Religious Accommodation and its Limits: The Recent Controversy at York University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent request for religious accommodationat York University has generated controversynot just about the merits of the particular claimbut also about the general practice of religiousaccommodation under human rights codes andthe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Iwill argue that the York case highlights the difficulty in treating religion as a ground of discriminationand more generally in fi tting religioninto an equality rights framework. Th isdiffi culty stems from the complex character ofreligious adherence, which can be viewed as botha personal commitment to a set of claims abouttruth and right and as a cultural identity that isexpressed in shared spiritual practices. Whenreligion is viewed as a cultural identity, it seemsright that it be accommodated, unless this wouldcause “undue hardship” to others. Yet when it isviewed as a set of beliefs about right and truth,particularly when those beliefs are inconsistentwith public values, it is not clear why it ought tobe accommodated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".