Letter: Religion vs. classes at SBU

Stony Brook University's decision to hold classes on major religious holidays should not make students feel compelled to choose between their academic obligations and their religious observances ["Stony Brook classes to meet on religious holidays," News, March 22].

Indeed, New York's Education Law requires that the faculty and administrations of educational institutions make reasonable accommodation for students' religious observance schedules, and not penalize the students for their nonattendance during such times.

Moreover, New York's Executive Law similarly requires Stony Brook, as an employer, to accommodate the religious observance days of its faculty and other employees, who are no less affected when classes are scheduled on religious holidays.

Stony Brook is a culturally and religiously diverse institution, and religious observance is, by its very nature, an inherently sensitive subject.

Kenneth H. Ryesky, East Northport

Editor's note: The writer is a lawyer whose wife is a member of the Stony Brook faculty.
 

With this edict, Stony Brook University exercised extremely poor judgment, not to speak of abject insensitivity and downright intolerance.

Charles Robbins, vice provost for undergraduate education and dean of the undergraduate colleges, is quoted as saying that it was unfair to cancel classes for the holy days of some religions and not others. Although not explicitly mentioned, one can conclude that the university caved in to political correctness pressure, from someone other than Christians and Jews, whose holy days were previously observed.

His argument about holy days affecting spring break and "reading days" is a cop-out of the first order and totally disingenuous. Many colleges and universities have their spring break at a time that doesn't conflict with any of the Christian or Jewish holidays.

Stanley L. Ronell, Port Washington