Opposition to a Bill That Enables Discrimination Against Women

By Jihan Haidar Hasan

MK Limor Son Har‑Melech has introduced a bill that, among other things, would allow the expansion of gender segregation to all academic degrees in all fields of study, and to additional population groups beyond the ultra-Orthodox. The spirit of the bill raises concern that gender segregation could extend to other areas of campuses, not only classrooms. According to the proposal, segregation could also be permitted in cafeterias, laboratories, corridors, and more, if an academic institution chooses to do so. Removing the word “only” from the original wording of the bill enables a broader interpretation. Although Son Har-Melech argues that the proposal refers to separate campuses or newly established segregated campuses, rather than to all universities, the precedent could create a slippery slope. While the proposal does not obligate institutions to segregate by gender, it could incentivize students to demand such segregation with state funding.

Another problem with the same bill is that it removes protections against employment discrimination for female lecturers that were granted by a High Court ruling, since gender segregation would apply not only to female students but also to female lecturers.

The proposal, which opens the door to a chain of discriminatory practices and the obstruction of professional women’s advancement, comes from a woman who claims that her bill deals with freedom, equal opportunity, and the fundamental right of every person to pursue higher education without being required to compromise their beliefs and way of life.

The bill also contradicts the clause that guarantees equal academic quality for men and women. Implementing segregation would discriminate against women in contradiction to a 2021 High Court ruling. According to Son Har-Melech, for many years various communities in Israel were excluded from academia or forced to compromise their principles because there was no suitable alternative. She adds that their struggle is against attempts to force students to study against their conscience, and that those who try to block the option of segregated study for those who want it are the ones engaging in coercion that violates individual rights.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews demand accommodations that entail discrimination against women in order to integrate into the labor market and the army. In this light, changing academia may be only the beginning of a process that could bring back discrimination against women reminiscent of times when schools were gender-segregated, and continue with discriminatory laws under the pretext of equality needed for ultra-Orthodox integration, as the MK presents in her explanation of the bill. The struggle over ultra-Orthodox conscription illustrates this even more clearly — the bill would allow ultra-Orthodox recruits to condition their service on heavy discrimination against female soldiers.

The minister’s arguments could justify discrimination against women as practiced in theocratic regimes such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. She explains that true academia must be open to everyone and that just as the lifestyles of other sectors are respected, it is time to enable observant communities to integrate into education and employment under conditions that respect their worldview. She says that they will not accept exclusion disguised as liberalism and will continue to fight for diversity and inclusion of all parts of society in higher education. Her statements justify gender segregation in the name of consideration for religious communities, thereby allowing ultra-Orthodox men to justify refusal to serve in the army or to demand discrimination against proven female soldiers as a condition for service — with the rationale coming from a female MK herself.

The minister seeks to take us back to ancient times or the Middle Ages, when spaces were closed to women. In libraries and computer rooms, there are no practical ways to create separate spaces, leading to a situation reminiscent of the United States during Martin Luther King Jr.’s era, when Black passengers had to stand if no seats were available while white passengers sat. In practice, this law could lead to a situation where students demand that female students leave the library or computer room so they can occupy the space. Although the law ostensibly allows gender discrimination in both directions, given the minister’s reasoning of accommodating religious populations, it is clear that for them it is natural to remove a woman to make space for a man, but not the reverse.

In effect, the MK seeks to turn academia into what occurred on ultra-Orthodox buses in Jerusalem, where there were places women were allowed to sit and places they were not. Instead of the ultra-Orthodox adapting to Western society, she asks the liberal secular public to adapt to ultra-Orthodox norms, and in order to avoid “absurd discrimination” against the ultra-Orthodox and devout Muslims, society would have to accept all the discriminatory norms common in those communities.

Following discussion of the bill in the Education Committee, and the committee’s effective expansion of the proposal from classrooms to broader campus spaces, libraries, and cafeterias, a new women’s party was proposed, and a third of respondents in a survey expressed willingness to support it if established. However, just like this discriminatory bill, such an idea would not promote women’s representation or status. A women’s party would, absurdly, entrench gender segregation.

Women’s rightful place is at the heart of leadership — in the Knesset, the government, the army, security services, the economy, the stock exchange, high-tech, boards of directors, and the leadership of public and private companies. Yet today, women make up barely 20% of the Knesset. In the Tel Aviv 35 index there are only two female CEOs, one of them temporary. There are no women heading major parliamentary committees other than those with a built-in “feminine” character, and ultra-Orthodox parties do not allow women to run at all.

Women are a natural force. They know how to move mountains and therefore deserve to sit firmly in seats of leadership and power. But this must be done from within the system, using the system’s tools, working shoulder to shoulder with men. The solution is not a sectoral women’s party as “women’s slice of the pie,” but presenting voters with a whole pie that includes women placed in strong, realistic positions at the top of party lists.

Instead of adapting academia to ultra-Orthodox demands, ultra-Orthodox parties should adapt themselves to Israeli society and include women in their ranks if they wish to retain political power. Parties should demand equal female representation not because the law forces them, but because it is the right thing to do. Perhaps the real solution is legislation requiring parties to ensure equal representation of women in realistic positions on their lists.

Although polls suggest that a women’s party could win seven seats, it would be better for the capable women mentioned as potential founders — proven leaders in diplomatic, social, economic, or municipal arenas — to join the leadership of existing parties and drive change from within. An example is the tireless struggle of opposition members such as Naama Lazimi, who repeatedly demonstrate determined female leadership.

The upcoming election is the most critical in the country’s history. Israel’s future as an open state depends on the identity of the leaders who will take the helm and pull the country out of the mire created by the current government. The appropriate response to Son Har-Melech’s proposal is to demand greater integration of women. If the ultra-Orthodox demand discrimination as a condition for participation in academia, the army, or the labor market, then the political arena should be made “inaccessible” to them unless they include women on their lists.

Since it is unlikely that ultra-Orthodox parties would relinquish political power in order to preserve male-only lists, forcing openness upon them would also require them to show tolerance for mixed learning and shared spaces in libraries, laboratories, and computer rooms. If they can do it in the Knesset, they can do it anywhere.

We must strongly oppose Son Har-Melech’s bill. Although presented as a limited measure for new institutions, it could open a Pandora’s box of discriminatory permissions across many fields. Parties competing for leadership must commit to equal representation of men and women and enact legislation requiring every party to place at least one woman in a realistic position on its list.