The Knesset continued discussion earlier this week on the proposed law allowing gender separation in graduate academic programs. My problem is not only with the bill’s initiators, but also with all those who express reservations yet accept it in the name of “pluralism” or the desire to integrate Haredi Israelis into higher education and employment. That is precisely the problem: when women’s rights become something that people are willing to overlook being violated, they are no longer rights. They become a price to be paid.
I am familiar with this type of argument. They always sound moderate, even pragmatic and pluralistic. After all, who are we, supposedly, to decide for Haredi women, or Haredi-nationalist women (yes, they are part of this discussion too, and their representative in the Knesset initiated and is promoting the bill)? Who are we to prevent them from studying?
But the real question is not whether Haredi or religious women have the right to study. Of course they do, and it is essential to open as many doors as possible for them.
The question is whether a democratic state, and a public academic system, are permitted to institutionalize separation between women and men as the default model for higher education. And, of course, the inevitable follow-up question is: what comes next?
The recent move by Haredi lawmakers, including through a proposed amendment intended to expand separation into public spaces, demonstrates precisely the direction and the ultimate goal.
The bill seeking to allow separate tracks in graduate programs is not a minor adjustment. According to discussions in the Knesset and published legal opinions on the matter, it would expand gender separation to master’s and doctoral degrees. In other words, this would no longer be a targeted solution for the initial stages of academic study or a temporary gateway, but rather a separate and ongoing academic pathway across all levels of higher education.
And this is precisely where the failure lies. For years, we were told that separation was a temporary tool for integration: first a separate undergraduate degree, then integration into the workforce, and finally engagement with Israeli society. Now it turns out that the temporary arrangement seeks to become permanent, and the exception seeks to become the norm.
If, after a separate undergraduate degree, a separate master’s degree is also required, and if a separate doctorate is needed after that—then perhaps it is time to admit that separation does not lead to integration. It leads to more and more separation, and who knows where it will end.
From a legal perspective, and put simply: equality is not only a question of whether there is a classroom for both women and men. Equality also concerns the answers to questions such as: who teaches, who is excluded, or more accurately, who is excluded as a woman, who is considered a “problem,” and who is always expected to step aside so that the space can be made suitable.
When female lecturers cannot teach men, when women are required to disappear from certain academic tracks, and when academia is structured around the idea that female presence is disruptive, this is no longer integration. It is exclusion. Perhaps it presents itself as polite, perhaps it is misleading, but it is quite clear where it leads.
The old American lesson of “separate but equal” is relevant here as well. History has taught us that separation is almost never equal. It always marks who is at the center and who is the exception, who is the standard and who requires special accommodation.
We all support the integration of Haredi Israelis into the workforce, and I support higher education being accessible to everyone. But genuine integration cannot be built on the backs of women. It cannot begin with the erasure of female lecturers, the narrowing of opportunities available to female students, and the transformation of all women—Haredi, secular, religious, lecturers, researchers, and students—into a variable that might “create a problem” and therefore needs to be managed.
And of course, we have not even begun to discuss the impact of this separated educational system on the quality of teaching and the budgetary costs for academic institutions (three laboratories for each field: women, men, and mixed), the invitation to further separation on religious grounds (for example, between Jews and Arabs), or the legislative environment in which this proposal is being advanced—expanding the authority of religious courts, the proposed Basic Law on Torah Study, a coordinated campaign against female combat soldiers, and more.
At the end of the day, this is not a private matter concerning one woman or another, nor is it merely a “cultural right in the name of pluralism.” It is a matter of principle: the state cannot simply decide that women are an obstacle on the path to integrating men, and then move them aside.
Integration—yes. Institutionalized separation—absolutely not.
If we do not stop this now, we will wake up very quickly and discover that Iran is here.
Adv. Gali Etzion is the Director of the Legal Advice and Legislation Department at Na’amat, the women’s movement of Israel.