University is the last place you would expect to encounter officially sanctioned bigotry. Indeed, for many young people the chance to go to uni is an opportunity to get away from the stultifying prejudice that characterises many of the small towns students leave behind.
We live in strange times, however, and things which at one time would have been viewed as reactionary are now, if not outright embraced, then at the very least accommodated by certain bien pensant progressives.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the decision by Universities UK, the organisation that represents the leadership of UK universities, to allow segregation of male and female students on Britain’s university campuses.
On November 22, Universities UK issued new guidelines on external speakers in higher education institutions. 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’.
In a shocking betrayal of any notion of equality between the sexes, Universities UK decided that higher education institutions should be free to segregate men and women at the behest of visiting speakers.
It would be easy to blame out-of-touch university bureaucrats for the decision, but the move has also won the support of the normally ultra-politically correct NUS. There’s also thus far been very little in the way of a condemnation from the sorts of student activists who are usually up in arms over the slightest infraction of student rights.
All very confusing indeed, until you look a little closer. The key phrase in Universities UK’s guidelines is the following:
‘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.’
In other words, if your ‘genuinely held religious belief’ is responsible for your genuinely held sexism then everyone else must get out of the way to accommodate you. In 2013 Britain’s university authorities attach greater importance to the wishes of the person who says they have God on their side over the person who doesn’t, regardless of the principles at stake.
So how on earth did we find ourselves in a situation like this?
Rather than the Ayatollah Khamenei taking over the body which oversees British universities, it’s actually identity politics that is to blame. Identity politics is a bit like top trumps, you see, with the rights of those considered ‘oppressed’ trumping those of the supposedly ‘privileged’. At times this can make sense – disadvantages can certainly be magnified because of a person’s ethnic background, sexual orientation or religion – but it can also result in erroneous violations of the very principles progressives are supposed to defend.
Because to be a Muslim is to be a member of an oppressed group, and because too many liberals are unwilling to make the distinction between Islam and Islamism, reactionary speakers have used identity politics to argue that they too require special treatment as members of a put-upon minority. Being a Muslim – even an Islamist – trumps being a woman on the identity politics totem, therefore it is equality of the sexes which must fall by the wayside.
In other words, Universities UK’s acquiescence in the practice of gender discrimination isn’t really about ‘deeply held religious belief’ at all (a stupid phrase; are all other beliefs just a bit of fun?) but is rather a zero-sum game of appeasing whoever can demand the most ‘rights’ based on perceived oppression.
The fact that there hasn’t been a greater degree of outrage about the authorities giving the green light to sexism on campus is testament to how comfortable many comrades have become defending bronze-aged bigotry against the enlightenment values of equality, universal rights and reason. I would be lying if I said I was shocked at the lack of outrage about Universities UK’s ruling. Sadly, however, I’m not.
———————————————————
James Bloodworth is editor of Left Foot Forward and writes a weekly column for Progress. He tweets @J_Bloodworth
Good article James but can I take exception with one point. The normally ultra politically correct NUS is just that except when it comes to Islam and Jews then it shows it’s true colours. While the backlash against PC is gathering pace everywhere it does have some last ditchers in the shape of what remains of the race relations industry, now the EHRC and groups like the NUS which is totally unrepresentative of students most of whom aren’t members and of those who are most don’t vote.
Consequently, as with the industrial trades unions in days of yore being controlled by the Communist Party and the current day public service unions, all that’s left, controlled by the SWP and The Socialist Party, small groups are able to get control of much bigger entities.
A good indication of what the NUS is now can be seen by the head of its Black Section Aaron Keily. This gentleman is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the Labour Party and about which Milliband is doing nothing. Not content with his five figure salary fron the NUS he takes £7000 a year in allowances from a council in Kent as a Labour councillor and has attended just one meeting. He is also a supporter of Abu Hamza and campaigned to keep him in the country. In general a good article but don’t despair, we are winning against the PC crowd.
The papacy played a central if not exclusive role in the establishment and encouragement of universities. Yup, that “bronze age” Church did much to foster the nascent university system. Funny old world eh.
Im annoyed. Today I tried explaining secularism to someone who thinks it’s to solely protect religious rights and not people as the idea secularism be involved with womens right offended them. They even said Nat Soc Sec should change its name as it was misleading. They seem surprised I found it offensive secularism should allow religion to reduce womens rights. Like no-one had ever questioned that before. Also argued with someone who sees no problem with segregating people as if they are “others” and thinks gender separate toilets is a great justification. IM A WOMAN AND I SHALL SIT WHERE I SHALL PLEASE JUST LIKE EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE. If he was racist or islamophobic would he be even invited to speak?