Just another site

The Independent: “I oppose gender segregation in universities. But its advocates have every right to their opinion”

with 6 comments

Original article can be read here

In March this year, University College London hit the headlines after a Muslim organisation hosted a debate in which audience members were offered one of three options – male-only, female-only or mixed seating. Following the publication of a report by Universities UK which advised that if the segregation represented the “genuinely held religious beliefs” of the hosts, separate seating could be upheld, a number of journalists decried that “the sexist eccentricities of some religions” were being given “priority over women’s rights” and protests erupted outside the London headquarters of Universities UK. 

I am not personally in favour of segregating talks at universities – as a Muslim, I don’t see the rationale for it. The logic behind the spatial distinction between male and female spaces during prayer doesn’t extend beyond those ritual acts and rigidly enforcing it outside of that context is – to my mind – unnecessary.

But the discussion of this issue has been troubling. The two main arguments appear to be an opposition to religious segregation in public spaces and an argument over equality.

Firstly, separating men and women cannot necessarily be assumed to reflect a statement of male supremacy. It can reflect personal preferences, as in women-only gyms, etiquette concerning behaviour in sacred spaces, as in orthodox synagogues or mosques, or feminist calls for “autonomous women’s space”. Like some feminists, some conservative Muslim women argue for their right to female-only spaces. Why should such requests be ignored simply because their purveyors are Muslim rather than radical secularists?


The fact that some Islamic societies are run or dominated by ultra-conservatives is undeniable and I share concerns that such individuals limit female participation, either as speakers or as members. Separate seating can reflect an idealisation of a Saudi-style system where men and women hardly interact outside of a familial setting. This de-facto disempowers women who are reduced to existing in a male universe. This is neither desirable, nor Islamic. But prohibiting separate seating doesn’t resolve underlying sexism, it merely forces its advocates off campus where the views expressed are less likely to be challenged. And what does it say of more progressive interpretations if the only way to encourage them is through legal imposition?

The Guardian journalist Polly Toynbee and others have argued that “whatever is segregated by diktat is rarely equal”, but separate seating spaces, like single sex schools can hardly be compared to Apartheid South Africa, convenient as the rhetorical device may be. Racial segregation was the reflection of a belief in white supremacy.  Schools don’t separate children because girls are assumed to be inferior, but because it is believed by some educationalists that girls and boys perform better in single sex environments. Similarly to those who believe students of the opposite sex can be a distraction in co-ed classrooms, some Muslim groups believe this applies in lecture halls. One doesn’t have to condone this view (which I don’t) to accept its right to exist.

Neutral state

If secularism means anything, it means the neutrality of the state on religious matters. Separate but equal access to a lecture is no more or less discriminatory than separate but equal access to education more broadly. As Baroness Warsi quite rightly points out, “there are certain boys in our political system who have spent their whole life being segregated from girls as they were educated, some of the best schools in our country are segregated.”

The question does arise, why – when some of the UK’s leading schools, including some state schools – continue to offer separate educational facilities without encountering mass protests, why Muslims organising separate seating in an educational facility, does.

The assumption is clear – any differences in the treatment of men and women by religious folk is indicative of assumed male superiority and can therefore be denounced as an affront to women’s rights. This ignores the fact that feminists, both secular and religious, hold a variety of views on the manifestation of true equality, some preferring the notion of equality in difference, the not-particularly- religious notion, advanced by Aristotle among others, that “justice consists not only in treating like cases alike but also in treating different cases differently”.

Treating men and women identically doesn’t always mean treating them equally, since each might have specific needs. One Muslim scholar of the Quran, Asma Barlas, argues that “sexual equality in procedure often may ensure rather than obliterate sexual inequality in outcome” and believes the Quran advocates a model of equality which can be conceptualised not as blindness to sexual difference but rather as responsiveness to it.

Don’t ban segregation

It is entirely possible, as some Muslim feminists do, to argue that spatial separation of men and women in the context of prayer or ritual acts, is underpinned not by an assumed male superiority, but by conventions which seek to ensure men and women reach full and holistic emancipation on their own terms.

Universities UK’s guidance was not about the rights or wrongs of segregating an event by gender, rightfully steering clear of this important discussion in order to allow, as a free society should, the full expression of a range of distasteful, illiberal and even offensive views. It’s a lesson Muslims are regularly lambasted with. This means that although as a Muslim, I oppose the segregation of lectures along gender lines, even side by side, I’m glad British universities have upheld their commitment to securing free speech and promoting debate, which is exactly what university is about. It is now up to Muslims internally to push forward with greater gender equity, increase female representation and challenge sexist views which bend theological interpretations to fit their patriarchal desires. Banning segregated seating will do nothing to resolve the misogyny which at times underpins it.

More worrying to me is that this kerfuffle over segregation actually masks far more concerning issues, namely the erosion of freedom of expression and the policing of political and religious expression on British campuses. No distinction is currently being made, even in the UK Universities publication, about academic freedom verses the use of university premises for third party or student events, for instance. Even guest speakers to academic events may now be vetted. Segregation is surely a side issue in the face of the picture emerging from this document of our universities, our bastions of free thinking and free expression, in flight on the back of increasing  securitization and deprivitization. Our universities are undergoing profound changes which will have long term implications for academic freedom and free speech – that, not segregation is the real story.

Written by Myriam Francois

December 12, 2013 at 20:23

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Maryam,,,It is not the relgion that separates the two….it is physical make up that has different needs and desires….therefore, the environment are different…why different restrooms/toilets….why different games/teams….why different role in life….why different way of living ….simple….SO IT HAS TO DIFFERENT…


    December 15, 2013 at 15:39

  2. Ah! I had to comment in order to commend Sherry’s response, so eloquent.

    Just as people coming into Islam from atheist background usually face difficulty adopting to the pure theistic terminology, unfortunately those with feminism background might have a similar difficulty with feminist issues. Discussing such problem is not appropriate in a commenting space, but in big view Islam cannot be sliced up into separate interests; Muslims have to absorb and defend it in entirety.

    God bless you all Myriam and Sherry.


    December 17, 2013 at 06:35

  3. finally an intelligent response that rigorously attends to secular sensationalist rhetoric. unfortunately much of the muslim response to the debate is immature and incoherent in its line of argument.


    December 18, 2013 at 10:33

  4. Salam Sister,I have read some of your articles and it does touches the heart of the issues that we as muslims face living in a western world.While I agree with you that there are certain things that requires a change in countries like saudi arabia,and we do see some change(as more women got representation in shura council).Its a tribal society and they have lived like this for centuries so a change will be slow.I agree that it can only be changed if we have more women representation in places of power.

    The west has always upheld the rights of freedom of expression and speech so its worrying to me that by curbing these basic rights we are not moving forward as a society but backwards.
    May Allah bless you and your family for all your efforts!

    Tariq Siddiqui

    December 21, 2013 at 08:36

  5. I once read a post by a woman covered in tattoos, she wrote, “one of the reasons I have chosen to cover my body in magnificent artwork is that it allows me the freedom to choose the color of my own skin. I won’t let the color of my skin define me, and I certainly won’t let the ignorant opinions of others define me.”

    In Islam tattoos are forbidden yet we aren’t restricting anyone’s freedom. We have been taught by our prophet (pbuh) how to express ourselves. We have been given everything possibly to express ourselves because we were taught who we are. You can only express the values that make you. You cannot take parts of the religion and leave other parts out if you were to consider yourself as an expression of a Muslim.

    “If secularism means anything, it means the neutrality of the state on religious matters”, you as a Muslim would see such statements as a twist. If secularism means anything, it means the cancellation of your penal code. A part of you will go missing. Just like Muslims miraculously lineup for prayer in seconds regardless of space or size of the crowd, issues like segregation or non segregation won’t even be an issue.

    The problem is as a comment above me phrased it, “intelligent response that rigorously attends to secular sensationalist rhetoric”. With faith, you would see the areas where it lacks intelligence.


    December 22, 2013 at 22:24

  6. I think the discussion should not be from religion point of view rather from the right to choose. If we are living in completly muslim country (khelafa), what islam rules consist it should be applied. But since this is not the case in our time, the debat should be about the right of both man and woman to choose.


    January 10, 2014 at 06:15

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: