Reasonable accommodations debate

Yeah, this is stupid. A niqab is the flip side of - well I'm not going to describe it. It's the flip side of how a lot of women dress in the west. In both cases, it's a matter of 'patriarchy'. Why make a fuss about the one and not the other?  

Unionist wrote:

There are several different versions of this story in the media so far, and I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from just one article. Julius Grey is not noted for being anti-immigrant (to say the least), and if for no other reason than that, I'll wait for more information.

If you happen to have a couple links to different versions of the story, I'd be interested. But I'll see what I can find by googling.

Here are a couple of articles that provide the complainant's point of view:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec/woman-shocked-by-portrayal-as-hard-line-islamist/article1490612/

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/opinions/chroniqueurs/michele-ouimet/201003/04/01-4257218-lautre-cote-de-la-medaille.php

Unionist or any other French speaking babblers out there - is there anything to the school's position that you must be able to see a person's mouth in order to teach French?   I've never heard that before.  Does it apply to other languages as well?

In any event, it seems to me that reasonable accommodations would mean she could wear the niqab and if the quality of her French is slightly compromised as result, so be it. The goal of these FSL classes is so the students can learn French, not necessarily to make them perfect at it.  So long as she is audible through the niqab, I don't see what the problem is. 

Summer wrote:

Unionist or any other French speaking babblers out there - is there anything to the school's position that you must be able to see a person's mouth in order to teach French?

Yes, if one of the stated goals of the class is to achieve a certain level of French accent... compliance? or accent reduction, then the school's position has some (minimal) merit.

That being said, as a native speaker of English living in Montreal I've heard all kinds of terrible accents from non-native speakers of French and never had much trouble understanding them. It seems to me that this student may have been targeted for enhanced compliance. So what if she has a lousy accent.

Summer wrote:

Does it apply to other languages as well?

Yes, it does. My ex is a native Russian speaker and a professional teacher of English. She often tried to improve my pronunciation of the more difficult Russian vowel sounds by staring intently at my mouth while I spoke. Another technique I learned from another teacher of Russian was to place a pen across my lips and then quickly remove it while trying to pronounce a particular vowel. Again, my Russian accent isn't great and Russian speakers seem to be able to understand me.

I have no idea whether any French vowel sounds are difficult for native speakers of Arabic.

I see the wearing of the hijab, chadours, burquas, head coverings of earlier Christian days, and other regalia, as originating from profound patriarchal beliefs, where the original purpose which survives in full measure today, is to hide from other men that which was and still is deemed to be the property of another man.

When our contemporary society resolves to conduct a debate on this topic, we can always count upon on a range of negative interests to offer opinions which result in blaming the victim of patriarchy. Choice and freedom of religion on an individual basis should be respected where the decision is to conform with certain standards of dress, because our agreement or otherwise is irrelevant.  There also exists an empowering element in many cases, regardless of its origins.

Until such a time that all mythologies created by men for their own benefit are seen for what they are and left behind in the past, discussions of a woman's choice under these circumstances, whether we consider it right or wrong, whether it should be legislated away with or not, is a further victimization imo, where the onus is placed once again on the woman, and not on the ideology underwriting the choices.

Unionist wrote:

 I do know this: that depending on how the battle-lines are drawn, what did not start out as a case of Islamophobia could definitely become one. And there are dark forces in Québec (as elsewhere) who would be thrilled to revive the failed efforts of 2007 to create that as wedge. 

We know very well what it will become, and at the centre of the maelstrom as usual, the marginalized will once again be called upon to be reasonable, and to accommodate bigotry in order to keep the peace that they had no part in disturbing, beyond exercising a personal choice that effects no one but themselves, and of course those who are naturally bothered by non-conformance to the wishes of the dominant. Several aspects of this story have yet to be revealed, but what we do know at this point is that it is quite a reasonable accommodation on the part of the institution, the system as it were, to expect that language classes can be conducted without the need to see someone's mouth. If this constitutes the main reason for the current controversy. then it is being used as an excuse toward another purpose.

Unionist wrote:

Yes, Slumberjack, but if a school (let's pretend) had a rule saying students can cover their faces in math and geography class, but not in French-language introductory class, how big an onus does that put on the victim?

Whether such a rule would be appropriate would depend on a number of factors, not just on the onus it would put on the victim. For example, if the rule were just arbitrary, if there was nothing particular about French class that required the rule, then it would be inappropriate.

Unionist wrote:

Accommodation is a balancing problem. Let me give you a real example, from my union. ...

I agree entirely that accommodaion is a balancing act. There are cases in which a worker's, colleague's, or student's requests for accommodation might put a burden on the other workers, colleagues or students. Your example is such a case. If X's request for accomodation puts a burden on others, then people should get together and find a way of balancing that burden on others with some benefit to others: your example is exactly of this kind. In extreme cases, accommodation might be impossible.

But, pending further evidence, the case in question does not seem to be one in which the accommodation places a burden on other students, or at least not much of a burden. If there is no or little burden placed on other students/workers/colleagues/etc then I can't see any reason not to accommodate.

this whole issue is ridiculous.  What someone chooses to wear is up to them, even if it happens to cover their face.  it has no impact on anyone else but the person wearing the disputed garment.  nobody is forcing others to cover their faces, or leave the class or do anything to accommodate her.  

what is at issue here is that the others in the class had to "put up with" someone who doesn't think/act the same way they do.  in other words, they feel her beliefs are being "forced" onto them in some mythical way simply because they were exposed to it, and their response is to say either let us force our ways onto you, or leave.  makes me sick.

milo204 wrote:

this whole issue is ridiculous.  What someone chooses to wear is up to them, even if it happens to cover their face.  it has no impact on anyone else but the person wearing the disputed garment.  nobody is forcing others to cover their faces, or leave the class or do anything to accommodate her. 

Well, you don't know that. You simply don't know what happened. That's why I'd like to hear the whole story.

Quote:

what is at issue here is that the others in the class had to "put up with" someone who doesn't think/act the same way they do.

And if that person can wear her niqab in every class except this one - your judgment is what?

Quote:

in other words, they feel her beliefs are being "forced" onto them in some mythical way simply because they were exposed to it, and their response is to say either let us force our ways onto you, or leave.  makes me sick.

Sorry to hear that. But I'm not a proponent of individual liberty of dress above every other consideration. It's not a recognized right anywhere. Only by pleading religious freedom can someone avoid (say) dress codes, uniforms, etc. And I don't happen to believe freedom of religion trumps everything else - for example, society's need to promote (nay, [b]enforce[/b]) gender equality. So this discussion doesn't make me sick at all. It's actually quite a difficult dilemma for me. I do [b]not[/b] believe individual rights trump everything. Did I mention that before?

Slumberjack wrote:

 Must we intervene from the notion that our corner of the world at least should be maintained for ourselves, ...

Do you recall all the warmongering propaganda against Iran, Afghanistan, etc. focussing on the "abuse" of women because of their being allegedly forced to cover from head to foot - not go to school - etc.? You know exactly where I stand on that. It's none of our business. But in Canada - in Québec - it is very much our society's business if (for example) some creep tries to keep the womenfolk out of school. We send those creeps to jail. And in Québec, if they try to send them to a phoney "school" where they teach creationism and homophobia, we deny those schools diploma privileges - and we still force those kids to go to real schools. I'm sure you don't have a problem with that.

Quote:

... or would we act from a compelling desire to rescue someone that we believe to be suffering, whether they realize it or not, under  oppressive cultural traditions.  You've provided the correct answers to those questions before.

That, of course, would be paternalistic nonsense. This is not about "rescuing" some women from an "oppression" that she doesn't feel. What she wants to wear at home, or in some private school, or in some workplace where it's permitted, is none of our business. Whether she loves or hates her place in her family and community, as reflected by her inability to show her face to men, is quite irrelevant to me. Rescuing her is not the issue here - it is proclaiming and defending gender equality  - and it is also about accommodation meaning that everyone makes accommodations. People who want to have religious practices that affect the sensibilities (the good ones - like gender equality) of others, should make accommodations just as much as the others should.

"Well, you don't know that. You simply don't know what happened. That's why I'd like to hear the whole story."

well there is certainly nothing in any of the information available that would point to others having to do anything to accommodate her.  

"And if that person can wear her niqab in every class except this one - your judgment is what?"

that the school thought the idea that "french can only be taught if we can see your face" would actually work as a pretext to force her to remove the niqab, and deflect the predictable criticism that would follow their decision.  i assume your comment to mean, why would they not ask her to remove it in some other class besides this one... i'm not sure she was taking any other classes besides this language course.

"Sorry to hear that. But I'm not a proponent of individual liberty of dress above every other consideration. It's not a recognized right anywhere."

recognized or not, i still don't see how her decision to wear a niqab had any impact on anyone else besides her, other than they don't like it and don't want to have to even see someone wearing one.  no one is putting her right to wear it above "every other consideration"  my point is more that there is no "other consideration" to be made in this case.  If anyone can point to why her wearing a niqab might affect other students in any negative way i'd like to hear it, but i can't think of any.

So what is the niqab issue - freedom of religion, or freedom to dress as one pleases? We put restrictions on dress in all kinds of circumstances. And, we ask religious beliefs to take second place to societal norms in many circumstances.

I gave you examples which neither of you dealt with (such as, you can't avoid truancy laws in Québec as parents of a child that attends an institution that teaches creationism instead of evolution or refuses to teach sex education). It may offend against your religion, but you'll just have to make a choice.

Likewise, your religion may forbid you from showing your face to males under any circumstances - you may just have to forgo foreign travel and driving a motor vehicle.

Or your religion may forbid you from dining at the same table as Gentiles. Well, there are some places you won't be dining.

Unfortunately, all the above are real life examples.

Now help me understand the extent to which society must accommodate these religious beliefs? Sorry, SJ, I didn't follow your argument that those who hold the power must go the extra kilometre (unless I totally missed your point), if that kilometre is in a direction contrary to gender equality, opposition to homophobia, opposition to misogyny, opposition to racial or ethnic segretation, and other such steps that we are taking along the road to progress. Why... because some other society may see these steps as [b]regressive[/b]? It's all relative, just a matter of opinion?

Well SJ, I agree obviously with every one of your points about our society's discrimination and subordination and the need to struggle against it - with the exception of your conclusion, which appears to be that until we "resolve to abolish it all", we must accept more of the same.

Unionist: "You misunderstood my point to Slumberjack...."

Sorry. I should have read more carefully.

Me: "But, pending further evidence, the case in question does not seem to be one in which the accommodation places a burden on other students, or at least not much of a burden."

Unionist: "What if (hypothetically) other students are deeply offended and distressed that distinctions in seating arrangements or break times or the like must be made between male and female students? Must they "suck up" their feelings about gender equality in order to accommodate this situation? Is that even a consideration to be looked at? Perhaps the person can "suck up" some of her feelings as well? That's part of the balancing and compromise act that's called accommodation, is it not?

"I can tell you that if (hypothetically) someone's religion prohibited them from sitting in the same classroom with Gentiles, I (as a classmate) would not look favourably on that kind of accommodation. I'm not saying that's the situation here, but there may be a kinship to be considered."

I think that we both agree that it's a balancing act. If someone's religion prohibited them from sitting in the same classroom with Gentiles, then I too would not look favourably on that kind of accommodation. Similarly, if someone's religion prohibited them from being instructed by a woman, or by a native person, or by a man in a tie. I agree with your remark, " We put restrictions on dress in all kinds of circumstances. And, we ask religious beliefs to take second place to societal norms in many circumstances."

I would appeal, in thinking of these cases, not primarily of freedom of religion, but rather to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is limited, of course. Various private and public bodies put perfectly reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression -- whether verbal expression or expression in dress or headgear. As you correctly say, "We put restrictions on dress in all kinds of circumstances." But I think that the burden of proof should be on those who would restrict this freedom rather than on those who would try to exercise it. It's a bad thing, all else being equal, to restrict someone's freedom of expression: if you are going to do it, you should have a good reason to.

Of course, freedom of expression and freedom of relgion can intersect, for example, when it comes to religious expression. And here it depends on the circumstances. If your religion requires you to wear a holster with a loaded automatic weapon, too bad. I would argue in favour of restricting your freedom of religious expression. But if a person's religion requires her or him to wear a certain hat, then I'd argue in favour of allowing it, even if hats are by and large banned. An example: if a school forbade students from wearing hats during class, I would argue in favour of making an exception for religious headwear or for headwear worn for other good reasons: e.g., for medical reasons or to cover a nasty and embarassing scar.

Wyldrage's article indicates that further evidence was necessary: let's see how this particular case plays out. I am suspicious, however, of the claim cited in the article that, for pedagogical reasons, it is essential to see the students' faces during exchanges, in order to be able to correct their elocution and to see the facial expressions. Presumably a blind person could teach French, without visual access to the students' facial expressions. That aside, it might be pedagogically better to see all the students' faces: but the only student actually pedagogically hurt by the niqab was the student wearing the niqab. The other students were in no way hurt.

A final note. Some of this just has to do with reasonable accomodations not necessarily of religion, but of things that are deeply important to students or colleagues or coworkers, or whatever. A muslim student, in a hijab, once asked my permission to leave every class ten minutes early in order to pray. I couldn't imagine saying no to her. If a colleague missed a class in order to attend to her dying mother, I couldn't imagine a reasonable chair reprimanding her. Sometimes we let people break the rules or contravene standard practices in mild ways, because it would simply be petty to insist on the rules or standard practices.

Mallick gets it dead wrong, sadly. From her opening salvo, "Women in niqabs look like scary black crows as they flutter along a Canadian sidewalk," she reveals her Western sentimental prejudices--the same that justify war in the Middle East where these "scary black crows" are being killed by our soldiers. And to support her argument with a classically orientalist quote by Jonathan Raban?It clearly demonstrates that Mallick plainly misses the boat on the difference between feminist solidarity and theatrical hand-wringing--all hate-mail aside. Oh--but she likes the exotic foods these "scary black crows" have given Canada? Fantastic.

I still believe that questions surrounding the hijab, the niquab, the burka, whatever--have little to do with "accommodation" and everything to do with the West's fetishization of the veil. We see its patriarchal oppression so clearly it hides the patriarchal oppression behind the hate mail Mallick receives daily. But as long as we can force Ahmed to conform to our sartorial standards, why do we need to take the beam out of our own eyes?

From a purely practical perspective, I have taken language classes in Spanish, French and German and I have never once been critiqued for my facial expressions. Perhaps it's a skill of mine.

Now that I've read it more closely--i.e. more than a 90-second scan--I missed the evident satire. Now that is embarrassing.

skdadl, Heather is over 50, not young. Moreover, she isn't saying that women have to wear mini-skirts and makeup. Or denying that there are violent men in Canada - or Québec -either. Hell, she mentioned Paul Bernardo.

I have taught languages (French, English and Italian) and I'm also slightly hard-of-hearing. It would be very difficult for me to teach proper speech and pronunciation without seeing the student's face. I'm sure that if I were blind or had very low vision I'd find different techniques (I'm thinking of a fellow I know who is Lebanese, a literature professor, blind, and at one point local president of the Arab Federation).

I'm also VERY fussy about teaching correct pronunciation, and have managed to do so even with a student with significant hearing deficiency.

Catchfire, I know many, many Arab women, some religious, most not particularly or not at all, and they'd all call bullshit about that. The hijab may be a signifier of community, but the niqab in Egypt, the Maghreb etc screams salafism. It has nothing to do with the traditional culture in those countries, or with the way most believing women there practice Islam. It is the signifier of a particularly stringent reactionary group.

I suppose the meaning could be very different among Afghan villagers, for example.

Also, why make assumptions about which of us are "settlers", which "immigrants"...

And I said I was somewhat hard of hearing. How the hell can I teach someone if I can't read his or her lips? Don't I get any "accomodation"?

You don't think that the niqab can act as a symbol of inclusion, however abusive and oppressive that community may or may not be? I don't know any women who wear the niqab (although I, like lagatta, know many who wear the hijab) so I won't speculate further. I don't like drawing analogies across cultures or timelines, but human beings can be very attached to symbols of oppression. There's a reason why many African-Americans retained their slave names, and there's a reason why Christianity has become a large part of many FN communities. Shall we liberate them from those symbols also? My point, however, was that the niqab carries significant cultural and historical weight--it is not just a "functional" garment sold only to people who would prefer to avoid male eyes.

lagatta: I'm only speaking for myself and others from my same background. I said "we settlers" because I often speak in the first-person plural and I didn't want to include anyone else who didn't come from the same place. Not a settler? Not talking for you.

As for your point about teaching--you were the one who said that if you were blind you would come up with different techniques. But I don't think theorizing a deaf and blind language teacher is the best way to solve this problem.

I'm certainly not excusing patriarchy for coming under the guise of religion--but I do happen to know that in wears many different clothes. But for some reason, Western society is obsessed with patriarchy when it looks like Islam, especially when they decrying it also supports the war effort, and a commodity-based sartorial code as a bonus. I suppose I just think that the niqab is far more complicated a symbol than is being characterized here--I can't disarm it with the ease, nerve and buoyant confidence demonstrated above.

But aside from all that, I can't see the practical use in refusing women the right to wear the niqab. People, as you know Unionist, liberate themselves. All this will accomplish is further preventing this woman from naturalizing to Canadian society. Perhaps a better approach would be to work harder to ensure new Canadians are warmly and fully accepted into our society as equals, as recognized humans rather than oppressed others or "scary black crows."

it seems the debate has shifted away from "do we have the right to demand someone dress a certain way" to whether or not we personally agree with said form of dress.

And while there seems to be some serious misinformation coming out about this now  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/beyond-the-pale-on-the-veil... (notice the author doesn't mention where any of these claims come from or use many quotes to back them up)

i still have yet to hear anything that would suggest naima was anything but trying to be as accommodationg as possible.

I see shades of the Faurisson affair all over this one.

Canadian bourgeois law and USian bourgeois etiquette are not the only forms taken by social relations.

And why on earth are you referring to Emily Post in a discussion on Québécois society ?

skdadl wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 But neither can some patriarchal tradition or belief or whatever it is dictate distinctions - the [b]slightest[/b] distinctions - between other men and women in (for example) a language class, under the guise of "accommodation" or any other guise.

 

Unionist, I do not understand that sentence, especially the part I have put in bf.

 

What do you mean by "cannot"? Are you talking law? ('Cause I would certainly fight you there.)

Here's what I mean:

Re the language class, I have insisted from the start that we must ensure we know the whole story as best we can.

If accommodating an individual means (for example - and I'm not saying that any of these happened in this case) that the teacher must be female; or that the class must be female-only; or that men and women must sit in specific seats or areas of the classroom as part of the "accommodation" - then that's when [b]cannot[/b] applies.

Re the law, I meant "cannot" in terms of my own bourgeois sensibilities - that is, if someone entered the classroom and as a result men and women had to differentiate their participation in that class in the slightest way, I would protest, because it would offend my personal bourgeois ethical foundation (or however you choose to mock it).

But if you mean the "law", I will happily argue the same point. A student enrols in a course where (for example) there are two classes, each with 15 men and 15 women. The student states that they cannot for religious reasons participate in a co-ed class. Discussion begins as to accommodation, and the student proposes: "Well, how about just shuffle the students - 30 men and 30 women - the course hasn't begun, so no harm? You have to make every reasonable effort to accommodate me, short of undue hardship, and my suggestion is well within that limit."

I would argue - on the law - that this suggested "accommodation" offends against the equality of men and women, and that it is unreasonable on that account.

What do you think (legally speaking - although I'm also interested in what your non-bourgeois values would say)?

I'd have no trouble in your hypothetical scenario either. I'd also have no difficulty (to answer a question you didn't ask) with a female patient sincerely stating her discomfort with undergoing some examination and work-up by a male doctor - assuming it didn't create a burden on the system.

But if a perfectly healthy and ordinary accused appeared in court to enter his plea, and then had his lawyer rise and say: "Umm, Your Honour, no offence, but my client's deeply-held religious beliefs prohibit him from being tried by a woman, whether judge or juror."...

Your turn.

ETA: And by the way, I'm still interested in your reply to my "shuffle the classes" question.