Liberalism run amok

Colleges have long been considered bastions of liberalism, much to the chagrin of conservatives. Indeed, campuses are traditionally home to anti-war protests, pro-choice rallies and campaigns raising awareness about sweatshop labor. However, even by these standards, one college might have recently one-upped itself. \nIn a move that is creating a considerable amount of controversy, Harvard University has banned men from one of its gyms for a few hours a week. The unusual policy is a response to six Muslim women who requested the accommodation, citing religious practices. These college students claimed that “workout clothes violated the Muslim prescription that both sexes wear modest dress in shared environments.” As such, the women felt uncomfortable exercising in the same facilities as men. With support from the College Women’s Center, they were successfully able to restrict men’s access to the college’s least-used gym for just six hours a week. \nWhile this policy is being tested on a provisional basis and will be reevaluated in June, the accommodation has created a firestorm. Some conservatives have reacted in mock horror, claiming the provision is just one step away from instituting Shariah law in this country. While a little over the top, the substantive issue of undue concessions for a religious or ethnic minority is pertinent. Specifically, while Harvard’s policy does not technically break any federal or state laws, granting special privileges to individuals based on their membership in a group is a little unsettling. It doesn’t help that this policy comes at the heels of the university broadcasting the adhan, or call to prayer, across the campus as part of Islam Awareness Week last month.\nIt is true that educational facilities are required to make accommodations for religious observances, provided they are reasonable – I am certainly not against this. However, when many of these religious demands pervade the public space and are deemed “special,” this should trouble us all. \nIt doesn’t help that the rhetorical framework adopted by Muslim activists has been unhelpful and alienating. Take, for example, their use of the word “Islamophobia,” which originated as a response to “Islamofascism.” The word was meant to capture the growing animosity in this country toward Muslims, especially after the Sept. 11 attacks. And there’s certainly plenty of evidence for this. A 2006 poll found that 39 percent of respondents favored requiring all Muslims (including American citizens) to carry a special ID in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. \nUnfortunately, the word “Islamophobia” also succeeds in conflating criticism of Islam as a whole and individual Muslims, which are two different entities. In fact, the use of such rhetoric effectively shuts out legitimate criticism of certain aspects of Islam, further impeding efforts at fostering a healthy dialogue. While I am sympathetic to the concerns of the six Harvard women, it is imperative to remember that this country was founded on the Western value of secularism. Harvard’s policy simply runs counter to this. To the Muslim students who raised this issue in the first place – please consider joining a women’s-only gym.