8

Some universities ban Social interaction with opposite sex inside college premises. If it is a human rights violation then do these universities are liable to that ?

Edit:

These rules are common with Universities in South India. See Reddit thread here.

Also explain how could a private institution can enforce such rules which is considered as violation outside their premises ? Does this mean that things like Discrimination can also be enforced in their permises as it is within their private area ?

  • 1
    You may consider adding more details. Probably, this question is also location-specific as of what local laws say. Without this information, the answer would be "maybe yes, maybe no". – bytebuster for Long Usernames Jun 18 '14 at 10:55
  • 1
    What do you mean by human rights? Where do they come from? – lazarusL Jun 18 '14 at 15:51
  • @lazarusL Every Human by birth acquires Human Rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights are accepted ones that are considered as Rights by Birth. – user3124 Jun 18 '14 at 15:56
  • This question is concerned with "what is the law" not "why is the law", as such it would have been better asked on Legal.se. – James K Aug 24 '17 at 17:39
10

It is not a violation for 3 reasons.

1) Attendance at the school is voluntary. If you were forced to attend or mandated to attend the school it might change things but since you can choose not to attend the rules are not being imposed on you against your will.

2) The rules do not prohibit your interaction away from the college only while on premises. Since this is a private facility the organization can establish these rules. You can leave the premises any time you like.

3) They are not actually preventing you from associating. You agreed to abide by the rules when you enrolled, and one of the rules is that you will not interact with members of the opposite sex while on campus. You can choose not to abide by the rules.

What may be a violation is if the women(or men) are taught different subjects or are forbidden to study certain subjects.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Agree with reason 1, though Attendance is voluntary, its kind of implicitly mandate there (No one will get their degree if they do so - give & trade policy). As with Reason 2, I don't understand how someone gets control of things that they don't own. I mean as long as two individual's association don't cause any harm to their private facilities, they should have no right to enforce such a rule. – user3124 Jun 18 '14 at 16:47
  • 1
    @user3124 - That's why it's not a violation. If they were able to enforce that, either because there was a law allowing them to or you were prohibited from leaving campus, or you had to sign your rights away to enroll, that would be a violation. – Bobson Jun 18 '14 at 17:10
  • 5
    @user3124 - Because, they do not prevent you from doing it, they make a condition of your enrollment that you will comply with their rules. You can choose not to obey their rules and face the consequences. Now if you choose to disobey their rules and they try to impose a physical punishment(like lashes, stoning, or other capitol punishment) that would be a violation of your human rights. If they just throw you out, they are not throwing you out for interaction they are throwing you out for breaking the rules. – SoylentGray Jun 18 '14 at 17:39
  • 2
    @Chad, indeed. Essentially you are breaking your contract with them as a student of their university. No Human Right entitles you to breaking contracts. – user1873 Jun 19 '14 at 0:28
-2

This is plain segregation. I do not see how this is not violation. This is totally similar to the Jim Crow laws in the USA that allowed private companies to require blacks to sit on separate benches in buses, in trains etc. Notice, the companies were also private.

Besides this, I am sure the rule was not designed to be throughly enforced. I am sure the social interaction still happens at a large scale, but now if a girl reports unwanted interaction, the guy would be punished. The whole purpose of the law is to give girls the power over boys whom they don't like.

| improve this answer | |
  • 7
    The first paragraph is wrong. There is no segregation, just a prohibition of physical contact beyond handshakes. Note that the linked note does not even mention gender. As written it also applies to same-sex physical contact. The second paragraph is pure speculation. – Philipp Aug 24 '17 at 17:18
  • 2
    @Philipp according to OP, prohibited any interaction, not only physical. – Anixx Aug 24 '17 at 17:29
  • 1
    @Philipp I did not look initially, I was answering the question as it is. Now I looked at it but could bnot find the relavant post. – Anixx Aug 24 '17 at 18:38
  • 1
    @Danila Smirnov where is the picture? – Anixx Aug 28 '17 at 8:22
  • 1

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .