Religious Accommodation and its Limits: The Recent Controversy at York University

Abstract

A recent request for religious accommodationat York University has generated controversynot just about the merits of the particular claimbut also about the general practice of religiousaccommodation under human rights codes andthe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Iwill argue that the York case highlights the difficulty in treating religion as a ground of discriminationand more generally in fi tting religioninto an equality rights framework. Th isdiffi culty stems from the complex character ofreligious adherence, which can be viewed as botha personal commitment to a set of claims abouttruth and right and as a cultural identity that isexpressed in shared spiritual practices. Whenreligion is viewed as a cultural identity, it seemsright that it be accommodated, unless this wouldcause “undue hardship” to others. Yet when it isviewed as a set of beliefs about right and truth,particularly when those beliefs are inconsistentwith public values, it is not clear why it ought tobe accommodated.

Rethinking Canadian Discourses of “Reasonable Accommodation”

“…The Faculty of Arts and Professional Studies at York University replied to Grayson that the student's request for RA must be granted, based on the province's Human Rights Code that stipulates a "duty to accommodate" if the religious accommodation does not cause "undue hardship" to others (as cited in Moon, 2014;OHRC, 2015). The faculty representatives also considered what they saw as a comparable accommodation granted by Grayson to another student who could not participate in the same group project due to physical distance.…”

“…The York case illustrates these dynamics. The professor, the administration, the media and the broader public all framed the student's question as a request for RA, which in turn authorized them to evaluate the student's request on the basis of its reasonableness, the sincerity of the requester and the degree of hardship the request might cause (Moon, 2014). Recall that Grayson consulted with scholars of Islam and Judaism at York University-who he 'theologically collapses' and calls "Muslim and Jewish scholars" rather than "scholars who study Islam and Judaism" (Grayson, 2013)-to evaluate whether the student's request was theologically reasonable.…”