Date: 8 Oct 92 23:00:33
Distribution: world
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Subject: Re: Women and Universal House of Justice

In article <43800@ogicse.ogi.edu> dean@coconut.rsmas.miami.edu (Dean
Churchill) writes:

>A second reason, I wish to add, is that the Universal House of
>Justice conducts its sessions in English.  Farsi is the preferred
>second language at the World Center.  As a practical matter, it is
>unlikely that a member would be elected who does not at least have a
>working knowledge of English or Farsi.  This further limits the
>selection of individuals qualified to serve, as the vast majority of
>Baha'is in the world, who live in South Asia, Africa, and South
>America, mostly do not speak one of these languages.  Yet presumably
>it does not render the membership criterion unfair.

The reason that a language requirement is not unfair in the same sense
that a gender requirement is unfair is that the former is a difference
in language, and the latter a difference in knowledge.  A non-Farsi-
speaker may learn Farsi; a woman may not become a man.

In fact, the Baha'i faith itself recognizes that language is different
from gender.  It purports to preach equality of the sexes, but not
equality of the languages; in fact, it supports having one universal
auxiliary language.

>During the pilgrimage, Ruhiyyah Khanum (who is a well-known female
>Baha'i, living in the Holy Land) met with the pilgrims, and answered
>questions.  In her opening statement, (intended I presume to answer
>in advance the most frequently asked questions), she said she is
>thankful that women are not allowed to serve on the Universal House
>of Justice.  The members suffer a great deal, she said, due to the
>work load, and the heart-breaking problems that must be dealt with --
>such as the violent persecutions of Baha'is in Iran.

Perhaps she did indeed say that she was thankful that women are not
allowed to serve on the Universal House of Justice.  But the actual
opinions you quote here do not support this.  Instead, these opinions
support the idea that women should not be _required_ to serve on the
Universal House of Justice.  These are not the same thing.

>So a third reason, I suggest, is that there is no rational reason why
>an individual would _want_ to be elected.  There is no fiscal
>compensation other than the cost of living, and it is difficult job,
>in a difficult, potentially dangerous place.  The only motive for
>serving the Baha'i Faith is to serve.  And since there are so many
>other ways for men and women to serve the Baha'i Faith, there is no
>unfairness in restricting membership in the Universal House of
>Justice.

I don't think those people who believe this have considered the full
implications.  The above appears to say that if there are other ways
of serving, it is not discrimination to ban women from one of them.  I
wonder, then, exactly what Baha'is mean when they claim to oppose
discrimination.  How many ways must be closed off before there are
enough closed off that you can call it discrimination?  What would you
say about a country that didn't allow a woman President, if it allowed
women in other offices?  After all, they can still serve their country
in other ways.  What if it didn't allow a woman Vice-President, or
senator, or mayor, or judge, but allowed a woman President?  How many
ways to serve must be closed off before you can call it
discrimination?  Is it considered non-discriminatory if there is even
one such way left?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)