• Gender Segregation in Universities and Elsewhere

    Having been involved in university chaplaincy a couple of times, the issue of gender segregation in universities that has come up in the news is not a new thing for me to think about.

    There have been a couple of news reports about issues surrounding Islamic groups in universities this week and quite a lot of comment, not least on the Today programme over the last couple of days on Radio 4.

    Here are some thoughts.

    Firstly, I think that universities have the obligation to ensure equality of experience to those studying (and working) within them.

    Secondly, I’d say that I’m generally suspicious of single-sex gatherings. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that they should ever exist nor that I wouldn’t take part or even lead such a meeting. Sometimes I think it makes sense for men to talk about being men and women to talk about being women. What I get suspicious of are times when power seems to be being manipulated in ways that ensure that a group of people have a worse experience of life than they otherwise would.

    It was my experience when I worked in the chaplaincy at the University of London that we were occasionally approached by Isalamic women who wanted a place to say their prayers on a Friday and who enquired whether they could come to the chapel. My answer was always that everyone was welcome to pray in the chapel and it was the case that such women did sometimes find that place a place of prayerful welcome. Of course, I always asked why they could not go to the campus mosque which the University provided. (It didn’t, incidently provide the chapel, which was a Church of England building). The answer tended to be a shrug of the shoulders for it was clear to everyone on the campus that women were not welcome in the mosque.

    My view is that the conversation about banning same-sex organisations on campus is a trickier one than it first appears. Universities have for a long time had single-sex structures within them though that appears to be receding. When I was at St Andrews University there were some single-sex halls of residence. I believe that there are fewer of these than there used to be. My only regret is that fewer students will have the enjoyable frissance of creeping around the wrong hall at the wrong time of day. However, that notwithstanding, I suspect that single-sex accomodation may well be becoming a thing of the past.

    But there are single-sex sports clubs a-plenty and there are many Christian organisations in British Universities that have prayer breakfasts (why always wretched breakfasttime!) and similar opportunities for women. Christian Unions who have single-sex meetings might well be watching the developments surrounding Islamic students very carefully.

    My own take is that any money or resources provided to students in Universities (including room bookings) should be given on the general presumption that such resources are for all students who are interested in the activity regardless of gender. I struggle to say that single-sex meetings should be banned but I think that a case needs to be made for any that happen. I don’t think myself that it is legitimate for a University to provide a Chapel that is only for Christians to use, a mosque that only male students can use or sports facilities that are dominated by one gender or the other. (To use binary gender shorthand that won’t please everyone who reads this). What people do in their own time and space is their own business. Men’s prayer breakfasts in private places (including rooms in halls of residence) don’t bother me so long as I don’t have to go to them. Public space set apart for one gender to use does bother me quite a lot.

    We don’t have any single-gender organisations in St Mary’s and I’m quite glad it is so. It is the case that the clergy who celebrate on a Sunday at the 10.30 am service are all male for the first time in many years though that isn’t the case for all the services that take place here. I’ve also been surprised in recent years that we are not a congregation with any male flower arrangers. One might have thought that we were a congregation full of them, but no, apparently not.

    I’ve been asked if I will consider co-leading a retreat for gay men sometime next year and it is an idea that I am actively thinking about. However, I’m also clear that it won’t come under the auspices of St Mary’s if I do it. I’ve benefited from such retreats in the past and I know that there are similar gatherings that lesbians have sometimes found very necessary. Interestingly, the LGBT group at St Mary’s has always been gender mixed in a way that at first surprised me. Should that group ever have a retreat, I’m sure that it would be open to both men and women, those who don’t identify comfortably as either and probably include a couple of straight people too.

    These lines are complicated and more difficult to draw than at first appears on the Today programme.

    Would you draw them differently to the way I would draw them?

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

  1. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

    There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.

      I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”

        You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.

        It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.

        Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.

        I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.

        1. Graham Evans Avatar
          Graham Evans

          David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.

          1. David Evans Avatar
            David Evans

            Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.

            However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.

  2. Iain Brodie Browne Avatar
    Iain Brodie Browne

    Firstly thank you for your posting.
    I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
    I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
    Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
    I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
    My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

    My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

    http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for commenting, Andy.

      I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.

      When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.

      It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.

  4. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    Kelvin,

    It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

    1. Graham Evans Avatar
      Graham Evans

      David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Book Review – Changing Rural Life

    This new book addresses a number of different themes facing rural life, which we are assured is changing in particular and distinctive ways. Drawing together essays by many contributors, the editors attempt to stimulate reflection on the rural economy, the environment and community issues. Of particular interest is a chapter by the Most Rev Bruce…

  • Book Review – Making Church Buildings Work

    The task of managing creaking church buildings is one which is mostly undertaken by volunteers in almost every community the length and breadth of the country. It is surprising therefore that so little has been written to aid those who take on this mammoth task. Those of us who do undertake such work now have…

  • Book Review -Complete Bible Handbook

    This is an attractive and lavishly illustrated handbook which deals with the Bible on a book by book basis. For each biblical book, there is a description of its origins and significance, the retelling of the main stories, background, history and theological themes. Religious art is used to the full. Taking the journey from Genesis…

  • Book Review – Re-Pitching the tent

    Richard Giles’s book is a modern, best-selling handbook on the design and use of church buildings. The prose is at once funny, profound and opinionated. Paradoxically, this is liturgical space management from someone who would affirm the primacy of the whole people of God and yet also is a Priest Who Knows Best. Excellent illustrations…