The same attorney who has won public notice for trying to sue McDonald’s on the grounds that the institution is responsible for America’s obesity is now behind the now well-known sex-discrimination lawsuit against Catholic University’s decision to reintroduce single-sex dormitories. Citing District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act, Professor Banzhaf believes CUA’s decision does not qualify for the Act’s exemption of discrimination of any kind outside of “business necessity”: “without such exception [discrimination on the basis of sex], such business cannot be conducted.”
Banzhaf has won numerous sex discrimination cases before, all of the variety one would expect from someone suing a Catholic institution for trying to discourage binge-drinking and casual sex: Several have resulted in the ordering of dry cleaners to charge women no more than men to launder shirts, several bars which were required to end the practice of “ladies-nights” under which pricing was based upon gender, dozens of hair salons which were required to charge women the same as men for basic hair cuts, etc.
While Banzhaf is confident that he’ll succeed, citing Georgtown’s 1988 failed attempt to withhold institutional endorsement of homosexual interest groups on the grounds that such endorsement conflicted with strongly-held Catholic teaching and, consequentially, a “business necessity,” let’s hope he doesn’t and CUA can continue its pursuit of an authentic Catholic identity. With public loyalty to the Apostolic See, a majority of Catholics on the board of trustees and faculty, mandatory mandatum and required theologians’ oath, single-sex dormitories would be one more good reason for students interested in a distinctly Catholic learning environment to choose CUA.
For more on the case, Banzhaf sums up his interests here
September 12th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
1. Regardless of religious affiliation, the notion that it should be illegal for any college anywhere to provide single-sex housing is bonkers. No detailed legal defense should be necessary. It’s crazy.
2. I know nothing of the controlling statutes that this insanity is based on, but I don’t see how, if it is in fact true that no gender distinctions are possible without “business necessity”, sex-specific bathrooms are possible. Has anyone wasted enough of their lives on this lunacy to know whether this nutjob is anything other than a crank, and whether my point has any merit if the law really is as insane it sounds?
September 12th, 2011 | 5:09 pm
What, exactly, is the ‘discrimination’?
September 12th, 2011 | 5:10 pm
I agree with Brian (something I don’t say very often) that it’s crazy, but read this from the linked article:
If the statute is as rigid as it seems, Georgetown is going to lose.
I am old enough so that the idea of co-ed dorms strikes me as bizarre. In my last year or two in college, there would be an occasional open house where for a few hours men and women could visit each other’s dorms, but that was it. What ever possessed Georgetown to move from single-sex dorms to co-ed ones in the first place?
September 12th, 2011 | 6:45 pm
David, I can’t easily find a historical reason why they changed to co-ed. The reason why they are changing back is given here at http://president.cua.edu/articles/going-back-to-single-sex-dorms.cfm
If those are the reasons-binge drinking and hooking up, well its a bit worrisome.
September 12th, 2011 | 11:45 pm
“What, exactly, is the ‘discrimination’?”
Someone, for the purposes of some other agenda probably, will claim that the dorms reserved for the opposite sex are nicer, or more convenient, or otherwise better suited to him/her, and it is “discriminatory” not to allow him/her to apply to live in that dorm because of the trifling distinction of sex. The only person with standing to make such a complaint, in my view, would be an upperclassman — it would be ridiculous for an incoming freshman to select a college and then complain of its housing policy. But then, the whole thing IS ridiculous.
September 13th, 2011 | 10:07 am
This is another example of some liberals mistaking any difference for discrimination. What about single-sex bathrooms? Are those discriminatory too?
September 13th, 2011 | 10:52 am
I fully support single-sex dorms, but what reason did CUA give when it made the move from single-sex dorms to co-ed dorms? Unless it was for no reason at all, the reason for going co-ed must be evaluated against the reason for reverting to single-sex dorms. I think nobody should be permitted to stop CUA from reverting to single-sex dorms, but I am doubtful that it will affect “hooking up” and binge drinking.
I haven’t seen any good commentary on the DC Human Rights Act, but if it truly demands that gender be treated exactly like race in any and every circumstance, then “separate but equal” dorms for men and women may very well be prohibited by law.
September 13th, 2011 | 11:31 am
Let’s hope that the case is defended by someone sharp enough to suggest the case be dismissed based on the fact that we’re not even talking about discrimination in the first place. It will not be a winning strategy to accept the prosecuting attorney’s premise and then get dragged into trying to articulate why ‘in this particular situation’ the policy ‘doesn’t discriminate’ and so forth…
September 13th, 2011 | 11:49 am
From the link – “Under the statute, discrimination based upon sex is prohibited under the same rigorous standard applied to discrimination based upon race, religion, etc.”
Given the ‘rigorous standard’ Banzahf advocates, it would seem to follow that any religious building on campus must be made available to any religion.
September 13th, 2011 | 2:53 pm
Seriously, what does this guy think about the bathroom situation? It seems to follow logically.
September 13th, 2011 | 4:12 pm
Seriously, what does this guy think about the bathroom situation? It seems to follow logically.
mike,
One of the linked documents presenting Banzahf’s views has this passage:
The fact that CUA had co-ed dorms previously, and is transitioning to single-sex dorms gradually, and that most dorms at other universities nowadays are co-ed, would seem to indicate rather strongly that it is not an absolute business necessity to have single-sex dorms.
September 13th, 2011 | 7:06 pm
Thanks, David. I didn’t see that. It seems a little arbitrary though, that common sense should finally kick in as the clothes come off. After all, even though everybody would hate it, you _could_ have mixed bathrooms, and you would never segregate bathrooms based on religion or ethnicity. I wish he had given more examples of ‘business necessity.’ The only one I can really think of is doctors who specialize in reproductive organs.
September 13th, 2011 | 7:46 pm
What’s wrong with single-sex dorms based on religious reasons, this is a Catholic university?
If someone does not like it they can find a another place.
September 14th, 2011 | 3:26 am
What RELIGIOUS reason is there for a University to have single sex dorms, as opposed to single sex wings or floors, when they admit academically qualified students regardless of sex or gender??
Surely, the university could find other means to tackle the serious problems of binge drinking, etc among its students ??
Perhaps, by TURNING SUCH PEOPLE OVER TO THE SECULAR POLICE firstly, then possible suspension or dismissal of the convicted ones??
Or do all Catholic authorities, university heads as well as Bishops, feel that they can handle criminal matters all by themselves???
September 14th, 2011 | 8:52 am
At the University of Notre Dame we have had single sex residence halls since the university went Coed in the early 1970s. Can we expect the lawyer coming knocking at our doors? i served on a committee about the future of residence life and found that a majority of students queried did not want a change to coed residences – men especially see their residence traditions to be as close as they can get to fraternities since fraternities (thank God!) are not permitted.
September 14th, 2011 | 11:32 am
Lawrence,
It seems to me there is an issue with CUA’s single-sex dorms because of the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act. Unless there is a local or state law that treats discrimination based on gender as strictly as discrimination based on race, I don’t see how Notre Dame would have a problem. Everyone is focusing on Professor Banzhaf, but it seems to me the Human Rights Act is either badly written, or its authors really did intend to reduce discrimination based on gender to an absolute minimum.
September 14th, 2011 | 1:25 pm
The words “differentiate” and discriminate” are becoming horribly confused with each other in our culture…
September 14th, 2011 | 1:33 pm
“It, like any other university or business, can have sex-segregated facilities (e.g. showers and changing rooms) only when concerns about nudity and sexual privacy make it absolutely necessary.
That’s why, says Banzhaf, while most universities have mixed-gender dormitories, virtually none have mixed-gender showers or locker rooms.”
Unfortunately, Banzhaf is greatly mistaken in his apparent view that ‘there are no concerns about nudity or sexual privacy’ in mixed-gender dormitories. Perhaps this is his most erroneous premise. It’s certainly a flaw in his argument to explain how ‘segregated’ showers can and should be excluded from the policy.
September 14th, 2011 | 11:35 pm
This joker is nothing more than a trouble-making rabble-rouser who is incapable of making a living focusing on legitimate legal issues. Not one student or parent at CUA is unhappy with the single-sex dorm situation, but this bozo (who I had the displeasure of having in class—not a very bright man, and certainly the ultimate “bottom-feeder”) figures he can make trouble and in the unlikely event he wins, can submit a huge bill to CUA for payment. As I said, he is incapable of making a legitimate living. Because of clowns like this, it is no wonder we lawyers are the most mocked professions on earth. This guy makes me think Shakespears had it correct when he said, “First, we kill the lawyers”.
September 15th, 2011 | 11:18 am
JDD,
It seems to me CUA would have to make the rather implausible argument that it made the move to co-ed dorms in the past unaware that there could be concerns about sexual privacy, but now it has dawned on them that they made a mistake.
September 15th, 2011 | 1:48 pm
David Nickol,
It is indeed implausible. And I’m not advocating that CUA claim this argument at all; rather that it discredits one of Banzahf’s supporting arguments. I doubt such “unawareness” happened before, and I’m doubtful it’s happening now when Banzhaf reasons that bathrooms should be excluded from the policy, (because there’s a concern about privacy,) while dorm rooms should not, (because there’s no such concern.) I think this argument of his – attempting to explain the ‘difference’ between the two cases – should be smoked.
CUA should continue exactly on their stated course of defending the policy as an obvious means to reduce easy access to behavior which everyone agrees is problematic, dangerous and in some cases in violation of other students’ privacy and rights, and they should demand an explicit explanation of the nature of the actual ‘discrimination’ being claimed every time the word is used.
September 15th, 2011 | 1:59 pm
*If anything*, CUA can explain, (and in my opinon this is what happened,) that they agreed to go along with the direction the college culture was going – although with some hesitation and misgivings about the consequences – but were willing to try it. Their misgivings have now been played out and shown to be correct. What is Mr. Banzahf’s excuse for making the same mistake, now that the reports are in?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact