or may not) be discrimation in law.