Krauss & Dawkins angry at UCL gender segregation during debate-includes Tweeting dino

Galvasean

Essentially, Krauss was debating a Muslim representive at the University College of London as part of the Islamic Awareness Tour. The UCL decided to segregate the audience based on gender. Apparently they even tried to kick out students who sat in the 'wrong' place. Krauss nearly walked out over it and Dawkins ranted on twitter.
http://london.tab.co.uk/2013/03/10/richard-dawkins-outraged-by-islamic-gender-segregation-at-ucl/

As an aside, I like how Krauss is actively talking to a (surprisingly articulate) dinosaur on twitter:

Galvasean

FWIW, I am totally following Spinosaurus on Twitter now.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I like the title

http://www.thebigdebates.com/debates/islam-or-atheism

Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?

It depends on what you mean by 'making sense'. I mean, I'd expect that Islam has far, far more hypotheses aimed at making sense of reality than Atheism. Well, it would have to, seeing as how we've none at all. In fact, we'd surely contest that 'sense' exists, depending on what they mean by it.

Plus, I'd suspect there's far more Muslims in the world than atheists. So whether you measure it by yards of explanatory texts, or by gross weight of brain tissue making sense of reality by praising Allah with some degree of enthusiasm, I'd say it would have to be Islam, hands down.

nagirrac

OP might want to consider reading the comments below the article and amending the opening post, rather than repeating the slander against UCL from the tabloid. The event was apparently held by an outside Islamic foundation called the IERA who rented the venue at UCL, as I am sure many outside groups do. According to the comments neither UCL nor for that matter the Islamic Society at UCL were involved. Surely the question for Dawkins and Krauss is if you accept an invitation to speak at an Islamic event attended by muslims, why would you be surprised to witness muslim culture?

You could make the argument that a secular university should not allow such groups to use their facilities, but that would not be very secular now would it. If the university took such a stance, should they also ban muslim students because they find aspects of their culture repugnant? It's a slippery slope, and Dawkins and Krauss are doing the secular cause no favors whatsoever by their hysterical ranting on twitter. "Who do these Muslims think they are" as tweeted by Dawkins is an ugly colonial mindset and frankly Islamophobic.

If Krauss and Dawkins are so outraged by Islamic customs, surely they should be in Saudia Arabia speaking publically against the plight of women in Islamic societies?

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

If Krauss and Dawkins are so outraged by Islamic customs, surely they should be in Saudia Arabia speaking publically against the plight of women in Islamic societies?

So basically you are saying that Dawkins shouldn't be bitching about minor incidents of sexism here that he is going out of his way to complain about as there is much more serious incidences of much worse sexism else where...

Huh.. where have I heard that exact sentiment which caused a whole guffaw before?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

So basically you are saying that Dawkins shouldn't be bitching about minor incidents of sexism here that he is going out of his way to complain about as there is much more serious incidences of much worse sexism else where...

No, what I'm saying is that militant atheists like Dawkins need to try and see past their dogmatic blinkers and try and understand what secularism actually means before making defamatory allegations against a university. Secularism means a society where religion is not imposed but also where people are free to practice their religion without state interference. Unless they are breaking the law that is. This was a muslim funded and organized event, what did they expect?

.. and how is it sexism? which sex is being discriminated against in this instance? Should all private schools that practice gender segregation be closed down by the state?

I was making the obvious joke about Dawkins, given his over the top response to elevatorgate.. but go ahead and focus on that and not the real issue here, which is Dawkins and Krauss looking for publicity and having no issue defaming a university to further their ambitions. Disgusting behavior.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

I was making the obvious joke about Dawkins, given his over the top response to elevatorgate.. but go ahead and focus on that and not the real issue here, which is Dawkins and Krauss looking for publicity and having no issue defaming a university to further their ambitions. Disgusting behavior.

Lol you are trying to be ironic right?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Lol you are trying to be ironic right?

No, I'm being very serious about the issue that actually matters. Given the fact that the event was organized by an Islamic foundation who rented a venue at UCL and invited Krauss to speak at their event, do you think the following tweet from Dawkins is reasonable:

"How has UCL come to this, cowardly capitulation to Muslims. Tried to segregate sexes in debate between Lawrence Krauss and some muslim or other".

I could care less what he thinks about muslims, but he has no basis for an attack such as this on a secular university.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

No, I'm being very serious about the issue that actually matters.

But in your outrage to whine about Dawkins and Lawerence you are expressing the exact same sentiment that Dawkins did which you are then using to label him a sexist.

This means that you are either a hypocrite on several levels as you don't actually care as much about sexism or secularism as you do about getting the chance to give out about mean old atheists and skeptics or you are demonstrating how to do irony really really well in some sort of avant garde performance piece.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

But in your outrage to whine about Dawkins and Lawerence you are expressing the exact same sentiment that Dawkins did which you are then using to label him a sexist.

As usual, nothing to offer on the real issue worth debating. I am not labelling Dawkins a sexist, I made a sarcastic joke about his faux outrage on a gender related issue. Stop trying to cloud the real issue here in your pathetic attempt to defend your cultural hero.

I am labelling him as an hysterical hater of cultures he does not find appealing, and someone with such low moral standards that he would find it acceptable to attack a secular university solely to gain publicity and sell a few more books.

and yes I do care about issues like sexism and secularism, and in particular defending secularism against attacks from fundamentalists like Dawkins.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

As usual, nothing to offer on the real issue worth debating. I am not labelling Dawkins a sexist, I made a sarcastic joke about his faux outrage on a gender related issue.

And that faux outrage looks suspiciously like the outrage you're fauxing right now.:rolleyes:

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

And that faux outrage looks suspiciously like the outrage you're fauxing right now.:rolleyes:

If you could actually think it through, the outrage is justifed.. but you can't because that would involve doubting your cultural hero :rolleyes:

My primary reason for responding to this thread was to highlight the potential slander in the OP ("the UCL decided to segregate the audience"). As for giving out about mean old atheists, every time Dawkins opens his mouth lately he does more harm to his cause than anything I (or anyone else) could do.

TheChizler

The issue here is that official UCL security were enforcing the segregation. Even without the knowledge of management, this makes the university complicit.

Delirium

nagirrac wrote: »

OP might want to consider reading the comments below the article and amending the opening post, rather than repeating the slander against UCL from the tabloid. The event was apparently held by an outside Islamic foundation called the IERA who rented the venue at UCL, as I am sure many outside groups do. According to the comments neither UCL nor for that matter the Islamic Society at UCL were involved. Surely the question for Dawkins and Krauss is if you accept an invitation to speak at an Islamic event attended by muslims, why would you be surprised to witness muslim culture?

The event was being held at a university, not a Muslim temple/cultural centre. Why would anyone expect genders to be separated at a public event at a university? And why should anyone accept it when it happens? Not everyone attending is a Muslim, so why should they have the gender segragation imposed on them?

You could make the argument that a secular university should not allow such groups to use their facilities, but that would not be very secular now would it. If the university took such a stance, should they also ban muslim students because they find aspects of their culture repugnant? It's a slippery slope, and Dawkins and Krauss are doing the secular cause no favors whatsoever by their hysterical ranting on twitter. "Who do these Muslims think they are" as tweeted by Dawkins is an ugly colonial mindset and frankly Islamophobic.

No you couldn't, or at least not on my understanding of secularism. How could a secular university justify barring religious people from the campus?

If Krauss and Dawkins are so outraged by Islamic customs, surely they should be in Saudia Arabia speaking publically against the plight of women in Islamic societies?

now you're contradicting yourself:

Surely the question for Dawkins and Krauss is if you accept an invitation to speak at an Islamic event attended by muslims, why would you be surprised to witness muslim culture?

Obliq

To my mind, the huge big deal here is the enforcement of Muslim practice by UL staff, and it highlights the problem Muslim people have with these kind of strict laws when in secular situations, but also highlights the extent to which this uni has bent over backwards to avoid offending the Muslims at the expense of offending everyone else.

Yes, it was a debate arranged by Muslims. Does that give them the right to enforce their laws on others who don't share their beliefs when they're outside of a mosque?

If I go to a Catholic/Protestant church, and as an atheist do not participate in any of the responses, then I show myself up as a non-believer but manage not to offend anyone. If there was a law in those churches that said I could not sit next to a man, then I would have to

1) choose to offend people by ignoring that law
2) compromise my own beliefs by complying
3) not attend.

In these churches there are no bouncers, but the thought of people's disapproval/upset would be enough IMO that most people would show respect by choosing the 2nd and 3rd options, yes? I would respect that church by not attending, personally.

However, let it be a debate open to the public, on public and secular property, and none of those options need to be considered at all, even if the person sitting next to me is offended by my proximity, or the people holding the debate wish I didn't sit there.
There is a massive difference.

robindch

There are a few videos doing the rounds. This one seems to be as good as any:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRrSmwqUxtk

Dades

I absolutely agree that some of the facts that you have presented change the dynamic somewhat. This wasn't a university event, but a venue that was booked by a Muslim group who obviously stated their preference for a segregated audience.

Obviously it doesn't make the notion of segregating genders any less ridiculous, but it does suggest the reactions might have been somewhat dramatic.

nagirrac wrote: »

...the real issue here, which is Dawkins and Krauss looking for publicity and having no issue defaming a university to further their ambitions. Disgusting behavior.

Your own reaction is equally dramatic however. Disgusting? Really? A few outraged tweets is hardly that chilling.

TheChizler wrote: »

The issue here is that official UCL security were enforcing the segregation. Even without the knowledge of management, this makes the university complicit.

This is a good point, though perhaps when you rent the university as venue you are also provided the staff to assist running your event in the way you specify.

---
EDIT - That video above suggests Krauss was promised the event would not be segregated, so I guess he has a right to lose the plot.

Doctor Strange

Here's my issue with the segregation:

UCL is a private institution. Therefore, there is no "free speech" as such, just what the Uni allows. Ergo, ANY religious group looking to rent a premises for the purposes of a public even should NOT expect to have their backwards ideals pandered to. If UCL said to the group hiring the room "no, you may not expect gender segregation" and promised as much to Mr. Krauss, either the group can accept this, or seek alternative venues.

It's this simple. It's not about secularism, it's the management reserving their rights to enforce their rules, as with any venue.

UDP

nagirrac wrote: »

Surely the question for Dawkins and Krauss is if you accept an invitation to speak at an Islamic event attended by muslims, why would you be surprised to witness muslim culture?

In the video Robindch posted Krauss says that he was promised beforehand that it would not be segregated which is why he was pi$$ed off being there and witnessing that promise broken. He was completely justified to walk out since they lied to him.

Dades

There may well have been a breakdown in communication somewhere that resulted in Krauss being told one thing and the university told to follow other instructions. This might have been deliberate, or not.

It's also conceivable that some zealot representative decided on the night to segregate the crowd and instructed the Uni staff to do so.

We may never learn the facts of what actually happened.

[-0-]

Did Dawkins really need to tweet the same thing several times? I hate when people do that, it makes them look like idiots.

Gbear

[-0-] wrote: »

Did Dawkins really need to tweet the same thing several times? I hate when people do that, it makes them look like idiots.

Well he is an ould fella. Computermatronics might be a bit tricky for him as an elderly gentleman.:pac:

Galvasean

nagirrac wrote: »

OP might want to consider reading the comments below the article and amending the opening post,

Good spot. It would appear, as always, there's more than meets the eye in relation to this. I my rush to make a Spinosaurus reference I did minimal research.
Some interesting points all 'round guys.

[-0-]

http://uclisoc.com/2013/03/10/islam-or-atheism-which-makes-more-sense-update/

Galvasean

If it had no connection to them why did they supply security staff or have I been misinformed on that too?

Dades

Is there anything to suggest it was people from the UCLU Islamic Society, rather than UCLU staff who were doing the segregating?

Morag

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0313/11032013-meeting

IERA event at UCL on 9 March

11 March 2013
Quad

An organisation known as the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA) booked a room at UCL for a debate on Saturday evening (9 March). UCL was notified during Friday by some individuals planning to attend the event that the organisers intended to segregate the audience by gender.

This was directly contrary to UCL policy. We do not allow enforced segregation on any grounds at meetings held on campus. We immediately made clear to the organisers that the event would be cancelled if there were any attempt to enforce such segregation. We also required the organisers to make it explicit to attendees that seating arrangements were optional, and guests were welcome to sit wherever they felt comfortable. We also arranged for additional security staff to be present to ensure that people were not seated against their wishes.

It now appears that, despite our clear instructions, attempts were made to enforce segregation at the meeting. We are still investigating what actually happened at the meeting but, given IERA’s original intentions for a segregated audience we have concluded that their interests are contrary to UCL’s ethos and that we should not allow any further events involving them to take place on UCL premises.

robindch

^^^ Ouch.

"Islam or Atheism - which makes more sense?"

Question comprehensively answered, I'd have said.

Dades

So it seems the IERA decided to segregate on the night despite being told that would not be permissible. I guess the UCL people present got swept into it - possibly due to fears of "offending" their clients.

So while the comments critical of the Muslims involved in this seem warranted, Dawkins' attacks on the UCL itself is somewhat harsh. All a bit of a clusterfuck, tbh!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Dades wrote: »

I guess the UCL people present got swept into it - possibly due to fears of "offending" their clients.

When you think about, it's more than a slightly awkward position to put your frontline people into. How do you police 'voluntary' segregation? Does that mean you can ask people to move and, if they do, that's OK?

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

When you think about, it's more than a slightly awkward position to put your frontline people into. How do you police 'voluntary' segregation? Does that mean you can ask people to move and, if they do, that's OK?

I suppose it would be ok to ask people to observe segregation and you don't police it at all. Most who aren't of that observance would shake their heads and stay put, don't ya think? (I'd like to think that, but would they meekly get up and go....? ) If people don't move, well...the person next to them can move if he/she has a problem with sitting there, can't they?

The fact that segregation needs enforcing clearly shows what's wrong with the notion. The idea that it has to be policed only comes about when a 3rd person is offended by "seeing" a man and a woman sitting together, even if the man and woman don't agree with segregation and won't separate.