Harvard’s fair, even if politically correct, “women-only” policy

I suspect I was among very few “liberals” who condemned Harvard University for firing Larry Summers, its intellectually honest but politically incorrect president, in February 2006.

Perhaps you recall that (at an academic symposium) Summers had the effrontery to hypothesize that the presence of so few women in science and engineering is due to biological limitations. Moreover, that these limitations are compounded by socially constructed gender roles that make women less willing to make the sacrifices men do to advance their careers.

Of course, I did not defend Summers because I agree (entirely) with his hypothesis. Rather, I did so because Harvard is precisely the place where the freedom to engage in such intellectually provocative debate should reign. Never mind that Summers actually proffered persuasive empirical data to support his hypothesis.

At any rate, Harvard made news again last week for publicly airing its dirty laundry on an even more politically sensitive issue. Here’s how the Associated Press framed this latest controversy:

This time, however, it’s not a coven of feminist professors demanding the head of the university’s president. Instead, it’s Kent Blumenthal, executive director of the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, which has 660 member colleges and universities nationwide, lamenting that:

But I disagree. Indeed, I hope it does not surprise any of you that I commend Harvard for instituting this policy for the same reason I condemned it for firing Summers. After all, the university’s compelling interest in providing this modest accommodation for the welfare of its Muslim female students far outweighs any burden it may cause campus gym rats.

Furthermore, Harvard spokesman Robert Mitchell notes that:

Still, let me hasten to clarify that, even though a religious accommodation, this policy does not discriminate on the basis of religion. Because Christian, Jewish and women of all other religions are still allowed to use the gym during the few hours when it’s reserved for their Muslim counterparts.

More to the point, it is specious to argue that granting this reasonable accommodation would lead to a slippery slope where all manner of special requests would have to be granted. For example, some (probably homophobic) opponents have argued that “pretty soon gays will want separate gym hours.”

However, separating men and women in such social settings is a fundamental article of faith for most Muslims. And I challenge anyone opposed to this policy to cite an accommodation (of moral equivalence) that is being, or would likely be denied, the practitioners of any other religious faith.

In fact, Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, fairly characterizes and dismisses opposition to this policy as follows:

Hear, hear!

NOTE: Harvard is a private institution. So please spare me any uninformed comments about religious or gender discrimination in violation of the US Constitution.

Related articles:
Political correctness gone made at Harvard: the firing of Larry Summers

Harvard women only gym