Segregation: our secular values need to be protected

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/15/islam-gender-segregation-universities

Version 0 of 1.

With its roots in George Orwell's dystopian novel, <em>1984</em>, doublespeak is a term for language that disguises the nature of the truth and inverts meaning; war is peace; coercion is choice. Critical thinking and clarity are sabotaged. Endless propaganda, dedicated to shifting the boundaries of what is acceptable, becomes the norm. Common sense disappears.

In this framework, let's consider Universities UK (UUK), the umbrella body representing more than 130 organisations involved in the business of knowledge and learning in Britain. It spent much of last week ineffectually mounting a defence of its approval of "voluntary" gender segregation at non-religious meetings in publicly funded institutions bizarrely, in the name of the lawful promotion of freedom of speech.

Put more simply, last month, UUK issued a guidance that interpreted legislation to mean that the right of women not to be discriminated against – directed to sit at the back of a hall, while men are shepherded to the front – took second place to the right of a speaker who voices his opposition to men and women sitting where they will. The guidance refers to the legal requirement on UK universities under Section 43 of the Education Act (1986) that "they take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech [is] secured for… visiting speakers".

It continued: "imposing unsegregated seating", which "contravenes the genuinely held religious beliefs" of the speaker, could mean that the "freedom of speech" of the speaker is "curtailed unlawfully". The guidance included a hypothetical case study involving an external speaker invited to talk about his orthodox religious faith who had requested segregated seating areas for men and women. This is permissible, according to the guidance, if neither men nor women are "disadvantaged".

The guidance is bereft of common sense. A speaker's freedom of speech is not impaired. He or she can deliver a speech to an empty room – if the audience departs because of the segregationist rule – but the speech can still be delivered. The guidance also opens the door to Orwellian laxity in its interpretation not only of "disadvantaged" but also what constitutes "choice" and a woman's "voluntary" decision to sit only with her sisters.

As student protesters, academics, feminists and, belatedly, politicians, vigorously pointed out last week, it would be illegal for a speaker to insist on segregation on the basis of the colour of skin or sexual preference or religion, so why should gender be the exception? Nicola Dandridge, UUK's chief executive, hardly helped. She insisted that gender segregation "… is not something which is so alien to our culture that it has to be regarded like race segregation, which is unlawful".

"Women-only" and "men-only" gatherings are certainly not alien – but that is significantly different from segregation in public places. The word alone, "segregation", comes freighted with menacing memories of apartheid and Nazi Germany. Segregation of a mixed audience is an entirely different issue to gender-specific gatherings.

In Britain, segregation of the sexes is viewed as a tool of the patriarchy. It traditionally reinforced a system in which women were deemed to be second best. For women to "voluntarily" opt to sit apart may be their religious right in a place of worship but in a public institution it undermines the hard-fought civic rights of women who, for generations, have battled for equality – and are still battling.

On Friday, Michael Gove, Vince Cable and David Cameron told UUK to think again. The guidance has been withdrawn; the organisation is in discussions on fresh guidance with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. A line appears to have been drawn. However, what the controversy has again revealed is a profound concern about interpretations of Islam that conflict with a modern civil liberties agenda. Further, political correctness, sensitivity to charges of Islamophobia and commercial considerations (it has been suggested that segregated meetings appeal to overseas Muslim students vital for university finances) block discussions about what should and shouldn't be inviolate in British society. In a multicultural society, what is the "norm"?

In March, the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) held a public debate, Islam or Atheism: which makes more sense?, at University College London. The audience was segregated, and those who objected were ordered to leave. One speaker, US scientist Lawrence Krauss, walked out and returned only when integration was permitted. Fellow atheist Richard Dawkins later called this "a disgraceful episode" and added: "Heads should roll."

The IERA was banned by the university. An IERA spokesman then accused UCL of "extremist Islamophobic action", adding: "Britain was once a place of freedom…" Saleem Chagtai, also of the IERA, insisted: "A number of ladies used their free will and didn't want to sit with the opposite sex." This may be true. It is easy to slip into the intolerance. Clearly, some women may have exercised free will and to deny that is to disregard their autonomy. However, such "freedoms" must be judged against wider principles they may threaten.

The hierarchy of freedoms is seen in UCL itself, the focus of the IERA's opprobrium. It was founded as the London School of Medicine for Women, by Elizabeth Garrett Anderson in 1874 – the same year that psychiatrist Henry Maudsley was warning that education for women caused over-exertion and reduced their reproductive capacity. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson had to train privately to become the UK's first woman doctor. Even when the all-male medical establishments allowed her in, they reinforced segregation and moved rapidly to bar others of her sex. Misogyny has many homes. Garrett Anderson died in 1917; the roots of improvement for women in the UK are still shallow.

All the more reason, then, that a fearless debate is encouraged to protect the fundamental values of a secular society. Teachings and practices in some faith schools that undermine women's freedoms also ill prepare boys for the challenges of a modern mixed workplace. Issues such as forced arranged marriages, and domestic violence condoned by the extended family, have to be confronted, not because they are exclusive to any particular religious group, but because they are out of step with our civic life.

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.