Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, and I suppose their sports teams are all co-ed? And they don't discriminate against guys in wheelchairs who want to star on the football team?

Yes because those are totally relevant points when contrasting the American concept of "free association" with differing values in other countries. Considering American Greek Life is pretty unique, it's not surprising other countries aren't particularly supportive of it where organizations that developed within the country's own culture will obviously fit better than importing them.

That said your examples suck for two different reasons: in sports you're talking about different physical levels of ability, ones that would, for better or worse, result in primarily female students losing out on the ability to play or just plain getting hurt if the sports were co-ed. It's a long running debate in fact whether some sports should be co-ed, but rolling your eyes and mocking the concept doesn't make your point it instead makes you look ill-informed.

Secondly, using Glee as any sort of basis for a real life point also fails to make your point, is inherently silly, and is still unrelated to why Canadian universities don't recognize single-sex student organizations.

U of Toronto's policy:

In its relations with these organizations, the University is guided by a commitment to the right of University members to communicate and to discuss and explore all ideas, to organize groups for any lawful purpose, to move about the University and to use its facilities in any reasonable way, to distribute on campus, in a responsible way, published material provided that it is not unlawful, to hold meetings, to debate and to engage in peaceful demonstrations, and to freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex, race or religion.
...

(c) Membership in groups should be open to all members of the University community without restriction on the grounds of national origin, race, religion, colour, or sex. While discriminatory membership practices are not allowed, it is recognized that certain groups could well be homogeneous in nature without being discriminatory. Status as non-voting members may be extended to interested persons from outside the University.

Never mind that sports in Canada are also different than sports in the US, but do keep banging the drum.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes because those are totally relevant points when contrasting the American concept of "free association" with differing values in other countries. Considering American Greek Life is pretty unique, it's not surprising other countries aren't particularly supportive of it where organizations that developed within the country's own culture will obviously fit better than importing them.

That said your examples suck for two different reasons: in sports you're talking about different physical levels of ability, ones that would, for better or worse, result in primarily female students losing out on the ability to play or just plain getting hurt if the sports were co-ed. It's a long running debate in fact whether some sports should be co-ed, but rolling your eyes and mocking the concept doesn't make your point it instead makes you look ill-informed.

Secondly, using Glee as any sort of basis for a real life point also fails to make your point, is inherently silly, and is still unrelated to why Canadian universities don't recognize single-sex student organizations.

U of Toronto's policy:

Never mind that sports in Canada are also different than sports in the US, but do keep banging the drum.

I have no idea what Glee has to do with anything, so I'll skip over that.

Your argument is basically that it's not okay to segregate by gender (GLO's), except when it is (sports).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I have no idea what Glee has to do with anything, so I'll skip over that.

Your argument is basically that it's not okay to segregate by gender (GLO's), except when it is (sports).

No, that's (universities in) Canada's argument. My argument is that prohibiting discrimination is not PC bullshit, but a reasonable policy that works for them. If you want to reduce it to absurdity, your argument is that it's OK to discriminate against women all the time. Absurd, right?

Ok so moving PAST the absurdity, there are some pretty serious arguments about whether or not it's preferable to change sports to co-ed or not, but in MOST sports it's considered that this would eliminate all but very few women from play because of the inherent biological differences (in the aggregate) between men and women's bodies. Some women would be able to compete, but not many. It's not as simple as a argument over discrimination.

Since you were apparently NOT making a Glee reference, I'll note two other things, the first is that there is no reference in UoT's student org. policy regarding disability. I don't know whether there are national or provincial policies like our ADA that would prevent discrimination on those grounds for an organization. The second is that you're getting into the realm of "ability" again. And it is a simple and unfortunate fact that at the current state of technology there is no way for someone who is wheelchair bound to play standard football.

Your comparisons were both sports related and at once dismissed complex arguments about the future of sport and made ridiculous counterclaims. This has nothing to do with student organizations or Greek Life. Neither of which require differing levels of ability.