The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Maryland CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) on Public School Restrooms
An interesting press release from last Thursday:
The Maryland office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) system to amend its new school bathroom guidelines in response to privacy complaints reported to the organization in recent weeks.
Earlier this month, CAIR's Maryland office sent a letter with a list of recommended changes to MCPS Superintendent Monifa McKnight and the Board of Education.
Among other recommendations, the civil rights and advocacy group is calling for the following changes to be implemented to protect student privacy:
- Privacy doors for each individual stall in multi-occupancy public school bathrooms.
- Closing off of urinals in each multi-occupancy bathroom in public schools from use unless and until privacy curtains or doors are installed around each individual unit.
- Mirrors installed on the inside of at least one stall door of each multi-occupancy bathroom so students who wear hijab (Islamic head scarf) and others can adjust their clothing in private.
- Signage on multi-occupancy bathroom doors reflecting the school system's guidelines on unisex and gender-neutral[ ]bathrooms so students are informed, prepared and aware of the changes before entering bathrooms, and have a reasonable opportunity (and additional accommodations/time if necessary) to seek out single occupancy bathrooms in school if they choose to do so.
- New construction of public schools featuring plans exclusively for single occupancy bathrooms versus multi-occupancy bathrooms.
Note, of course, that some of these proposals (such as for having all restrooms be single-occupancy) would likely be quite expensive. More:
[NOTE: As part of their sincerely held religious beliefs, many Muslims avoid undressing or being completely alone with an unrelated member of the opposite sex].
Last December, a parent reported to CAIR that her son, who attends a MCPS middle school, entered a bathroom designated for boys and came[ ]upon a student who he perceived to be of the opposite sex "sitting on a urinal." There was no privacy door or curtain around the urinal.
The student fled from the bathroom to report the incident to the principal's office, where he was reportedly told that bathrooms are all gender-neutral now and "there's nothing the school can do" about it. Her son was reportedly granted an exception to use a single occupancy teacher's bathroom located further away from his class.
One of CAIR's offices is also handling a case involving the rights of a Muslim student who had removed her hijab to adjust it in the girls' bathroom at her public school when a student who she perceived to be of the opposite sex entered and saw her with her hair exposed in violation of her sincerely held beliefs, leaving her feeling shocked and humiliated.
Other parents have informed CAIR's Maryland office that their children no longer feel safe or comfortable using school bathrooms and wait until they return home at the end of the day to use the bathroom, raising concerns about poor health outcomes and the impact on school performance.
In its letter to MCPS administrators in Maryland, CAIR wrote in part:
"We are deeply concerned that students and parents have not been consulted or informed about such sweeping changes that stand to impact the mental, emotional and physical well-being of every child who attends your school system.
"As a community based Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, our priority is the safety and well-being of our communities. We hope you understand and agree that every single child deserves to feel safe and included in schools, and never at the expense of another child's safety or well-being."
CAIR has encouraged[ ]the school district to consider the following principles as it reviews its bathroom and privacy policies:
- One student's rights should not violate the rights of others.
- Every child deserves to be seen and valued without it being at the expense of others.
- Schools have a responsibility to be transparent with parents about policies and guidelines.
- Trust in the school system requires transparency and opportunity for community input.
- No child should feel unsafe or have to wait to use the bathroom until they get home at the end of the school day because they feel they cannot uphold their sincerely held religious beliefs regarding privacy and modesty.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Closing off of urinals in each multi-occupancy bathroom in public schools from use unless and until privacy curtains or doors are installed around each individual unit."
Can somebody point out to these yahoos that it's possible to urinate in a toilet?
I will say that having a bunch of single person bathrooms, while inefficient, is probably going to be a necessary solution to the whole "who can use a bathroom" fight, going forward.
"Can somebody point out to these yahoos that it’s possible to urinate in a toilet?"
There's not wanting to be seen urinating, but also not wanting to see someone perceived to be of another sex urinating. Apparently that's what led a school to propose eliminating urinals entirely. Then on the other side there are people who specifically need to use a urinal to affirm their identification as male; one might guess that person sitting on one was in that category.
Fuck them, they need to choose between their religions, they're Muslim or their progressive Woketarians. Why would we need mirrors in the stalls unless they're admitting women's only spaces aren't, why do schools need to allow girls to pee standing up at a urinal?
I think you might be missing the point. I'll admit I had to reread the article above several times to puzzle it out. It's not a model of clarity.
Step 1 - School district declares all bathrooms to be "gender neutral".
Step 1a - School does not put doors on stalls or make any other accommodations for privacy.
Step 2 - Boy sees girl using boys bathroom. Since the situation is described as "sitting on the urinal" and urinals are wall-mounted (otherwise, we call them toilets), the article does not say but we can infer that the boy was exposed to the girl's genitalia. While the girl can (or at least, could if she were an adult) waive her own right to privacy, this situation is also generally considered a violation of the other person's right to privacy. That is, for example, considered the justification behind the anti-flasher laws.
Step 3 - Now having evidence that girls are being allowed into boys bathrooms, parents presume that boys are or will also be allowed into girls bathrooms.
Step 4 - Starting from the assumption that the school district will not reverse their stance on "gender neutral" bathrooms, subset of parents (CAIR) set out the accommodations to privacy that they think will be necessary.
Unless you think that CAIR was behind the move to gender neutral bathrooms, I don't see why you're angry at them for trying to make the school's decision less bad.
They're his enemies, so they have to be wrong.
Leo, please email me.
"Can somebody point out to these yahoos that it’s possible to urinate in a toilet?"
Urinals use considerably less water to flush -- I believe it's about a fifth the water.
For commercial use there are toilets with flush levers that can go either way. One way selects a small volume of water for urine. The other way selects a big flush for tampons, newborn babies, and the like.
Can somebody point out to these yahoos that it’s possible to urinate in a toilet?
As a number of women (of the biological variety) never cease to point out, while it is possible to urinate in a toilet, from a standing position, it is in practice beyond the competence of most men, and all boys, (of the biological variety.)
In any setting with a reasonable throughput of restroom users, it should be possible to provide unisex stalls with doors, while retaining the efficiency benefits of urinals (in cost, space, water, time to pee, and freeing up the stalls for those who need them.) You just need a urinals-only section separated from the stalls section.
There is no need for "privacy curtains or doors ... around each individual unit" since those who are bashful about using the urinals can always use the stalls.
A little experimentation should reveal the optimum mix of urinal space and stall space for each type of facility.
The middle school nearest me has single occupancy restrooms for students in addition to larger segregated restrooms. Of course the single occupancy facilities are labeled with all the genders that may use them.
I think DeSantis' Justice or Education department may come up with some guidance to address this subject.
"Of course the single occupancy facilities are labeled with all the genders that may use them."
To do that these days would be ageist. It would require print too small to be seen by people older than about 55.
-dk
A scrollable, constantly updated via the web, list?
CAIR is the US branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its like letting Hamas [the Gaza branch] make policy.
About bathrooms?!?
They should be ignored on all issues, no matter how trivial.
I agree, but I want to go get some popcorn to watch the "intersectionality" battle between the Islamic activists and the transgender activists.
Me too!
Sword Fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( I crack myself up)
Generally true, but this is their stopped-clock moment.
True, it would be expensive, but it's the only real compromise position available.
There's no other solution that doesn't effectively give one side everything and the other side nothing.
Adding gender neutral bathrooms would be reasonable accommodation to everyone's ideological preference.
So there will be boys-only, girls-only and do-what-you-like bathrooms? I'm not sure how you think that a) that will make anyone happy or b) that having to build three types of bathrooms instead of just two will be cheaper than individual bathrooms (which, as established above, will be prohibitively expensive to retrofit to most existing facilities).
Note: the request by CAIR wasn’t to retrofit single occupancy bathrooms into existing facilities, but to plan for single occupancy bathrooms in new facilities.
Nope, because the trans loonies will insist on using the wrong bathroom, that the normies don't want to share with them.
No.
The problem is that transgender people insist on being able to use the bathrooms that are exclusively for their chosen gender rather than for their biological sex.
So you would still have a fight over who gets into the boys' and girls' restrooms.
Maybe a little OT but I have been a member of the FSU Leach Center (read student recreation center) longer than I care to admit. As a member of the FSU Boosters (read donate to FSU) I have a locker in what is described as the faculty/reserved locker room (read it has a sign on the door saying reserved for locker holders) which is also the default disabled locker room since it has what I will call the standard disabled shower stall with a fold down seat and an adjustable height shower head (something at my advanced age I really need) and a privacy curtain which means little to me.
Starting a few years back I started to notice an increasing usage of the disabled shower by Muslims. While I am no religious expert it seems there is some type of rule about them wearing at least a string around their body even when showering. There is also some type of religious ritual/whatever where they have to clean their bodies in a certain way that takes way longer than what I call a normal shower. There have been complaints by legit disabled peeps that Muslims are taking too much time and monopolizing the shower to the detriment of the disabled. I also seem to remember complaints a while back about Muslims in MN using the sinks in airport bathrooms to wash their feet (again some kinda religious thing) which put off air travelers who thought the sinks were restricted to washing hands and maybe faces.
In any case a question I have for EV and others is what happens when reasonable accommodations required by the ADA are being heavily used for religious reasons. My understand is that ADA reasonable accommodations are higher on the totem pole (or maybe lower if you really want to get technical in terms of indian culture) than religious accommodations.
As an aside several years ago I entered and ran in what is called the Dare to go Bare 5K which is a clothing optional event and when discussing it with a mental health care professional I know it was pointed out to me that some individuals have some type of phobia (hope I got that terminology right) about being seen without clothes even in a place like a locker room. So for extra credit what type of accommodations need/should be made for these individuals (apparently this is more common than I thought).
To some extent I sorta feel like Cerci who after being told that in addition to the five kings involved in the war of the five kings Mance Rader was being called the king beyond the wall said "I am having trouble keeping up with all these kings" since I am having trouble keeping up with all the demands for accommodations.
In some cases the ADA strongly disfavors segregated facilities. The example I know of is building entrances. Property owners are expected to let wheelchairs in the front door with everybody else.
I know of no ADA rule prohibiting abled people from using the big showers or stalls. (Mad TV had a skit about the toilet police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xkrplA0c7Q)
No question that "mainstreaming" is favored by the ADA; sometimes going too far in my opinion.
I am not sure about this but my understanding is that disabled facilities are required by law even when there seems to be no demand for them and are often utilized by able peeps. I have noticed that in some places there are what I will call set asides for disabled folks. I have a big catamaran I cruise on and spend time in marinas where the shower/bathrooms require a key card to enter. Thing is that the disabled shower/bathroom will not accept the general key card and requires a special one.
It will be interesting to see how this evolves as it is becoming much easier to track individuals.
San Francisco refurbished their courthouse a while back. There were no judges at the time using wheelchairs, and none in the pipeline.
ADA required wheelchair access for the judges, who of course refused to lower the bench height enough to make ramps feasible. The city suggested putting a lift in one room in case of future need. Disabled advocates demanded lifts in every courtroom. Guess who won out?
I remember restaurants in a certain city being sued for a lack of wheelchair access. These restaurants applied for permits to add wheelchair ramps to their front entrances. The City denied the permits. The City was fining them so much per day for not having wheelchair access. Some of the restaurants put wheel chair ramps on their back entrances and were again sued because having to enter through the back door was demeaning.
Certainly, I airports, I look to use the handicrapper as that stall is large enough that I can maneuver my rollaboard luggage.
"I also seem to remember complaints a while back about Muslims in MN using the sinks in airport bathrooms to wash their feet (again some kinda religious thing) which put off air travelers who thought the sinks were restricted to washing hands and maybe faces."
Those airport travelers will be even more disgusted to learn I used those sinks to urinate in.
While serving with the Marine Corpse, our Executive Officer thought someone had stolen his watch. He called a private meeting with all the Officers, accused us of harboring thieves, and demanded the guilty party(s) confess. Nobody did of course, until one day when an AF guy from the gym brought the XO's watch to the ready room, seems he'd left it at the gym, wasn't stolen at all,
For the next week the XO received "Ransom" notes from the kidnappers of his watch, with Photos of his watch at the tower of Pisa, St. Peters, Venice, before mercifully, he found his watch left on his pillow.
Oh yeah, a few days later he got the final Ransome Note, of his watch between various Pilot's Ass Cheeks, with various balls and cocks on his precious watch, he even demanded I tell him who the asses/dicks belonged to, as being the Squadron Flight Surgeon, I should do (I didn't)
Frank
What about the strawberries, who was responsible for their disappearance?
Moose-lums (HT B. Sanders) shower?? They should try using soap.
Put all of them on an island somewhere and let them fight it out.
That is largely how mainstream America is handling its vestigial clingers -- paint them into increasingly bleak, unpopulated corners and let them marinate, alone, in their insularity, dysfunction, and resentment. Until replacement..
the "Replacement" that's not happening, Jerry??
and I'll take a bleak unpopulated corner over a black populated one, no racism, I like bleak, unpopulated corners, I liked "Bleak House" , Ironically the only town in the US that's actually named "Bleak" is in Virginia (pretty sure everyone there's already been "replaced")
Frank "Replace me already"
This one seems to be especially confusing to Volokh Conspiracy fans.
The appeal for special treatment seems to derive from superstition (no higher calling) . . . but it's not Christian superstition (wait, what?). . . and there is a vague evocation of "woke" (man the ramparts, patriots!) . . . and some gay-bashing gets tossed in somehow (forget everything else -- the gays are climbing the walls! boil that oil!), but it still is rooted in superstition (remember first principles -- can't let yourself get confused by these wily wokesters!) so . . .
right-wing brains seem to be buckling under the strain.
Carry on, clingers.
You carry on, Klinger.
I would think you are the one buckling under the strain, unrepentant troll. Glad you had the “integrity” to chime in, though I see you haven’t addressed your quandary.
Because if you (correctly) identify this demand with those you deride, you are no different. Choose your pain as you carry on. Is Islam also superstitious?
superstitious and carry big swords, also smell bad.
Islam is as superstitious as any organized religion, so far as I can determine. Does anyone perceive more (or less) superstition to be associated with Islam?
Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.
Or, at least, please try.
Fuck you, Jerry, oh wait, that's why you're at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
I told you to get your commutation package into Lt. Gov S-S-S tuttering John Fetterman before he moved to D.C. and threw an embo, good luck now, sucker,
carry on fucking,
Frank
How are this blog's "civility standards" (the ones you claimed to be enforcing while censoring liberal and libertarian comments to appease your conservative fans) coming along, Prof. Volokh?
Still a work in progress? Or are you ready to abandon the pretext and admit you were just engaging in hypocritical, partisan censorship (as you are entitled to do at your blog)?
Feel free to continue to criticize others for what you have repeatedly done . . . it seems to suit you.
The Public Restrooms I used in Saudi Arabia didn't have any of that shit, just an effin hole in the floor. No TP either.
It looks like CAIR is trying to proceed jiu-jitsu style, not directly challenging the trans bathrooms but requesting additional accommodations to *their* concerns. Sure, it would mean some extra money, but there is no price to be put on social justice!
Personally, I think their modesty in this case is purely reasonable, not based on "superstition."
1. Most of the business in men's and boys bathrooms is carried out in the open. This is the most efficient way to do it. If you imagine 30 or 50 fifth grade boys taking their bathroom break all at once, it is much more efficient for them to line up for four or five urinals than to each take turns in stalls. You don't want to go into a stall of a men's or boys bathroom unless you have to!
2. Therefore, if you are offended at the site of men and boys using urinals, do not enter their restroom. And do not expect them to give up their urinals because you are offended. Giving up urinals because you are offended is wrong, and it would make our restrooms grossly less efficient.
As I posted earlier and others confirmed by federal law the ADA requires reasonable accommodations and since a person in a wheelchair (or having other issues that often accompany aging) is simply unable to sue a urinal it seems stalls with other facilities are required as reasonable accommodation. Not to mention the religious and mental health peeps who may also require accommodations.
Look, I've been using urinals most of my life. I don't think I have ever seen the genitals of another man or boy while doing so. Even without dividers, even at those weird trough urinals, even at the urinals at a gay bar.
So simply put, if genitals are being seen at a urinal, it's because one of you is behaving inappropriately. And whataya know, we already know how to handle peeping toms (person peeking/looking when they shouldn't) and flashers (person deliberately exposing themselves when they shouldn't).
All of which is to say, we already know how, as a society, to handle the urinal issue.
And that said, if a school feels it must choose between student privacy (that is, bathroom stalls with doors) and stopping kids from smoking (that is, bathroom stalls without doors) they should always err on the side of privacy. That they routinely choose the other is a mistake.
Honestly, looking at that list of requests, they don’t seem extreme to me.
Seriously, this should have already been a thing. The whole “but kids might smoke in the bathrooms!” has always been a ridiculous cannard.
This may or may not be extreme. If they’re satisfied with the dividers that most urinals have these days, then cool. If they want them fully enclosed like stalls, probably not.
In either case, as I said above, if you’re seeing someone else’s genitals, or someone else is seeing your genitals, at a urinal, one of you is acting inappropriately, and we already know how to handle that. Pretending you can’t discipline a student for flashing other students just because they were at a urinal is stupid.
A single mirror-in-a-stall in each bathroom? Yeah, that’s pretty reasonable.
Also reasonable.
And so we get to the first one that is straight-up unreasonable. Sorry folks, but not gonna happen.
Fun note: when you try to edit a post with blockquotes (for example, to fix a single blockquote that wasn't set right), it wipes out *all* blockquote tags.