Imagine that you are running a business and you have two different groups claiming that their rights are infringed. Imagine further that one of those groups bases its claim on its religion and that Federal regulation prohibits nondiscriminatory policies. This is exactly the prickly position in which Harvard University finds itself.

Educational institutions receiving Federal funding must follow special rules. There are statutes and regulations governing how these schools treat different groups. Most schools of higher learning must follow these rules because Federal dollars are so ubiquitous; think of all the student loan money used to pay for tuition! Thus, it is almost impossible to avoid government prohibitions and restrictions.

Harvard is in a pickle because a small group of Muslim women feel uncomfortable exercising in a co-educational environment. As you may be aware, certain Muslim women feel that it is a violation of their religious tenets to bare any of their skin in public to men to whom they are not married. Thus, these women will wear a full-body “burqa,� with headgear in public. In some extremely strict cultures, even the face is required to be fully covered with a veil covering. Obviously, some Muslim women cannot comfortably exercise around men.

If these women were being actively discriminated against, such as not being permitted to wear religious garb at the gym, the problem would be simple. Such a policy is discriminatory and would have to be changed. Fortunately, or unfortunately, that is not the situation.

The problem is that potential solutions alienate different groups. If nothing is done to accommodate the religious practices of these women, they can claim they are being discriminated against. If the women are permitted exclusive use of the gym, Harvard men can claim they are discriminated against; men are entitled to have access to the gym, as well as these Muslim women.

In theory, this situation is not unique to a college. There are certainly women who prefer to exercise in a women-only environment, although not necessarily because of religion. They pay to join a private gym that caters just to women. There is nothing illegal about this. A “private� entity (as opposed to a “public� one) can legally discriminate on gender, except in employment decisions; this is why Augusta National can remain a male-only Club. A private entity cannot, however, discriminate based on race, even at a golf course. Again, Harvard accepts federal monies, which makes the school subject to federal law.

The solution that Harvard came up with is to have certain limited hours where the gym is open only to women. This compromise may prevent a legal fight, as it might be considered reasonable and non-discriminatory.

We live in a pluralistic society; we have laws and rules to ensure that minorities can live their lives without having the majority impose its will on them. Sometimes we have some interesting situations - like the one Harvard is facing. Harvard has chosen a middle ground to resolve its problem. Is this the best decision? Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it’s an attempt to celebrate America’s open and free society.