Apartheid is not synonymous with 'Freedom of Expression'

Universities should be emblems of enlightenment, temples to reason, and sanctuaries of free speech and freedom of thought. They should be houses of tolerance, where tenants of different beliefs and ideologies can find safe haven, and be granted the expression to live as they see fit, whilst developing a greater understanding of integration and culture. Universities should provide a platform where intellectual reasoning allows for opinions to be condoned, or condemned, yet still be expressed and discussed

Alas, though, my understanding of the role of Higher Education institutions was slightly confused after I read Polly Toynbee’s piece on the Guardian.

Ms. Toynbee’s article starts with the unbiased, unassuming condemnation of “sexist eccentricities” of religions; this includes men sitting with other men, and women with other women. This is apparently the misogynistic way that “Muslim speakers” exercise their superiority over women.

Just a quick clarification:  although Muslims were pioneers in many fields such as Algebra, Chemistry and Medicine; unfortunately, they were not the inventors of "gender segregation", and cease to be the only group requesting such facilities. The BBC did an interesting piece on segregation within the Haredi Jewish communities a while ago. Moreover, many Universities brag about their international, multicultural student bodies; many students might come from culturally diverse backgrounds, where the inter-gender etiquettes would be viewed as far more conservative than they are in the West. 

 Whilst “segregation” is a practice more commonly used to refer to gender interactions within orthodox faiths, it is a practice that is engrained within society and has been practiced in some shape or form without contention for decades. A war on the right for sexes to sit separately is a war on single sex toilets, single sex schools, single sex university accommodation, single sex hospital wards, single sex sports teams etc. Although some teenage boys might wishfully campaign for changing rooms to become gender neutral, I would still argue that this autonomy is a right that both genders would happily fight for. 

So the position I am defending is one of complete freedom AND accessibility to all parties involved, and I feel that UniversitiesUK came with a reasonable compromise. If a large group of people request segregated seating facilities, then as long as all parties are under the same conditions (women or men should not be forced to sit at the back) AND there are facilities for those who stringently refuse to abide by those rules (mixed seating facilities); then I sincerely fail to understand where sexism or misogyny fit in to the argument. If the idea of an event that even has the option of segregating is so abhorrent, then it is perfectly within our capacity not to attend, or to walk out of such events. I’m not particularly fond of satanic cults, so I simply choose not to partake in their activities. It seems highly hypocritical for one to preach about freedom, whilst impinging on the freedom of a large portion of the British community. 

Does freedom mean that we have the right to express according to our beliefs, or does it mean we are confined to Polly Toynbee’s interpretation of what sexism and oppression are? If one feels comfortable sitting next to a member of his or her own gender, and we are to deny this concession, then are we suffering from a problem of ‘Gender Apartheid’ or ‘Benevolent Dictatorship’?

Al Madinah free school is a very convenient example of gender oppression on Polly's part. I probably wouldn't enrol my daughters in a school if I feel that the seating arrangements would disadvantage them, but I do think this is a petty issue being used as a distraction; al Madinah is facing closure due to a lot of serious issues, and its teachers' dress codes is likely the least of its problems. One Muslim faith school that Polly strategically missed out was the number 1 ranking school in the country.

After years of student activism, I have still not sided with a position on the “No Platform Policy”; however, the notion of banning gender specific seating, or enforcing it for that matter, seems preposterous to me in a country that values Freedom of Expression the way we do in Britain. 

I would, in turn, like to call for “secular neutrality” within Higher Education institutions. Although, without fairness, justice and sensitivity towards religious, as well as irreligious beliefs, are we not left with a secularism reminiscent of the tyrannical communist Albania?