I’m also disappointed that the thread has turned into the usual Muslim-baiting crap.

People who refuse to entertain the request because it is made by people with “foreign sounding names” and might be supported by the Times editorial page are the Americanofascists.

I’m not opposed to women’s only hours in gym. Its a very good idea grounded in commonsense.

I think its absurd to oppose Conservative sensibilities when it is advocated by the right but to support it, if it is couched in multicultural rhetoric.

Newsflash: 54 out of 60 hours in the small gym are this way, as are the big gym. People who refuse to entertain the request because it is made by people with “foreign sounding names” and might be supported by the Times editorial page are the Americanofascists.

New term in town.. “Americanofascism” on the lines of “islamofascism” / “islamophobia” . people who want to have both males and females working out in the gym at the same time are “Americanofascists”.

It is a slightly more pertinent comparison than saying that this would mean that Harvard now has to schedule Muslim only classes. That is not what they are doing.

So far everyone (atleast in this blog) who defended the idea qualifies it with a caveat that personally they think it is a bad idea.

That’s not what I said.

What is the “culture” you want to be part of, (I think ) is the question. In order to accomodate other “cultures” I hope Harvard does not lose its “culture”.

I think people come out of their “politically correct” blinkers they would see how ridiculous this idea is.

Americanofascism is the answer.

But the truth is that the birth of Kosovo is also a profound testament of the failure of the nation state form in Europe to accommodate ethnic diversity.

I am, by no means, a political scientist, but isn’t the nation state formulation (as opposed to a pure state construct) inherently inimical to ethnic and cultural diversity?

This is one of the big reasons why I have always thought that thinking based on national boundaries is completely arbitrary, and that fact has become even more marked in the last century with the haphazard drawing up of lines in the middle east, South Asia, and Africa, in the frenzied leap to independence as the imperial powers lost their hold. Of course, the next frontier will be the evolution of countries as non-native cultures become prominent participants through waves of immigration, as is happening most markedly in the US, and to a lesser, but still significant, extent in Europe.

The acceptance of democracy and rights as a system of governance has raised to the fore the question of how the conflicting tugs of political unity and humanitarian demands for self-determination will be resolved. And how this will play out against the spectre of poverty, which is often the leading reason for rebellion against real or perceived discrimination/neglect by the ruling powers. I guess this will be the next broad evolution of political systems over the next 500 years or so (will Babylon V be the answer?) – if some loony doesn’t unleash a nuclear bomb before then.

I don’t see the point in comparing Bombay and Harvard. You could also argue that men are not allowed to see non-related women in Saudi arabia. What is the “culture” you want to be part of, (I think ) is the question. In order to accomodate other “cultures” I hope Harvard does not lose its “culture”.

Personally, I do think blanket accommodation of random requests is a bad idea (and I also think religion, in general, is given more weightage than desirable in this respect), but this particular allowance seems pretty minor, and was attempted in a manner as to cause very little disruption, and it appears that they did a reasonable job given how little the students at Harvard (except one Mr. Nick Wells, it seems) seem to be upset by this (although there are all sorts of righteous upholders of liberty outside Harvard who are eagerly standing on principle) are complaining

So far everyone (atleast in this blog) who defended the idea qualifies it with a caveat that personally they think it is a bad idea. I think people come out of their “politically correct” blinkers they would see how ridiculous this idea is.

So, what was wrong was Harvard dedicating (far less than) 5% of its gym resources (6 out of 60 = 10% of a small gym’s resources, which works out to less than 5% of the total gym resources) for this accommodation, instead they should have spent far more to build out a new gym, and somehow that would have been fairer? Personally, I do think blanket accommodation of random requests is a bad idea (and I also think religion, in general, is given more weightage than desirable in this respect), but this particular allowance seems pretty minor, and was attempted in a manner as to cause very little disruption, and it appears that they did a reasonable job given how little the students at Harvard (except one Mr. Nick Wells, it seems) seem to be upset by this (although there are all sorts of righteous upholders of liberty outside Harvard who are eagerly standing on principle) are complaining. And if the trial doesn’t seem to benefit enough of the student population, Harvard will rescind it in any case, so the policy will succeed only if the resources are being used efficiently.

And the gym is not Muslim only, it can be used by all women during this time.

I don’t think you (or I) can decide what is a fringe gym and what is not?.

I agree, I shouldn’t have imposed my value judgment on deciding whether others’ demands are reasonable.

I’d like to goto a nearby gym which is closer to my dorm trekking in footlong snow in the middle of Feb and if I was denied entry I’d get angry and (I think) rightly so.

So, accommodation for laziness in picking a place to exercise – better not burn too many calories – is ok