On June 1, 2016, the New York Times published an editorial criticizing the fact that a public swimming pool in Brooklyn will provide separate swimming hours for women. The Times says that the accommodations came about after some women in the Orthodox Jewish community requested separate hours.

The hypocrisy and inflammatory language in the New York Times is astounding in many ways:

The New York Times ran a positive story in February 2016 reporting that Muslim women wearing hijab can finally swim with their daughters due to special accommodations in Toronto, Canada. If it is great when the wishes of women in the Muslim community are accommodated, why is it a problem when the same is granted to women in the Orthodox Jewish community?

Secondly, when was the last time the editors of the Times complained that government accommodated women?

Thirdly, taxpayer-funded facilities have accommodations along gender lines such as restrooms and locker rooms. We don't recall the New York Times advocating that these accommodations should be stopped. Why the change of heart when it involves the Orthodox Jewish community?

The pool will "answer to the religious convictions of one neighborhood group" claims the Times. But the fact is women from all backgrounds can swim during those hours; it is not exclusive for Orthodox.

The Times also writes, "There is no just way to tell a sweaty Brooklynite on a Sunday afternoon that he should be ejected onto Bedford Avenue because one religious group doesn’t want him in the pool." Here again the Times wrongly suggests, in inflammatory language, that the designated hours are only for one religious group. Besides, the accommodations on Sundays are for only two of the many hours in the afternoon. Why mislead "sweaty Brooklynites" that they are out of luck for all of Sunday?

If these accommodations are in accordance with law is up to legal scholars to opine on. But the hypocrisy and inflammatory language by the Times is unacceptable regardless.