Citadel Military College has denied a newly-accepted Muslim student’s request to wear a religious headscarf as part of her uniform. The college has denied the student’s request on the grounds that all students submit to “adopting a common uniform” while enrolled at the college.
Earlier this year American Military News reported on a student that was punished for leaking information stating that the college was considering the Muslim student’s request to include a hijab in the schools approved headwear. If the request was approved it would have been the only uniform alteration request ever approved in the school’s 175 year history.
The college is renowned for its ultra strict uniform regulations. Students are required to stay in uniform nearly 24 hours a day and are expected to follow the school’s 35-page booklet on military protocols.
Hoping for some lively discussion but I imagine there will be some shenanigans as well, but still try to remember Rule 1 so mods don't have to layeth the smack down.
Presumably all other religious gear is banned as well? I'm struggling to think of another item that would be as obvious as a hijab. Jews wearing their yarmulke during prayer, also in uniform as it's a nearly 24 hour thing?
Uniform is pretty important in the military. Maybe don't join if you can't wear it.
I think I'm ok with this, though I could have gone either way.
The school is a public one, and it's functionally training for the military. As such I think the compelling government interest in teaching unit coherence and uniformity is even higher than it would be in the actual military, as they are students. It's not an unreasonable requirement and it can't reasonably be accommodated.
I think you need to make a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs - an employer generally has no good reason to prohibit a yarmulke, for example. However you can't accommodate every religious belief, not when there is a compelling and reasonable state interest at play: prohibiting lengthy beards when your job requires you to wear a gas mask for example is acceptable.
Due to the education aspect of the facility I think this falls just barely into the latter category, but honestly I don't think I can really defend this viewpoint very vigorously because I think it's a pretty close one.
feeder wrote: Jews wearing their yarmulke during prayer, also in uniform as it's a nearly 24 hour thing?
That isn't allowed at the Citadel either afaik, and generally isn't allowed when active and in uniform. Outside of uniform though go nuts.
The only example I can think of was when an officer (I think) was allowed a turban as a sikh, but he was already an officer and this wasn't in the Citadel either.
feeder wrote: Jews wearing their yarmulke during prayer, also in uniform as it's a nearly 24 hour thing?
That isn't allowed at the Citadel either afaik, and generally isn't allowed when active and in uniform. Outside of uniform though go nuts.
The only example I can think of was when an officer (I think) was allowed a turban as a sikh, but he was already an officer and this wasn't in the Citadel either.
Of course, the sikh turban. Up here there is an exception for the turban in military and also the RCMP, which is a paramilitary force.
That may be linked to the long glorious history of Sikhs in service in the various Commonwealth forces though.
I've been trying to decide where my personal stance on the whole religious attire thing is recently. Still not quite decided on it overall. - Not that my own personal stance/opinion matters on things at all.
I do know though, that it's going to somehow involve me saying, "yes I think you should take that darned motorcycle helmet off when you go indoors too."
feeder wrote: Jews wearing their yarmulke during prayer, also in uniform as it's a nearly 24 hour thing?
That isn't allowed at the Citadel either afaik, and generally isn't allowed when active and in uniform. Outside of uniform though go nuts.
The only example I can think of was when an officer (I think) was allowed a turban as a sikh, but he was already an officer and this wasn't in the Citadel either.
If I recall properly, the Sikh's were just granted an exception to wear turbans in the US military. The Citadel is a different beast though. Within the actual military, I don't exactly support the idea of any religious garments while in uniform. I've always believed that the uniform is a symbol, one that we've chosen above all others. Religious garb has no place with it.
That is my personal opinion though, and whatever the powers that are appointed over me happen to decide on the matter, I'll enforce an support as an NCO should.
Obviously practical military requirements add a twist.
The shakey ground, for me anyway, is that in both cases the 'dominant', if not state religion requires no visible displays of that faith. So it doesn't impact them at all, which undermines the notion that everyone is being treated equally.
feeder wrote: Jews wearing their yarmulke during prayer, also in uniform as it's a nearly 24 hour thing?
That isn't allowed at the Citadel either afaik, and generally isn't allowed when active and in uniform. Outside of uniform though go nuts.
The only example I can think of was when an officer (I think) was allowed a turban as a sikh, but he was already an officer and this wasn't in the Citadel either.
During my time in the military, I served with a practicing Jewish person, and he definitely wore his yarmulke in uniform (he brought like 7 or 8 with him on the deployment).
The way things are, at least in the US Army, was that, at least up until the recent Sikh chaplain, the "reasonable accomodation" was that any religious headgear could not interfere with the functional wear of protective items. A yarmulke, and the poncho/vest thing he wore under his jacket, obviously do not interfere with the wear of armor or kevlar. The Sikh turban does, though we've seen recently that it's been excepted. In the regular army, I could potentially see an exception being made for a modified hijab (as in, I doubt they'd allow one that covers the entire head and neck, but may allow one that covers the hair?)
Regulations are regulations. The Citadel runs a tight ship, so to speak. Know before you go, and all that. If you can't abide by uniform and grooming regs, then go somewhere else.
If I recall properly, the Sikh's were just granted an exception to wear turbans in the US military. The Citadel is a different beast though. Within the actual military, I don't exactly support the idea of any religious garments while in uniform. I've always believed that the uniform is a symbol, one that we've chosen above all others. Religious garb has no place with it.
I think if I were still in, this would be close to my personal stance.... The only caveat I'd throw in there is that in a purely garrison environment, where things should be a bit more relaxed (compared to training or deployment environments), allowing troops to wear limited religious garb (IMO, it must follow the regs that I sort of outlined above: cannot interfere with the wear and function of military gear)
But at the same time, I was always apparently on the wrong side of the line when I kept correcting females on their hairstyle of choice (it's not my fault that I was correct, and that any hair-do that interfered with the proper wear of military headgear, even if it was "just" a patrol cap is in fact, against army regulations and unit policies.... Or that they had dyed their hair multiple colors (big no-no) or colors that were completely unnatural for their person)
feeder wrote: Jews wearing their yarmulke during prayer, also in uniform as it's a nearly 24 hour thing?
That isn't allowed at the Citadel either afaik, and generally isn't allowed when active and in uniform. Outside of uniform though go nuts.
The only example I can think of was when an officer (I think) was allowed a turban as a sikh, but he was already an officer and this wasn't in the Citadel either.
During my time in the military, I served with a practicing Jewish person, and he definitely wore his yarmulke in uniform (he brought like 7 or 8 with him on the deployment).
The way things are, at least in the US Army, was that, at least up until the recent Sikh chaplain, the "reasonable accomodation" was that any religious headgear could not interfere with the functional wear of protective items. A yarmulke, and the poncho/vest thing he wore under his jacket, obviously do not interfere with the wear of armor or kevlar. The Sikh turban does, though we've seen recently that it's been excepted. In the regular army, I could potentially see an exception being made for a modified hijab (as in, I doubt they'd allow one that covers the entire head and neck, but may allow one that covers the hair?)
I could see an argument against a headscarf being made that it would restrict the ability to apply medical care as well. The yarmulke and turban are relatively easy to remove, to examine for trauma. A headscarf, probably not so much.
There are multiple photos floating around of American military females (I'm guessing as part of a FET Team) wearing the Hijab in-country, so the argument that it can't be worn because it interferes with military equipment doesn't really hold much water. Especially considering there are also military versions of the Hijab that other countries use that are basically like souped-up neck gaiters that wouldn't interfere with any other uniform or equipment items any more than, well, a neck gaiter.
That said, the Citadel is going to do what they're going to do, but if the actual military has already allowed females to wear the Hijab in-country, this decision sits less well with me.
Some of the other grooming/clothing restrictions, like no beards, have a very practical basis for being rules - to fit a gasmask properly, you need to be pretty clean shaven. A beard interferes with getting a good seal with the mask.
While chemical/biological weapons have not been used in a wide scale war since World War 1, the possibility troops might face these kinds of weapon still exists, thus the need for the rule.
totalfailure wrote: Some of the other grooming/clothing restrictions, like no beards, have a very practical basis for being rules - to fit a gasmask properly, you need to be pretty clean shaven. A beard interferes with getting a good seal with the mask.
While chemical/biological weapons have not been used in a wide scale war since World War 1, the possibility troops might face these kinds of weapon still exists, thus the need for the rule.
This is basically an urban legend at this point. Unless you're going full-fledged Gandalf, it has been proven multiple times that it's possible to get a good seal on a gas mask with a beard.
Regulations are regulations. The Citadel runs a tight ship, so to speak. Know before you go, and all that. If you can't abide by uniform and grooming regs, then go somewhere else.
Regulations change as cultures change.
What made sense when all your applicants were white Christians, won't necessarily make sense in a new social context.
totalfailure wrote: Some of the other grooming/clothing restrictions, like no beards, have a very practical basis for being rules - to fit a gasmask properly, you need to be pretty clean shaven. A beard interferes with getting a good seal with the mask.
While chemical/biological weapons have not been used in a wide scale war since World War 1, the possibility troops might face these kinds of weapon still exists, thus the need for the rule.
This is basically an urban legend at this point. Unless you're going full-fledged Gandalf, it has been proven multiple times that it's possible to get a good seal on a gas mask with a beard.
totalfailure wrote: Some of the other grooming/clothing restrictions, like no beards, have a very practical basis for being rules - to fit a gasmask properly, you need to be pretty clean shaven. A beard interferes with getting a good seal with the mask.
While chemical/biological weapons have not been used in a wide scale war since World War 1, the possibility troops might face these kinds of weapon still exists, thus the need for the rule.
This is basically an urban legend at this point. Unless you're going full-fledged Gandalf, it has been proven multiple times that it's possible to get a good seal on a gas mask with a beard.
Feel free to test it out some time....
I don't need to test it, the Indian Army has been doing it since at least WWI, and every Sikh in the US Army who wants to keep a beard (I think there are three or four serving currently) have had to demonstrate that they could get a proper seal with the beard. All of them have been successful so far.
Regulations are regulations. The Citadel runs a tight ship, so to speak. Know before you go, and all that. If you can't abide by uniform and grooming regs, then go somewhere else.
Regulations change as cultures change.
What made sense when all your applicants were white Christians, won't necessarily make sense in a new social context.
That might be true as time passes. But the military and military academies (private or otherwise) are not proper venues for "social experiments".
The military has an alien culture when compared to the civilian world. The rules of the game are different. That is a necessity to maintain cohesion and discipline. Without that, you have a rabble that would be combat ineffective. If you want the military to change, the overall attitudes of those coming in have to be jelly with these new ideas. Then the brass won't be so skittish about enacting new regulations that coincides with changes in social attitudes.
When I was in the military, I was dead set against homosexuals openly serving and women in combat roles. The reason was that social attitudes hadn't changed enough for it to work without serious issues. Nowadays, I see no problem with either, because the attitudes of those coming in has changed over the last 25 years. Thus, you had a resulting change in military culture that could work without problems.
As far as this incident goes, this is a completely different issue than what we are talking about. This is about uniform regulations. And that's one thing that has never changed. Uniformity is part of discipline and adjusting to the military life and culture. And no amount of social change is going to eliminate that.
Regulations change as cultures change.
What made sense when all your applicants were white Christians, won't necessarily make sense in a new social context.
Uniformity's important to the function of the military.
feeder wrote: Jews wearing their yarmulke during prayer, also in uniform as it's a nearly 24 hour thing?
That isn't allowed at the Citadel either afaik, and generally isn't allowed when active and in uniform. Outside of uniform though go nuts.
The only example I can think of was when an officer (I think) was allowed a turban as a sikh, but he was already an officer and this wasn't in the Citadel either.
If I recall properly, the Sikh's were just granted an exception to wear turbans in the US military. The Citadel is a different beast though. Within the actual military, I don't exactly support the idea of any religious garments while in uniform. I've always believed that the uniform is a symbol, one that we've chosen above all others. Religious garb has no place with it.
That is my personal opinion though, and whatever the powers that are appointed over me happen to decide on the matter, I'll enforce an support as an NCO should.
India has been doing it for a while (and it looks rather spiffy too).
oldravenman3025 wrote: As far as this incident goes, this is a completely different issue than what we are talking about. This is about uniform regulations. And that's one thing that has never changed. Uniformity is part of discipline and adjusting to the military life and culture. And no amount of social change is going to eliminate that.
Bolded for emphasis. I really don't understand why anyone would make this claim. Uniform regulations have changed extensively over the years, and there are tons of little exceptions for special circumstances even now for a variety of reasons.
oldravenman3025 wrote: As far as this incident goes, this is a completely different issue than what we are talking about. This is about uniform regulations. And that's one thing that has never changed. Uniformity is part of discipline and adjusting to the military life and culture. And no amount of social change is going to eliminate that.
Bolded for emphasis. I really don't understand why anyone would make this claim. Uniform regulations have changed extensively over the years, and there are tons of little exceptions for special circumstances even now for a variety of reasons.
They've changed, but not based on the whims of individual service members. And there are little exceptions, but the key word is little. If anything, it seems like they're tightening back up now that we're slimming down.
If a carrier qual det from the RAG couldn't get their Miley Cyrus-themed "We Can't Stop" morale patch approved a few years ago, I say no hijabs.
In the Canadian army (and I presume in our Royal Military College of Canada) the male Sikhs are allowed to wear their military-issue green turbans and not shave their beards even in the units that don't have beard-wearing tradition, providing they always have a small container with Vaseline on them at all times while in uniform to apply it on their beards before putting a gas mask. Obviously all the military standards of putting on a gas mask and a helmet apply to them too.
oldravenman3025 wrote: As far as this incident goes, this is a completely different issue than what we are talking about. This is about uniform regulations. And that's one thing that has never changed. Uniformity is part of discipline and adjusting to the military life and culture. And no amount of social change is going to eliminate that.
Bolded for emphasis. I really don't understand why anyone would make this claim. Uniform regulations have changed extensively over the years, and there are tons of little exceptions for special circumstances even now for a variety of reasons.
They've changed, but not based on the whims of individual service members. And there are little exceptions, but the key word is little. If anything, it seems like they're tightening back up now that we're slimming down.
If a carrier qual det from the RAG couldn't get their Miley Cyrus-themed "We Can't Stop" morale patch approved a few years ago, I say no hijabs.
The change to Marine Corps uniform regulations this year would seem to suggest that they're not tightening up all that much. There are certainly many other morale patches that have been approved in the meantime (or worn without official approval). And that doesn't change the fact that females have already worn the Hijab in-country.
I think making a few minor allowances, like allowing Hijabs for the small handful of women who would want to wear it, and the beards and turbans for Sikhs that have already been approved, could eventually be a force multiplier in the sense that we would be allowing more Americans with broader cultural competencies, a deeper understanding of some of the religious beliefs of our allies and adversaries, and in some cases language skills as well to serve in the military. In the world we live in, in which COIN, advise and assist operations, and hybrid-type conflicts are becoming the norm, to not make use of these resources is, quite frankly, short-sighted and has caused us difficulties in the past. I'm reminded of a quote from General James Mattis from 2005: None of the widely touted new technologies and weapons systems "would have helped me in the last three years [in Iraq and Afghanistan]. But I could have used cultural training [and] language training. I could have used more products from American universities [who] understood the world does not revolve around America and [who] embrace coalitions and allies for all of the strengths that they bring us."
I like morale patches as much as the next guy, but I'd rather have one American servicemember who's allowed to wear a Hijab who can bring some cultural expertise and understanding to the table, who could very possible be able to successfully engage with populations on the civil-military spectrum in ways that many of us wouldn't be able to, over 100 morale patches.
I realize I may have taken this a little bit beyond the case of this one female civilian at the Citadel, but I think it's an issue that deserves a little more consideration than just a flat out no due to a small change in uniform regulations.
Cothonian wrote: I'm going to have to roll with the assessment that if one is not prepared to wear the uniform, they should not sign up.
If one cannot deal with the regulations, there are plenty of other places to go that are both excellent and willing to accommodate.
That argument could certainly be made. It certainly was made often enough in the recent past, particularly in regards to gay and lesbian service members prior to the repeal of DADT in 2011. That doesn't mean regulations couldn't, shouldn't, and haven't been changed in the past, even very recently. See the currently serving religious Sikhs in the Army, for example.
I think only recently a Sikh got permission to wear a head wrap and beards while serving in the US military. But of course, that is the military, not the Citadel, which as far as I know is not a "military" school like West Point, but a technical college owned by the state of South Carolina that simply has a strong longstanding relationship with the military.
And military regulations don't allow Sikh's or Muslims any exemptions per se. The uniform regulations to my knowledge are air tight as far as wording. the Sikh's who have been granted exemptions have been giving individual permission not to adhere to the regulations, and the regulations themselves have not been altered to meet their needs.
I don't think Stoning is something Sikh's are generally known for doing, so yeah (though it wouldn't surprise me).
Someday, people might consider that these are no aspects of religion, and religion alone. They're cultural, which includes religion among a host of other things. You think Hinduism demands that you marry your wife and then set her on fire so that you can keep the dowry and not the girl? Muslims do not have a monopoly of abusing women, blowing up buildings, or stoning people. Even if they did, what? We're going to just make assumptions about people based on their religion? "I'd give a damn about your beliefs, but I read on the news that someone like you that you've never met and who probably isn't like you at all outside of a single similarity shared by millions who beat his/her wife and I don't like that so I'm going to not give a gak about you." That's a pretty douche nozzle way to deal with other human beings.
1: Hordini: Hijabs were worn in country (Afghanistan/Iraq) and are still worn today by females when visiting certain muslim countries, but only when they are not on a combat stance. By this I mean they don't patrol with combat units decked out in Hijabs, they will use Hijabs when attending Shura's and other social events where males from that country might see them and feel offended. It is strictly for peaceful operations like those, when on patrol they are sure as you know what wearing Kevlars.
2: Hordini: The Sikhs in question were only able to achieve a TIGHT seal on their gas masks when they applied a thick coating of grease or hair gel to their beards. On a deployment this adds another layer of logistics that are required to make that person combat fit. Not only that but it doesn't even address the fact that once those beards are greased up they become a magnet for dirt/sand/grit/dust which guess what? Keeps that Tight seal from happening. If there is even a slight gap in that seal it could possibly kill the person in question depending on what chemical/bio agent is being used against them.
3: The Citadel is not a military university. It is militaristic but it isn't in the same category as west point, annapolis or the US Air Force Academy.
and 4: The Hijab is not a religious garment, it is a cultural garment, or at least that is what National Geographic and Al-Azhar say.
The Citadel has had the cadets follow the same uniform regulations for 175 years. She should have had zero expectations that the school would suddenly change those regulations just for her. If she didn't want to wear the uniform she shouldn't have chosen to attend the school. Nobody has to attend The Citadel and if you choose to attend you should understand that the rules the cadets have had to follow for the last 175 years will apply to you to. If she wants to wear the hijab she had no business applying to The Citadel in the first place. It's not like they try to hide all the Cadet rules and traditions it's a highly publicized selling point of the school.
I don't think Stoning is something Sikh's are generally known for doing, so yeah (though it wouldn't surprise me).
Someday, people might consider that these are no aspects of religion, and religion alone. They're cultural, which includes religion among a host of other things. You think Hinduism demands that you marry your wife and then set her on fire so that you can keep the dowry and not the girl? Muslims do not have a monopoly of abusing women, blowing up buildings, or stoning people. Even if they did, what? We're going to just make assumptions about people based on their religion? "I'd give a damn about your beliefs, but I read on the news that someone like you that you've never met and who probably isn't like you at all outside of a single similarity shared by millions who beat his/her wife and I don't like that so I'm going to not give a gak about you." That's a pretty douche nozzle way to deal with other human beings.
Wow...those two links are stretching it lmfao.
But yeah, let's pretend there aren't mass rapes going on in Europe committed by Muslim immigrants, nor are there abuses levied on rape victims constantly in Muslim dominated countries. Nope. It doesn't happen. Ever.
And somehow terrorist activities committed on minute scale 20 years ago are comparable to ISIL, Al-Quaeda, and all the other terrorist crap committed by Muslim extremists over the past 40-50 years.
nor are there abuses levied on rape victims constantly in Muslim dominated countries.
There are abuses levied on rape victims in our country.
Nope. It doesn't happen. Ever.
Which is why it's a good thing no one claimed that, because they'd be wrong.
And somehow terrorist activities committed on minute scale 20 years ago are comparable to ISIL, Al-Quaeda, and all the other terrorist crap committed by Muslim extremists over the past 40-50 years.
It's one thing to talk about the curious relationship between Islam, Jihad, and violence (especially in the Middle East where it has been so miraculously put on display). It's another to pretend that terrorism is remotely unique to Muslims, or that we should assume terrorism is inherent in a faith present on every content in many forms when only one region in particular has been so prevalent in spreading the brand. Or that gang rape doesn't exist outside of Islam, or that Muslims or the only ones who put rape victims through a second hell.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Citadel has had the cadets follow the same uniform regulations for 175 years. She should have had zero expectations that the school would suddenly change those regulations just for her. If she didn't want to wear the uniform she shouldn't have chosen to attend the school. Nobody has to attend The Citadel and if you choose to attend you should understand that the rules the cadets have had to follow for the last 175 years will apply to you to. If she wants to wear the hijab she had no business applying to The Citadel in the first place. It's not like they try to hide all the Cadet rules and traditions it's a highly publicized selling point of the school.
At this point she put in a request, which wasn't rejected out of hand, but was considered at least before a decision was made. If the family does decide to take legal action, then maybe you can get all annoyed about her "expectations".
As it stands, based on that very brief article, it sounds like she has a difficult decision to make.
That might be true as time passes. But the military and military academies (private or otherwise) are not proper venues for "social experiments".
Care to explain to me then, how it is that the military tends to be the first place for social experiments??? The Civil Rights movement sprang in part because of military service of African-Americans and the abolishment of segregated units. The Army, and then baseball were the first two institutions in the US to fully de-segregate (officially).
The Military is usually the 1st place for social experiments to take place, which is smart when it comes to racism. Nothing bonds a group together like sharing a highly stressful environment.
On the other hand, this has nothing to do with Racism and has everything to do with military necessity teamed with someone wanting to impart their culture into the Military.
The Hijab is about as religious as Whiskey is to the Irish, does that mean I can run around in uniform drunk off my butt?
Hordini wrote: The change to Marine Corps uniform regulations this year would seem to suggest that they're not tightening up all that much. There are certainly many other morale patches that have been approved in the meantime (or worn without official approval). And that doesn't change the fact that females have already worn the Hijab in-country.
Plenty of guys wore beards in-country, too, but that doesn't mean that all specific regional/theater allowances should translate to service-wide uniform standard changes.
I think making a few minor allowances, like allowing Hijabs for the small handful of women who would want to wear it, and the beards and turbans for Sikhs that have already been approved, could eventually be a force multiplier in the sense that we would be allowing more Americans with broader cultural competencies, a deeper understanding of some of the religious beliefs of our allies and adversaries, and in some cases language skills as well to serve in the military. In the world we live in, in which COIN, advise and assist operations, and hybrid-type conflicts are becoming the norm, to not make use of these resources is, quite frankly, short-sighted and has caused us difficulties in the past.
Well, if we anticipate that we're going to be conducting COIN in Hindo/Sikh-dominated areas, then sure. I'm not exactly convinced of that, though.
The hijab's an easy one: put it on when you need it due to operational conditions, otherwise don't.
I like morale patches as much as the next guy, but I'd rather have one American servicemember who's allowed to wear a Hijab who can bring some cultural expertise and understanding to the table, who could very possible be able to successfully engage with populations on the civil-military spectrum in ways that many of us wouldn't be able to, over 100 morale patches.
I think you're taking a joke about a morale patch that featured Miley Cyrus twerking on a tailhook more seriously than I intended it, but regardless, I'm going to stand pat on the notion that if your religious beliefs conflict with your ability to serve in the military, then them's the breaks. We'd probably wind up getting a lot more Quakers if we disavowed armed conflict, but that's not practical. Indulging individual whim is ultimately not practical, either. I'm all for useful diversity, but people who can't even make it into the big green machine and demonstrate their worth to the organizational whole before they start special snowflaking it up is a trend we don't want to encourage.
Plus, overall? The less religion and the military intersect the better, and not solely because chaplains are always the biggest goddamn disciplinary problems on the boat.
Plus, overall? The less religion and the military intersect the better, and not solely because chaplains are always the biggest goddamn disciplinary problems on the boat.
SemperMortis wrote: The Hijab is about as religious as Whiskey is to the Irish, does that mean I can run around in uniform drunk off my butt?
The Irish are all drunks, Muslims are all terrorists, and Page 3 becomes an ever distant target.
So I make a point that the Hijab isn't a religious garment....which according to a leading Muslim university it isn't. I then compare it to another cultural item as a joke because it is ludicrous to do so which further makes my point, and your response is to spout racism. Good on ya mate.
On the other hand, this has nothing to do with Racism and has everything to do with military necessity teamed with someone wanting to impart their culture into the Military.
What 'military necessity'?
You mentioned ealier that hijabs are worn in country for cultural reasons, and removed for combat operations.
Are students at the school under discussion likely to find themselves in combat operations during their time there?
The Hijab is about as religious as Whiskey is to the Irish, does that mean I can run around in uniform drunk off my butt?
Does it actually matter if it's a religious item or just a cultural one? Either way, it's something that she, and many others like her, feel is important.
Is there a valid reason other than 'But it's never been allowed before!' to not allow it?
SemperMortis wrote: So I make a point that the Hijab isn't a religious garment....which according to a leading Muslim university it isn't. I then compare it to another cultural item as a joke because it is ludicrous to do so which further makes my point, and your response is to spout racism. Good on ya mate.
Do you honestly not see a problem with referencing racist stereotypes about Irish people all being drunks as a "cultural item"?
SemperMortis wrote: So I make a point that the Hijab isn't a religious garment....which according to a leading Muslim university it isn't. I then compare it to another cultural item as a joke because it is ludicrous to do so which further makes my point, and your response is to spout racism. Good on ya mate.
Do you honestly not see a problem with referencing racist stereotypes about Irish people all being drunks as a "cultural item"?
As I am an Irish American who just purchased a bottle of Jameson's Whiskey from a liquor store, No I do not find it racist
To Insaniak, as I mentioned, Citadel isn't necessarily a service school but it is very militaristic. For all intents and purposes the Citadel is a military school that attempts to prepare college students for a job in the United States Military. Roughly 30% of every graduating class join the military.
With that in mind, the Citadel treats its cadets like they are in the military and currently the DoD does not allow the Hijab in uniform.
As to why it should matter whether or not it is religious or cultural? well for obvious reasons. If everyone was allowed to wear cultural garb in uniform they wouldn't be very "Uniform" would they? In a high stress environment it is easier to distinguish what side of a fire fight someone is on based on their appearance. Now I Know a lot of armchair generals are going to spout off at the mouth about "how would they not know who is on their side" And to that I reply, fog of war. Friendly fire is a thing, and if banning Hijabs prevents blue on blue casualties then I am all about it.
Does it actually matter if it's a religious item or just a cultural one? Either way, it's something that she, and many others like her, feel is important.
Is there a valid reason other than 'But it's never been allowed before!' to not allow it?
Yes. The military is not the venue for personal self-expression. Also see earlier comments re: discipline and uniformity.
Yes. The military is not the venue for personal self-expression. Also see earlier comments re: discipline and uniformity.
It could be argued that wearing something because it is culturally relevant would be pretty much the exact opposite of 'self expression'.
Ultimately, the purpose of a military uniform is identification. Would wearing an appropriate hijab with her uniform make her less recognisable than those not wearing one?
Hordini wrote: It certainly was made often enough in the recent past, particularly in regards to gay and lesbian service members prior to the repeal of DADT in 2011.
I don't see a headscarf and being gay as equivalent. If they had said she couldn't be Muslim then it would probably be applicable but that wasn't said at all. She can be Muslim all she wants, just not in a hijab while in uniform at that specific school.
It could be argued that wearing something because it is culturally relevant would be pretty much the exact opposite of 'self expression'.
It could be argued that, sure. Same could be said for facial tattoos, for example. Neither argument would work, but they could certainly be made.
It is, ultimately, self-expression. The military doesn't exist as an outlet to satisfy cultural relevance. I can't show up in lederhosen to express my culturally relevant heritage and expect to get a pass. Texans can't turn up in ten gallon hats and cowboy boots. Etc.
Ultimately, the purpose of a military uniform is identification.
That's one of many purposes of it.
Would wearing an appropriate hijab with her uniform make her less recognisable than those not wearing one?
Yes. The military is not the venue for personal self-expression. Also see earlier comments re: discipline and uniformity.
It could be argued that wearing something because it is culturally relevant would be pretty much the exact opposite of 'self expression'.
Ultimately, the purpose of a military uniform is identification. Would wearing an appropriate hijab with her uniform make her less recognisable than those not wearing one?
It would in fact make the women in question appear to be either a non-combatant female or if she were firing a weapon, it would be very possible to mistake her for an insurgent.
It could be argued that, sure. Same could be said for facial tattoos, for example. Neither argument would work, but they could certainly be made.
It is, ultimately, self-expression. The military doesn't exist as an outlet to satisfy cultural relevance. I can't show up in lederhosen to express my culturally relevant heritage and expect to get a pass. Texans can't turn up in ten gallon hats and cowboy boots. Etc.
There is a vast gulf of difference between a hijab, which is culturally expected, and cowboy boots, which are just culturally accepted.
And the military does allow self expression in certain cases... Facial hair being the obvious one.
Would wearing an appropriate hijab with her uniform make her less recognisable than those not wearing one?
It would in fact make the women in question appear to be either a non-combatant female or if she were firing a weapon, it would be very possible to mistake her for an insurgent.
Is it common to find insurgents in US military schools?
It could be argued that, sure. Same could be said for facial tattoos, for example. Neither argument would work, but they could certainly be made.
It is, ultimately, self-expression. The military doesn't exist as an outlet to satisfy cultural relevance. I can't show up in lederhosen to express my culturally relevant heritage and expect to get a pass. Texans can't turn up in ten gallon hats and cowboy boots. Etc.
There is a vast gulf of difference between a hijab, which is culturally expected, and cowboy boots, which are just culturally accepted.
And the military does allow self expression in certain cases... Facial hair being the obvious one.
Would wearing an appropriate hijab with her uniform make her less recognisable than those not wearing one?
Currently, yes.
Please explain how.
Well it allows everyone to have Mustaches to a very strict standard and if our a Sikh it now allows you to have a beard which is just plain silly (Though I do respect the hell out of Sikhs)
As far as why it would make her less recognizable. In a firefight you attempt to hide as much of your body as you possibly can behind something solid like a wall. If all I can see is someone wearing a Hijab and firing a rifle near me I might mistake her for an enemy. As I said earlier, Friendly fire happens even when everyone looks alike. If you add in an element that is outside of uniformity it makes it that much more likely that a friendly fire incident will happen.
Is it common to find insurgents in US military schools?
Again, as I pointed out earlier, the Citadel is preparing young adults to serve in the US Armed Forces. So no insurgents aren't found at the citadel but they are preparing her for a career in the military. Please keep that snarky kind of comment out of this
insaniak wrote: There is a vast gulf of difference between a hijab, which is culturally expected, and cowboy boots, which are just culturally accepted.
The hijab is culturally expected in the United States? Today I learned.
No, I don't think that would work.
And the military does allow self expression in certain cases... Facial hair being the obvious one.
The military allows mustaches within a fairly tight regulatory guideline. Anything else is due to operational demand (and even that's been tightened, as it's only the secret squirrels that get to rock beards over there these days).
The military also enforces a lot of seemingly arbitrary appearance standards. If you can't live with being told how to look and how to dress once you've punched the clock, it's not for you. That's made abundantly clear up front, and nobody's got a gun to your head forcing you to sign on the dotted line.
Please explain how.
Non-standard apparel is always going to be less recognizable than the stuff that everyone is wearing.
Again, as I pointed out earlier, the Citadel is preparing young adults to serve in the US Armed Forces.
And does every student from that school go on to military service?
Insaniak, read my comments
And I am not assuming it would replace her ENTIRE uniform, but as previously stated, fog of war, if just her head is showing and she shows a weapon she might be mistaken. But at this point your not really arguing your point as just attempting to be annoying im basing that assessment on the fact that all of your questions have been previously answered.
insaniak wrote: And does every student from that school go on to military service?
Not everyone from the even service academies goes on to military service. That doesn't mean that's not what they're explicitly set up to prepare their students for.
A fact which, again, is not exactly hidden and then sprung upon hapless volunteers as a surprise.
The hijab is culturally expected in the United States? Today I learned.
By those to whom it is culturally significant, yes, of course it is. Hence the issue that started this discussion.
Non-standard apparel is always going to be less recognizable than the stuff that everyone is wearing.
Sure. Except in some cases, exceptions have been made, as a result of the issue being raised and discussed.
Telling people they should just shut up and accept the status quo because that's the way it's always been done, ever since some arbitrary time that we'll count as the dawn of time because it suits our sensibilities is hardly the best way to deal with issues like this.
And I am not assuming it would replace her ENTIRE uniform, but as previously stated, fog of war, if just her head is showing and she shows a weapon she might be mistaken.
If she's wearing a uniform shirt, and uniform headgear, and a hijab in a suitably matching fabric, all you're going to see is the uniform.
Sure. Except in some cases, exceptions have been made, as a result of the issue being raised and discussed.
Have any Sikhs been deployed forward in a ground combat capacity? EG actively patrolling and getting into fire fights with Taliban forces?
If she's wearing a uniform shirt, and uniform headgear, and a hijab in a suitably matching fabric, all you're going to see is the uniform.
except that uniform headgear while deployed, Kevlar, doesn't fit well on top of anything let alone a Hijab. If they find a way for her to wear the thing underneath kevlar and to the point where it blends into her uniform then let her wear it, but the examples I have seen of it make it not only a bad idea but very possibly a lethal one.
The question really isn't about what the military can and cannot do, it's what a public state school can and cannot do. She's not joining the military, she's thinking about attending a state school.
insaniak wrote: By those to whom it is culturally significant, yes, of course it is. Hence the issue that started this discussion.
Well, I don't know any better way to explain that "cultural significance" is not a reason the military is going to be impressed with, if for no other reason than it's hilariously (and I suspect purposefully) vague. Sikhs got a religious exemption, and it's a case-by-case one, like a no-shave chit. It's not policy (yet, though who the feth knows under Carter).
There are a lot of "culturally significant" behaviors that need to be altered when in uniform. Speaking Spanish, for example. There are no shortage of guys to whom Spanish is culturally significant and socially expected, but English is the language used for communication, so whether it offends their cultural sensibilities or not, too bad, English is what they'll be speaking if they want to stick around.
Sure. Except in some cases, exceptions have been made, as a result of the issue being raised and discussed.
Again, I think you'll find those exceptions were not made due to "cultural significance," which is the line you're taking.
Telling people they should just shut up and accept the status quo because that's the way it's always been done, ever since some arbitrary time that we'll count as the dawn of time because it suits our sensibilities is hardly the best way to deal with issues like this.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately ignoring that that's explicitly not the argument being made or what, but no.
I mean, are we at the point where I have to explain that the military functions in large part because it's capable of breaking down new entrants to its culture and subordinating their individual identity to the larger collective of the team and the organization? A group of individuals all doing their own thing by their own lights doesn't work.
Uniform regs are clear and easily available to anyone who wants them. I assure you that whoever is responsible for your training will go over them, in detail. You will not be left with questions about what is and is not acceptable. You might get a pass for minor religious or medical issues, you might not, but you will certainly not get one because something's important to your identity or your cultural background, especially if you can't define it any better than that. If any of that is an issue for you, you can simply exercise the option that the overwhelming majority of Americans exercise and not join the military.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The question really isn't about what the military can and cannot do, it's what a public state school can and cannot do. She's not joining the military, she's thinking about attending a state school.
Well, you're required to join ROTC if you're in the Corps of Cadets, so it's a bit of a meaningless distinction at the end of the day, at least as far as "Do I have to follow the school's uniform regulations?" goes.
d-usa wrote: The question really isn't about what the military can and cannot do, it's what a public state school can and cannot do. She's not joining the military, she's thinking about attending a state school.
Very true, and since the university has a very strict uniform code she can either except that code or go elsewhere, it doesn't discriminate against her particular culture. It is in fact as anti-discriminatory as possible I believe, Everyone wears the same thing and if you don't you can't study here, fairly simple rules to me. If she does sue about this it is just a blatant attempt to ruin another establishment because they don't care about your "cultural norms".
d-usa wrote: The question really isn't about what the military can and cannot do, it's what a public state school can and cannot do. She's not joining the military, she's thinking about attending a state school.
Very true, and since the university has a very strict uniform code she can either except that code or go elsewhere, it doesn't discriminate against her particular culture. It is in fact as anti-discriminatory as possible I believe, Everyone wears the same thing and if you don't you can't study here, fairly simple rules to me. If she does sue about this it is just a blatant attempt to ruin another establishment because they don't care about your "cultural norms".
The constitution also doesn't care about the university's cultural norms. And while the whole "will I shoot this woman in the head if I see her in Iraq with a US issue rifle hiding behind a wall" discussion is mighty interesting, the only question that matters is "can a publicly funded state university enforce a dress code that bans the wear of religious headgear".
d-usa wrote: The question really isn't about what the military can and cannot do, it's what a public state school can and cannot do. She's not joining the military, she's thinking about attending a state school.
Very true, and since the university has a very strict uniform code she can either except that code or go elsewhere, it doesn't discriminate against her particular culture. It is in fact as anti-discriminatory as possible I believe, Everyone wears the same thing and if you don't you can't study here, fairly simple rules to me. If she does sue about this it is just a blatant attempt to ruin another establishment because they don't care about your "cultural norms".
The constitution also doesn't care about the university's cultural norms. And while the whole "will I shoot this woman in the head if I see her in Iraq with a US issue rifle hiding behind a wall" discussion is mighty interesting, the only question that matters is "can a publicly funded state university enforce a dress code that bans the wear of religious headgear".
They can't do that actually, thankfully a Hijab isn't religious headgear it is in fact cultural headgear and with that in mind they are allowed to enforce a dress code since it does not infringe upon her religious freedom.
It would be interesting to find out though whether or not they can ban religious items outside of their dress code. I would like to say that yes they would be able to ban them, not because Feth 1 or 2 particular religions but because its a blanket ban on ALL religious items that are visible outside of uniform, so it isn't really discriminatory, at least from where I sit. Good points though D-USA, and I am not being facetious.
d-usa wrote: The constitution also doesn't care about the university's cultural norms. And while the whole "will I shoot this woman in the head if I see her in Iraq with a US issue rifle hiding behind a wall" discussion is mighty interesting, the only question that matters is "can a publicly funded state university enforce a dress code that bans the wear of religious headgear".
It's a publicly-funded state university (and a Senior Military College) where, in addition to the dress code, students are required to be unmarried, live on campus, participate in athletics whether they want to or not, pass physical fitness tests, submit to punitive confinement, and are not allowed to leave campus during the week.
I'd like to imagine if there was a constitutional challenge, it would've long since been decided.
d-usa wrote: The constitution also doesn't care about the university's cultural norms. And while the whole "will I shoot this woman in the head if I see her in Iraq with a US issue rifle hiding behind a wall" discussion is mighty interesting, the only question that matters is "can a publicly funded state university enforce a dress code that bans the wear of religious headgear".
It's a publicly-funded state university (and a Senior Military College) where, in addition to the dress code, students are required to be unmarried, live on campus, participate in athletics whether they want to or not, pass physical fitness tests, submit to punitive confinement, and are not allowed to leave campus during the week.
I'd like to imagine if there was a constitutional challenge, it would've long since been decided.
How many of these things have anything to do with religion?
d-usa wrote: How many of these things have anything to do with religion?
A lot of 'em would, for example, violate the religious principles of someone who was shomer Shabbat.
Fortunately, the fact that all Citadel undergrads are required to join ROTC, and ROTC students are subject to UCMJ when inactive under training, we seem to neatly eschew constitutional complications.
Even if it didn't (and there's probably a legal argument to be had over "inactive under training,)" the federal law governing Senior Military Colleges requires 'em to do most of that stuff, as well as having military uniform codes.
Sure. Except in some cases, exceptions have been made, as a result of the issue being raised and discussed.
Have any Sikhs been deployed forward in a ground combat capacity? EG actively patrolling and getting into fire fights with Taliban forces?
I have no idea. Have any high school students been deployed in a similar capacity?
again we sink back to this, Insaniak if your not going to even pretend to argue a valid point then just stop.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point.
You appeared to be intimating that the exception for Sikhs was acceptable due to them filling noncombatant roles. That being the case, then a similar exemption for muslim school girls seems eminently reasonable.
If you were attempting to make a completely different point, feel free to elaborate.
From a quick Google search of ROTC rules, it seems that the school can require any uniforms they want, as long as they don't conflict with any law or regulation.
So it doesn't really answer the question of wether or not she would have a case on constitutional grounds.
Military uniform is a cultural artefact the same as a hijab.
It has two main purposes. One is to instill psychological qualities such as disciplne and esprit de corps. The other is for practical reasons like the display of rank, fighting camouflage, and so on.
However if the military wanted everyone to have exactly the same uniform they wouldn't mandate different uniforms for men and women, and they wouldn't grant exceptions for moustaches, religious beards and the like.
d-usa wrote: From a quick Google search of ROTC rules, it seems that the school can require any uniforms they want, as long as they don't conflict with any law or regulation.
So it doesn't really answer the question of wether or not she would have a case on constitutional grounds.
Has the chick actually threatened a lawsuit, by the way?
Read that schools part in article. Not moved on uniform request in 175 years, and renowned for running a airtight ship on the issue.
Sikhs have a very long military history to fall back on, centuries of honrable and successful service in the empire and comanwealth to use to back a argument.
Your point being that history can only be overcome by history?
I think the hijab has a fairly long history of use.
The equivalent scenario to this was the Begum case over here which caused much controversy at the time but basically gave the school the ability to ban religious clothing where it was deemed necessary.
It is interesting to note that the school was supported as the measure was seen as proportional but there was a rights violation of Art 9 ECHR.
As I understand it, the uniform used is the same as was introduced in the mid-19th century when the academy was set up, and it's exactly the same for men and women cadets. I think if you've stuck to your guns that long already, there is something to be saId for maintaining the tradition indefinitely.
Given the amount of social change around The Citadel in the past 100 years, if they have got out of touch with society that happened decades ago and can't get any worse.
The prospective student can still decide to go to The Citadel and forgo her hijab, or she could seek a place at another college. Having already qualified for The Citadel it should be fairly easy to get in somewhere else.
Citadel Military College has denied a newly-accepted Muslim student’s request to wear a religious headscarf as part of her uniform. The college has denied the student’s request on the grounds that all students submit to “adopting a common uniform” while enrolled at the college.
Earlier this year American Military News reported on a student that was punished for leaking information stating that the college was considering the Muslim student’s request to include a hijab in the schools approved headwear. If the request was approved it would have been the only uniform alteration request ever approved in the school’s 175 year history.
The college is renowned for its ultra strict uniform regulations. Students are required to stay in uniform nearly 24 hours a day and are expected to follow the school’s 35-page booklet on military protocols.
Hoping for some lively discussion but I imagine there will be some shenanigans as well, but still try to remember Rule 1 so mods don't have to layeth the smack down.
Not seeing the issue. It is is a military college. Strangely, individuality is not their thing. Everyone where's the same uniform, including the same cover. Don't like it, don't go there.
Lets revisit the quote: " If the request was approved it would have been the only uniform alteration request ever approved in the school’s 175 year history."
Yea, a school that supplied its own battalion for the Confederate side giving up tradition? Don't think so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Is The Citadel actually affiliated with any military branch, or is it just a fancy state school?
I don't think Stoning is something Sikh's are generally known for doing, so yeah (though it wouldn't surprise me).
Someday, people might consider that these are no aspects of religion, and religion alone. They're cultural, which includes religion among a host of other things. You think Hinduism demands that you marry your wife and then set her on fire so that you can keep the dowry and not the girl? Muslims do not have a monopoly of abusing women, blowing up buildings, or stoning people. Even if they did, what? We're going to just make assumptions about people based on their religion? "I'd give a damn about your beliefs, but I read on the news that someone like you that you've never met and who probably isn't like you at all outside of a single similarity shared by millions who beat his/her wife and I don't like that so I'm going to not give a gak about you." That's a pretty douche nozzle way to deal with other human beings.
Wow...those two links are stretching it lmfao.
But yeah, let's pretend there aren't mass rapes going on in Europe committed by Muslim immigrants, nor are there abuses levied on rape victims constantly in Muslim dominated countries. Nope. It doesn't happen. Ever.
And somehow terrorist activities committed on minute scale 20 years ago are comparable to ISIL, Al-Quaeda, and all the other terrorist crap committed by Muslim extremists over the past 40-50 years.
Lets also pretend thats not related to the topic...at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The question really isn't about what the military can and cannot do, it's what a public state school can and cannot do. She's not joining the military, she's thinking about attending a state school.
And the answer is no which is a ruling consistent with previous refusals to allow religious garb or visible personal items.
At the Citadel, students are expected to leave behind their individuality — and almost all of their possessions — and form opinions based on character rather than appearance. Allowing one student to wear something completely different struck many as antithetical to that mission. And some objected, as well, because exceptions have apparently not ever been made for other religions. Christian cadets have been told not to display crosses, for example.
A statement from the college president, Lt. Gen. John Rosa, explained that the uniform is central to the leadership training at the college, as cadets give up their individuality to learn teamwork and allegiance to the corps, and its leaders concluded that they could not grant an exception to the required dress. Rosa emphasized their commitment to having a diverse and inclusive campus, and their recognition of the importance of cadets’ religious beliefs. There are several Muslim students enrolled.
The cadets’ commandant called the student Tuesday morning to inform her, according to Keelor. He also told her he hoped to see her on the grounds in August.
It would be interesting to find out though whether or not they can ban religious items outside of their dress code. I would like to say that yes they would be able to ban them, not because Feth 1 or 2 particular religions but because its a blanket ban on ALL religious items that are visible outside of uniform, so it isn't really discriminatory, at least from where I sit.
Which is fine in a cultural vacuum, but when such a ban would literally only affect minority groups it becomes a lot more complicated.
"So this ban has no impact on Christians at all?"
"Right, but that's just a happy coincidence...I mean a totally regular coincidence."
Maybe we *should* be allowing our muslim military females their Hajib....and in facr encourage the full burka too because then they can slip their m16's under them and ambush unsuspecting enemy combatants.
It would be interesting to find out though whether or not they can ban religious items outside of their dress code. I would like to say that yes they would be able to ban them, not because Feth 1 or 2 particular religions but because its a blanket ban on ALL religious items that are visible outside of uniform, so it isn't really discriminatory, at least from where I sit.
Which is fine in a cultural vacuum, but when such a ban would literally only affect minority groups it becomes a lot more complicated.
"So this ban has no impact on Christians at all?"
"Right, but that's just a happy coincidence...I mean a totally regular coincidence."
It does in fact impact Christians. In Uniform Christians are not allowed to have crosses visible, so they have to tuck in their necklaces and what not. And that is a valid religious item, a Hijab on the other hand is not a religious item, at least that is what the leading Muslim University in Cairo says. If she wants to wear an actual religious item she is allowed to, so long as it does not interfere with the wearing of the proscribed military uniform.
TheMeanDM wrote: Maybe we *should* be allowing our muslim military females their Hajib....and in facr encourage the full burka too because then they can slip their m16's under them and ambush unsuspecting enemy combatants.
Win Win
I know your joking. We had an individual do that in the Bazaar at Bagram and walked back towards the EECC in his Lawrence of Arabia outfit with his M4 making a distinctive shape under the 'Jamies. He almost got killed for being stupid
On the other hand, this has nothing to do with Racism and has everything to do with military necessity teamed with someone wanting to impart their culture into the Military.
What 'military necessity'?
You mentioned ealier that hijabs are worn in country for cultural reasons, and removed for combat operations.
Are students at the school under discussion likely to find themselves in combat operations during their time there?
I think you missed the point. FETs wore hijabs not because it is relevant to their culture, but because it was relevant to the culture they were engaging and enabled mission accomplishment (interacting with female villagers while the male villagers were present or nearby, kind of the whole purpose of the FETs). Hijabs are not relevant or appropriate to the culture at The Citadel.
TheMeanDM wrote: Maybe we *should* be allowing our muslim military females their Hajib....and in facr encourage the full burka too because then they can slip their m16's under them and ambush unsuspecting enemy combatants.
Win Win
I know your joking. We had an individual do that in the Bazaar at Bagram and walked back towards the EECC in his Lawrence of Arabia outfit with his M4 making a distinctive shape under the 'Jamies. He almost got killed for being stupid
When was that? it sounds vaguely familiar. I was never in Bagram, though I heard it was a really nice base. Mostly I was down in Helmand specifically Sangin and Musa Qala, and RCT-8s HQ over at Delaram in Nimruz.
TheMeanDM wrote: Maybe we *should* be allowing our muslim military females their Hajib....and in facr encourage the full burka too because then they can slip their m16's under them and ambush unsuspecting enemy combatants.
Win Win
I know your joking. We had an individual do that in the Bazaar at Bagram and walked back towards the EECC in his Lawrence of Arabia outfit with his M4 making a distinctive shape under the 'Jamies. He almost got killed for being stupid
When was that? it sounds vaguely familiar. I was never in Bagram, though I heard it was a really nice base. Mostly I was down in Helmand specifically Sangin and Musa Qala, and RCT-8s HQ over at Delaram in Nimruz.
2008 time frame. Around the time Cheney was at Bagram and we had a Suicide Bomber make a go of the same gate
TheMeanDM wrote: Maybe we *should* be allowing our muslim military females their Hajib....and in facr encourage the full burka too because then they can slip their m16's under them and ambush unsuspecting enemy combatants.
Win Win
I know your joking. We had an individual do that in the Bazaar at Bagram and walked back towards the EECC in his Lawrence of Arabia outfit with his M4 making a distinctive shape under the 'Jamies. He almost got killed for being stupid
When was that? it sounds vaguely familiar. I was never in Bagram, though I heard it was a really nice base. Mostly I was down in Helmand specifically Sangin and Musa Qala, and RCT-8s HQ over at Delaram in Nimruz.
2008 time frame. Around the time Cheney was at Bagram and we had a Suicide Bomber make a go of the same gate
Ok, I got to Afghanistan in 2011 so meh not even close . We did have some idiot leave a backpack (local manufacture) on the side of the road in Camp Leatherneck, EOD blew it in place because it looked suspicious....it was full of Haji Mart stuff, Movies, jewelry and other crap.
Just realized I am way off topic, but in fairness to Jihadin his first comment was relating to wearing local clothes as a member of the military and the dangers it can become.
TheMeanDM wrote: Maybe we *should* be allowing our muslim military females their Hajib....and in facr encourage the full burka too because then they can slip their m16's under them and ambush unsuspecting enemy combatants.
Win Win
I know your joking. We had an individual do that in the Bazaar at Bagram and walked back towards the EECC in his Lawrence of Arabia outfit with his M4 making a distinctive shape under the 'Jamies. He almost got killed for being stupid
When was that? it sounds vaguely familiar. I was never in Bagram, though I heard it was a really nice base. Mostly I was down in Helmand specifically Sangin and Musa Qala, and RCT-8s HQ over at Delaram in Nimruz.
2008 time frame. Around the time Cheney was at Bagram and we had a Suicide Bomber make a go of the same gate
Ok, I got to Afghanistan in 2011 so meh not even close . We did have some idiot leave a backpack (local manufacture) on the side of the road in Camp Leatherneck, EOD blew it in place because it looked suspicious....it was full of Haji Mart stuff, Movies, jewelry and other crap.
Just realized I am way off topic, but in fairness to Jihadin his first comment was relating to wearing local clothes as a member of the military and the dangers it can become.
KK we're in the same time frame. Helmand Province was a bum rush assault into taking control of it. The Insurgents were using Burkas to get away. AK's under the Burqa's kept giving them away
Are you seriously trying to argue that tucking in a necklace is as onerous a requirement as not being permitted to wear a Hijab?
Also many people in this thread seem fixated on the authoritative ruling of Cario University re the Hijab. Culture doesn't work like that and religion certainly involves serious differences so that one ruling doesn't mean anything.
As a Catholic anything the Archbishop of Canterbury says is interesting but not a reason to act.
People seem to have a very un-nuanced understanding of Islam and cultural sensitivities in general.
IGtR= wrote: Are you seriously trying to argue that tucking in a necklace is as onerous a requirement as not being permitted to wear a Hijab?
Also many people in this thread seem fixated on the authoritative ruling of Cario University re the Hijab. Culture doesn't work like that and religion certainly involves serious differences so that one ruling doesn't mean anything.
As a Catholic anything the Archbishop of Canterbury says is interesting but not a reason to act.
People seem to have a very un-nuanced understanding of Islam and cultural sensitivities in general.
There are Christian sects where the women have head coverings as well, and may only wear dresses of "modest" length. They are limited as well.
CptJake wrote: If she has trouble not being allowed a Hijab, how the heck is she gonna be okay wearing a PT uniform? Not much modesty in a PT uniform.
Full length pants and jacket in uniform.
Except for the several months out of the year where the uniform is shorts and short sleeved t-shirt. Not like the Citadel is in Alaska, even if it was, during the summer conducting anything like productive PT in the full pants and jacket is asking for heat stroke.
CptJake wrote: If she has trouble not being allowed a Hijab, how the heck is she gonna be okay wearing a PT uniform? Not much modesty in a PT uniform.
Full length pants and jacket in uniform.
Except for the several months out of the year where the uniform is shorts and short sleeved t-shirt. Not like the Citadel is in Alaska, even if it was, during the summer conducting anything like productive PT in the full pants and jacket is asking for heat stroke.
But I suspect you know this...
*shrugs* Not like wearing a Hijab is going to be all that helpful in the south east summers either. If they are going to make consideration for a Hijab, then they'd allow the troops to wear pt pants in the summer months as well. They'll be the ones suffering.
Sure. Except in some cases, exceptions have been made, as a result of the issue being raised and discussed.
Have any Sikhs been deployed forward in a ground combat capacity? EG actively patrolling and getting into fire fights with Taliban forces?
If she's wearing a uniform shirt, and uniform headgear, and a hijab in a suitably matching fabric, all you're going to see is the uniform.
except that uniform headgear while deployed, Kevlar, doesn't fit well on top of anything let alone a Hijab. If they find a way for her to wear the thing underneath kevlar and to the point where it blends into her uniform then let her wear it, but the examples I have seen of it make it not only a bad idea but very possibly a lethal one.
It doesn't seem to be much of a problem here:
Spoiler:
Certainly not any more of a problem than wearing a neck gaiter and beanie, or a balaclava under a kevlar, which is done regularly by forces all over the globe, including the US. And considering there are tactical Hijabs that are basically just balaclavas with velcro tops that can be removed just as easily, if not more easily than a neck gaiter, which is regularly issued gear.
Actually it is. In theater the option is to wear the headscarf, or wear the helmet. Not both. That picture was taken in a training environment, in actual theater, it's a bit different.
djones520 wrote: Actually it is. In theater the option is to wear the headscarf, or wear the helmet. Not both. That picture was taken in a training environment, in actual theater, it's a bit different.
I'm pretty sure that's unit dependent, and that sounds more like grooming and uniform standard stuff than something that would actually cause a functional problem with the Kevlar. And again, there are tactical Hijabs that are virtually no different than wearing a balaclava under a Kevlar, or a beanie with neck gaiter. Don't tell me it's not possible or that there aren't options that wouldn't interfere with the function of the Kevlar, and don't tell me nobody ever wears anything underneath a Kevlar, because that's simply not true.
The fact that the photo was taking in a training environment has nothing to do with whether or not you can wear something underneath a Kevlar and the Kevlar still be effective.
feeder wrote: The issue is not "will the hijab compromise combat effectiveness?" but more "soldiers wear uniforms as a part of subverting their identity."
Erasing the individual is a big part of the way a military unit works. As the Citadel is entry level army kids, this is doubly important.
There are multiple military forces all over the world who allow Hijabs, turbans, etc. as part of their uniforms.
feeder wrote: The issue is not "will the hijab compromise combat effectiveness?" but more "soldiers wear uniforms as a part of subverting their identity."
I'm pretty sure soldiers wear uniforms because the Geneva convention says you have to or you're not really a soldier.
See? We can all take single aspects of why uniforms exist and explode them past their relevance!
feeder wrote: The issue is not "will the hijab compromise combat effectiveness?" but more "soldiers wear uniforms as a part of subverting their identity."
Erasing the individual is a big part of the way a military unit works. As the Citadel is entry level army kids, this is doubly important.
There are multiple military forces all over the world who allow Hijabs, turbans, etc. as part of their uniforms.
Right, but not at this college, which is where the issue is taking place.
I'm pretty sure soldiers wear uniforms because the Geneva convention says you have to or you're not really a soldier.
Ok, ok, Mr. Semantic. PART OF the reason soldiers wear uniforms...
in this case, I believe this is the reason they don't want her to wear the hijab. Discouraging individualism, and that.
Although, the school is located in one of the Carolinas, so "feth you Muslim" could be the reason, too.
Honestly I think that just goes back to this clip;
Come on. Lets be real here. Unit cohesion is not going to collapse because Mary is covering her head, and if it does then we've got some seriously immature people in this military apparatus if that's enough to destroy their ability to work together.
Sikh's I think have some issues when it comes to military regulations. Never shaving their beards makes it hard to put on gas masks, and never cutting their hair and wrapping it up in scarves makes it hard to wear a regulation helmet. Sikh's have served with distinction in military forces around the world, so I don't doubt their ability to fight as well as anyone else. There is however a reality that there aren't that many Sikh's in the US armed forces, and we're not going to go about designing special gas maks and helmets, or forming our own Sikh regiment, just to accommodate a very small portion of the population. That's just logistics. We can bend some rules here and there, and I think we can be mature enough to say that accommodating a few people isn't going to destroy our Army, but going much father than that presents increasing issues that aren't simply overcome.
Hijab's are something else. They're a plain simple garment. We already allowed people to wear things under their helmets, so lets not pretend that allowing the wearing of a Hijab is some great unbearable leap that we can't cope with. That however is the actual military. The Citadel is not a military facility, and gets to make it's own rules independently. I'd argue that's all the more reason that barring someone from wearing a Hijab is even dumber, but that's me.
feeder wrote: The issue is not "will the hijab compromise combat effectiveness?" but more "soldiers wear uniforms as a part of subverting their identity."
I'm pretty sure soldiers wear uniforms because the Geneva convention says you have to or you're not really a soldier.
See? We can all take single aspects of why uniforms exist and explode them past their relevance!
How is the Geneva Convention relevant to cadets attending school in South Carolina? The Citadel isn't the US military, nobody is going into combat there. After the Cadets graduate then they can deal with the uniform regulations that govern whichever service branch they're in.
The girl in question chose to apply to a school with a dress code. If she wants to choose to commit to that voluntary association then she can abide by their rules. By arguing that The Citadel's cadet uniform regulations violate her religious beliefs she calls into question why she would want to go there in the first place. She supposedly wants to be a cadet but she wants to literally be the only cadet in the 175 year history of the school to get a special exemption for not having to wear her cover in uniform? Nobody else is allowed to have any visible religious garmets or icons while in uniform but she needs a special exemption just because she wants one? She would be best served by either accepting that she will have to follow the same rules as every other cadet or choose a different school. Waging a contentious legal battle over a hat that is guaranteed to create acrimony and divisiveness at the school she wants to attend for 4 years is an antagonistic counter productive waste of time and resources.
How is the Geneva Convention relevant to cadets attending school in South Carolina? The Citadel isn't the US military, nobody is going into combat there. After the Cadets graduate then they can deal with the uniform regulations that govern whichever service branch they're in.
Yes;
The Citadel is not a military facility, and gets to make it's own rules independently. I'd argue that's all the more reason that barring someone from wearing a Hijab is even dumber, but that's me.
If she wants to choose to commit to that voluntary association then she can abide by their rules. By arguing that The Citadel's cadet uniform regulations violate her religious beliefs she calls into question why she would want to go there in the first place.
The Citadel is state owned (South Carolina), which makes it subject to religious freedom requirements. She could sue, and that's her right. Something existing unchanged for 175 years is not an argument in itself to go on unchanged.
Waging a contentious legal battle over a hat that is guaranteed to create acrimony and divisiveness at the school she wants to attend for 4 years is an antagonistic counter productive waste of time and resources.
It is, which is all the more reason the battle has to be fought. Why should someone be barred from participation because of some basic headgear? "No one else wears any" isn't an argument. Why do those rules exist? What purpose do they serve? How is changing them going to detriment the school and it's program? I think in court the Citadel would have a very difficult time making a compelling argument to answer any of these questions.
No right is absolute. They're fluid. Stuff like this happens, and stuff like this happening is part of the democratic and legal processes we've established. We shouldn't complain that she's "horrible for asking for a exemption" or that the Citadel is "bigoted for denying her." This is life. It happens. Maybe she'll take it to court, maybe she'll decide it's not worth it. That's her choice. Maybe the Citadel really thinks they have to stand firm, or maybe they decide the rules should change. That's their choice. That's the consequence of freedom. Sometimes choices disagree, and they have to be worked out.
Wulfmar wrote: Maybe I'm wrong here, but the Quran doesn't state that the hijab burqa or niqab are mandatory. It's a symbol of modesty but not necessary in itself.
It's optional.
So are pants. You're still going to run into problems if you try insisting that girls aren't allowed to wear them.
CptJake wrote: Hijabs are not relevant or appropriate to the culture at The Citadel.
Neither were girls originally, apparently. Sooner or later, institutions have to change to reflect a changing society.
djones520 wrote: Actually it is. In theater the option is to wear the headscarf, or wear the helmet. Not both. That picture was taken in a training environment, in actual theater, it's a bit different.
Would a school not be classed as a 'training environment'...?
LordofHats wrote: Sikh's I think have some issues when it comes to military regulations. Never shaving their beards makes it hard to put on gas masks, and never cutting their hair and wrapping it up in scarves makes it hard to wear a regulation helmet. Sikh's have served with distinction in military forces around the world, so I don't doubt their ability to fight as well as anyone else. There is however a reality that there aren't that many Sikh's in the US armed forces, and we're not going to go about designing special gas maks and helmets, or forming our own Sikh regiment, just to accommodate a very small portion of the population. That's just logistics. We can bend some rules here and there, and I think we can be mature enough to say that accommodating a few people isn't going to destroy our Army, but going much father than that presents increasing issues that aren't simply overcome.
And yet, Sikhs have on multiple occasions proven that they are able to serve, all while using regular gas masks and regular helmets. I think the difficulties have been massively overstated.
Wulfmar wrote: Maybe I'm wrong here, but the Quran doesn't state that the hijab burqa or niqab are mandatory. It's a symbol of modesty but not necessary in itself.
It's optional.
So are pants. You're still going to run into problems if you try insisting that girls aren't allowed to wear them.
Are pants now classified as religious? I know some people have holey ones...
What's the undergarment worn under a turbin called? Also as long as the headgear in question do not interfere with the wear of a ACH (Silk Hijab) should work
feeder wrote: The issue is not "will the hijab compromise combat effectiveness?" but more "soldiers wear uniforms as a part of subverting their identity."
Erasing the individual is a big part of the way a military unit works. As the Citadel is entry level army kids, this is doubly important.
Erasing identity in order to form a more perfect cohesive force?
Is the military a cult or something.
Hordini wrote: And yet, Sikhs have on multiple occasions proven that they are able to serve, all while using regular gas masks and regular helmets. I think the difficulties have been massively overstated.
Yeah there are ways around, but others in thread have accurately pointed out that the beards in particular present issues with getting proper seals on gas masks. They can get seals, but getting that seal leads to other problems.
Of course, we could design a new gas mask to get around that, but is it worth the cost to design a new gas mask, or to just say "Okay, we can make this work. It might not be perfect, but we can make it work." I think the later is perfectly acceptable. It's not like the military is a place where we expect absolute safety at all times.
feeder wrote: The issue is not "will the hijab compromise combat effectiveness?" but more "soldiers wear uniforms as a part of subverting their identity."
Erasing the individual is a big part of the way a military unit works. As the Citadel is entry level army kids, this is doubly important.
Erasing identity in order to form a more perfect cohesive force?
Is the military a cult or something.
13 years of Afghanistan/Iraq. There is a good core group of followers of Bacchus. We picked Roman version being then anyone of religion was thrown in the Coliseum for our amusement.
feeder wrote: The issue is not "will the hijab compromise combat effectiveness?" but more "soldiers wear uniforms as a part of subverting their identity."
Erasing the individual is a big part of the way a military unit works. As the Citadel is entry level army kids, this is doubly important.
Erasing identity in order to form a more perfect cohesive force?
Is the military a cult or something.
13 years of Afghanistan/Iraq. There is a good core group of followers of Bacchus. We picked Roman version being then anyone of religion was thrown in the Coliseum for our amusement.
LordofHats wrote: Sikh's I think have some issues when it comes to military regulations. Never shaving their beards makes it hard to put on gas masks, and never cutting their hair and wrapping it up in scarves makes it hard to wear a regulation helmet. Sikh's have served with distinction in military forces around the world, so I don't doubt their ability to fight as well as anyone else. There is however a reality that there aren't that many Sikh's in the US armed forces, and we're not going to go about designing special gas maks and helmets, or forming our own Sikh regiment, just to accommodate a very small portion of the population. That's just logistics. We can bend some rules here and there, and I think we can be mature enough to say that accommodating a few people isn't going to destroy our Army, but going much father than that presents increasing issues that aren't simply overcome.
And yet, Sikhs have on multiple occasions proven that they are able to serve, all while using regular gas masks and regular helmets. I think the difficulties have been massively overstated.
It's not a problem. The UK has Sikh tank commanders and aircraft pilots. They wear a special low profile turban under their helmet.
Jihadin wrote: Under garment mention on a thread awhile back ago regarding that under garment with someone from the UK. Just not the turbin itself
I don't know about an under garment under the Turban, but the Five K's include a Comb, which is usually tucked into the hair under their head covering.
Wulfmar wrote: Maybe I'm wrong here, but the Quran doesn't state that the hijab burqa or niqab are mandatory. It's a symbol of modesty but not necessary in itself.
It's optional.
So are pants. You're still going to run into problems if you try insisting that girls aren't allowed to wear them.
Are pants now classified as religious? I know some people have holey ones...
No. Neither is a hijab.
That was the point. Pointing out to someone that their chosen attire is 'a symbol of modesty but not a necessity' is rarely going to be sufficient to encourage them to remove it.
How is the Geneva Convention relevant to cadets attending school in South Carolina? The Citadel isn't the US military, nobody is going into combat there. After the Cadets graduate then they can deal with the uniform regulations that govern whichever service branch they're in.
Yes;
The Citadel is not a military facility, and gets to make it's own rules independently. I'd argue that's all the more reason that barring someone from wearing a Hijab is even dumber, but that's me.
If she wants to choose to commit to that voluntary association then she can abide by their rules. By arguing that The Citadel's cadet uniform regulations violate her religious beliefs she calls into question why she would want to go there in the first place.
The Citadel is state owned (South Carolina), which makes it subject to religious freedom requirements. She could sue, and that's her right. Something existing unchanged for 175 years is not an argument in itself to go on unchanged.
Waging a contentious legal battle over a hat that is guaranteed to create acrimony and divisiveness at the school she wants to attend for 4 years is an antagonistic counter productive waste of time and resources.
It is, which is all the more reason the battle has to be fought. Why should someone be barred from participation because of some basic headgear? "No one else wears any" isn't an argument. Why do those rules exist? What purpose do they serve? How is changing them going to detriment the school and it's program? I think in court the Citadel would have a very difficult time making a compelling argument to answer any of these questions.
No right is absolute. They're fluid. Stuff like this happens, and stuff like this happening is part of the democratic and legal processes we've established. We shouldn't complain that she's "horrible for asking for a exemption" or that the Citadel is "bigoted for denying her." This is life. It happens. Maybe she'll take it to court, maybe she'll decide it's not worth it. That's her choice. Maybe the Citadel really thinks they have to stand firm, or maybe they decide the rules should change. That's their choice. That's the consequence of freedom. Sometimes choices disagree, and they have to be worked out.
I don't think it would be difficult at all for The Citadel to explain in court why cadets wear uniforms and why the school has uniform regulations.
The school isn't preventing the girl from being a Muslim or being a practicing Muslim they are only requiring her to wear the proper cadet uniform during the times when she is required to be in uniform. How does wearing a hat stop her from being a devout Muslim? It doesn't. If she doesn't want to wear the uniform she can go to a shool that doesn't have uniforms.
The Citadel is a military academy so they require military style uniforms and uniform regulations. If you don't want to conform to uniformity than you shouldn't be enrolling in a military academy. It makes no sense to create the institution and then start chipping away at its ability to conduct itself in its intended manner.
Prestor Jon wrote: How does wearing a hat stop her from being a devout Muslim?
What problem does letting her wear it present?
It makes no sense to create the institution and then start chipping away at its ability to conduct itself in its intended manner.
Because the whole thing falls apart if we let someone wear a fashion choice that they feel is religiously significant on their head?
Come on. The place isn't going to crumble into dust. People will get butt hurt, some people will be happy, some people won't give gak, and a year later no one will give a gak anymore.
Wulfmar wrote: Maybe I'm wrong here, but the Quran doesn't state that the hijab burqa or niqab are mandatory. It's a symbol of modesty but not necessary in itself.
It's optional.
So are pants. You're still going to run into problems if you try insisting that girls aren't allowed to wear them.
Are pants now classified as religious? I know some people have holey ones...
No. Neither is a hijab.
That was the point. Pointing out to someone that their chosen attire is 'a symbol of modesty but not a necessity' is rarely going to be sufficient to encourage them to remove it.
They argued it was for religious reasons - I stated it's not a religious garment and therefore the argument doesn't stand. Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.
So telling them it's not a necessity and not ruled by religion is sufficient . I don't understand what point you're trying to make
CptJake wrote: Hijabs are not relevant or appropriate to the culture at The Citadel.
Neither were girls originally, apparently. Sooner or later, institutions have to change to reflect a changing society.
Thanks for cutting the context out of my comment, which was pretty relevant to what I said.
Hijabs are ONLY worn by the FETs when it helps their mission. They are not in anyway a concession to the soldiers' culture. There is zero reason to wear one as a cadet at the Citadel.
Wulfmar wrote: Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.
If the school had a uniform policy that only included pants, and a female student wanted to wear a blouse because she is uncomfortable running around topless, would we be having this same discussion?
Or would it be reasonable to assume that allowing shirts in a mixed gender institution might be a good idea?
To a lot of Muslims, going without the hijab is no different to going without a shirt. The fact that you don't consider it necessary doesn't mean it isn't... It just means that you dont need to wear one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: It makes no sense to create the institution and then start chipping away at its ability to conduct itself in its intended manner.
It makes total sense to chip away at institutions that were based on sensibilities that are now a century out of date and don't reflect today's society.
Wulfmar wrote: Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.
If the school had a uniform policy that only included pants, and a female student wanted to wear a blouse because she is uncomfortable running around topless, would we be having this same discussion?
Or would it be reasonable to assume that allowing shirts in a mixed gender institution might be a good idea?
To a lot of Muslims, going without the hijab is no different to going without a shirt. The fact that you don't consider it necessary doesn't mean it isn't... It just means that you dont need to wear one.
If this particular young lady is so tied to the Hijab due to religiously imposed ideas about modesty, she will be screwed when she has to do PT with males and forced to wear shorts and a t-shirt along with every single other cadet doing PT.
So, either she is not one of the Muslims you allude to, or she is REALLY trying to get into a place she has no chance of fitting into. It will be worse for her if she gets on active duty when she graduates.
Prestor Jon wrote: It makes no sense to create the institution and then start chipping away at its ability to conduct itself in its intended manner.
It makes total sense to chip away at institutions that were based on sensibilities that are now a century out of date and don't reflect today's society.
Institutions like Islam then? Religions were useful in the Dark Ages but aren't particularly relevant today in progressive societies.
Wulfmar wrote: Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.
If the school had a uniform policy that only included pants, and a female student wanted to wear a blouse because she is uncomfortable running around topless, would we be having this same discussion?
Or would it be reasonable to assume that allowing shirts in a mixed gender institution might be a good idea?
To a lot of Muslims, going without the hijab is no different to going without a shirt. The fact that you don't consider it necessary doesn't mean it isn't... It just means that you dont need to wear one.
If this particular young lady is so tied to the Hijab due to religiously imposed ideas about modesty, she will be screwed when she has to do PT with males and forced to wear shorts and a t-shirt along with every single other cadet doing PT.
So, either she is not one of the Muslims you allude to, or she is REALLY trying to get into a place she has no chance of fitting into. It will be worse for her if she gets on active duty when she graduates.
PT is 5 times a week regardless of weather. More if you break height/weight standards
Wulfmar wrote: Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.
If the school had a uniform policy that only included pants, and a female student wanted to wear a blouse because she is uncomfortable running around topless, would we be having this same discussion?
Or would it be reasonable to assume that allowing shirts in a mixed gender institution might be a good idea?
To a lot of Muslims, going without the hijab is no different to going without a shirt. The fact that you don't consider it necessary doesn't mean it isn't... It just means that you dont need to wear one.
If this particular young lady is so tied to the Hijab due to religiously imposed ideas about modesty, she will be screwed when she has to do PT with males and forced to wear shorts and a t-shirt along with every single other cadet doing PT.
So, either she is not one of the Muslims you allude to, or she is REALLY trying to get into a place she has no chance of fitting into. It will be worse for her if she gets on active duty when she graduates.
PT is 5 times a week regardless of weather. More if you break height/weight standards
Son2 went to North Georgia (another Military College) and was in the Corps of Cadidiots there. For incoming freshmen and freshmen they were in PT uniforms quite a bit...
Institutions like Islam then? Religions were useful in the Dark Ages but aren't particularly relevant today in progressive societies.
Any religion, just like any other institution, has to evolve along with society in order to stay relevant. And while it's happening slowly with Islam, it is happening... as evidenced by the fact that we're hearing about a young muslim girl in the US asking for permission to wear her hijab at a military school.
Seems that Islam is moving a little faster than that particular institution on this one...
The Citadel is state owned (South Carolina), which makes it subject to religious freedom requirements. She could sue, and that's her right. Something existing unchanged for 175 years is not an argument in itself to go on unchanged.
Again, the Citadel is a Senior Military College. Federal law governs its requirements, and forcing every single cadet to join ROTC means that it's not exactly your average state school.
Hordini wrote: [And yet, Sikhs have on multiple occasions proven that they are able to serve, all while using regular gas masks and regular helmets. I think the difficulties have been massively overstated.
I'm pretty sure there are currently three, and they're all in stateside medical positions with no likelihood of deployment. They've been given individual exemptions because of that, but the Army hasn't made it a policy.
Hordini wrote: [And yet, Sikhs have on multiple occasions proven that they are able to serve, all while using regular gas masks and regular helmets. I think the difficulties have been massively overstated.
I'm pretty sure there are currently three, and they're all in stateside medical positions with no likelihood of deployment. They've been given individual exemptions because of that, but the Army hasn't made it a policy.
Yes, there are three or four in the US Army. I'm not only referring to them though. Between just the British and Indian armies, there have been thousands of Sikhs who have done it, in combat, since WWI.
The Citadel is state owned (South Carolina), which makes it subject to religious freedom requirements. She could sue, and that's her right. Something existing unchanged for 175 years is not an argument in itself to go on unchanged.
Again, the Citadel is a Senior Military College. Federal law governs its requirements, and forcing every single cadet to join ROTC means that it's not exactly your average state school.
And ROTC regulations state that schools can require any uniform they want, as long as they don't violate any laws.
Institutions like Islam then? Religions were useful in the Dark Ages but aren't particularly relevant today in progressive societies.
Any religion, just like any other institution, has to evolve along with society in order to stay relevant. And while it's happening slowly with Islam, it is happening... as evidenced by the fact that we're hearing about a young muslim girl in the US asking for permission to wear her hijab at a military school.
Seems that Islam is moving a little faster than that particular institution on this one...
Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.
Yes they're both deeply conservative societies, but the US Military is far and away more progressive then mainstream Islam. Like orders of magnitude.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.
Yes they're both deeply conservative societies, but the US Military is far and away more progressive then mainstream Islam. Like orders of magnitude.
I'm not sure how to take that, since mainstream Muslims don't tend to throw people off of roofs.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.
Yes they're both deeply conservative societies, but the US Military is far and away more progressive then mainstream Islam. Like orders of magnitude.
I'm not sure how to take that, since mainstream Muslims don't tend to throw people off of roofs.
In all fairness I don't think mainstream humans in general don't throw people off roofs..
DutchWinsAll wrote: Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.
Yes they're both deeply conservative societies, but the US Military is far and away more progressive then mainstream Islam. Like orders of magnitude.
I'm not sure how to take that, since mainstream Muslims don't tend to throw people off of roofs.
In all fairness I don't think mainstream humans in general don't throw people off roofs..
if this college want to play pretend military then it should probably read up on the DoD directive highly encouraging religious accommodation as long as it doesn't interfere with mission accomplishment. It's a college, the mission is to sit in a classroom. I think it might just be fine to allow it. Is it a common thing in the service? No, but there's not exactly a ton of Jews, Sikhs,or female Muslims in the service in the first place.
Paoa02 wrote: if this college want to play pretend military then it should probably read up on the DoD directive highly encouraging religious accommodation as long as it doesn't interfere with mission accomplishment. It's a college, the mission is to sit in a classroom. I think it might just be fine to allow it. Is it a common thing in the service? No, but there's not exactly a ton of Jews, Sikhs,or female Muslims in the service in the first place.
Of course you'll be sure to note that DoD does not allow Hijabs even when troops are in classroom or garrison settings. Kind of makes your point, well, pointless.
But ACU/Scorpion (is that the name?) Hijabs would probably look ace with the rest of the uniform. I semi kid but my pale european inspired skin would of been overjoyed at the chance to wear a hijab in the desert, religions be damned.
I wonder if clothing and sales could design a hijab that both fits rank and name tap but also has a hook and loop hat brim for walking outside.
Of course at some point people are going to have to realize that the US military is a secular organization that defends a secular government (supposedly) and thus shouldn't be making religious accommodations for any religion to include head wear and jewlery.
I have no issue with this. The entire purpose of freshmen year is to break down individuals and make them look and act like a coherent group/team similar to a prolonged harsh basic training with extra college courses. Last I checked they weren't even allowed to wear civilian clothes the first semester or two except on leave. You cant do that and have one person being unique. The person understood the rules and if I read it right, she hasn't even accepted to go there yet, it was simply an attempt to clarify if she could wear it if she attended. The uniform code there is very rigid and I am glad they stuck to their guns.
Note they do not follow ROTC uniform guidelines as they have their own unique uniform they wear.
Col. Dash wrote: I have no issue with this. The entire purpose of freshmen year is to break down individuals and make them look and act like a coherent group/team similar to a prolonged harsh basic training with extra college courses. Last I checked they weren't even allowed to wear civilian clothes the first semester or two except on leave. You cant do that and have one person being unique. The person understood the rules and if I read it right, she hasn't even accepted to go there yet, it was simply an attempt to clarify if she could wear it if she attended. The uniform code there is very rigid and I am glad they stuck to their guns.
Note they do not follow ROTC uniform guidelines as they have their own unique uniform they wear.
See that why there is why the military can sometimes seem scary "Breakdown the individual" is something disturbing. as if you can have a group of individuals who work together properly.
Ever heard of the saying "Differences make us stronger"
hotsauceman1 wrote: See that why there is why the military can sometimes seem scary "Breakdown the individual" is something disturbing. as if you can have a group of individuals who work together properly.
Ever heard of the saying "Differences make us stronger"
Thing is though, what the military is doing in "breaking down the individual" is molding the person into someone who readily accepts the hierarchy and command structure of the military. They want someone who knows when it's ok to question orders, and how, and when you just need to shut up and follow the order.
In most other team settings around the world, these aren't literally split second life or death decisions. The military deals specifically with life and death as par for the course. The military exists to prosecute wars on the State's behalf.
What it is NOT, is that they are not trying to break down and remove a person's entire personality. Liked WoW before joining? cool, keep on liking it on personal time. Liked Metal? Rugby? Cricket? Warhammer? Cool... like all of those things. Be you. just conform to the working conditions and follow appropriate orders in a timely manner. That's all it is. Really.
Than by the argument a hijab is fine(obviously ignoring the uniform/combat gear argument) because it doesnt intefere with someone recieving/carrying out orders.
That isn't the argument The Citadel have used. Their argument to paraphrase it is that they have always given all cadets of any origin at all the exact same uniform, and they believe this is an important part of their education process. (Note that women wear the same uniform as men at The Citadel.) To create one exception opens the door to others, and they wish to continue with the same uniform. However they stressed this is not done on grounds of religion or practicality.
Ironically, hijab wearing women usually refuse to wear skirts rather than trousers, and would not accept the current mandatory US Army uniform.
Kilkrazy wrote: That isn't the argument The Citadel have used. Their argument to paraphrase it is that they have always given all cadets of any origin at all the exact same uniform, and they believe this is an important part of their education process. (Note that women wear the same uniform as men at The Citadel.) To create one exception opens the door to others, and they wish to continue with the same uniform. However they stressed this is not done on grounds of religion or practicality.
Ironically, hijab wearing women usually refuse to wear skirts rather than trousers, and would not accept the current mandatory US Army uniform.
I applaud their reasoning. I wish the actual military would take note, and get a bit stricter on uniformity.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?
Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Than by the argument a hijab is fine(obviously ignoring the uniform/combat gear argument) because it doesnt intefere with someone recieving/carrying out orders.
Same could be said for wearing a pink tutu or face tattoos and piercings. Or many things.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?
Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.
So than by that logic you should remove all forms of individualism. Like all forms. Get rid of their religion, make sure they dont have families. Remove anything that might prevent them from taking that order.
Other militaries have proven this can work, why cant the U.S.?
I'm also just going to throw out some anecdotal evidence, but from my many years of experience, I've always noticed that the personnel who try to be more individuals, have to stand out in someway, they are the ones that are the most difficult to deal with in getting the mission accomplished.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?
Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.
So than by that logic you should remove all forms of individualism. Like all forms. Get rid of their religion, make sure they dont have families. Remove anything that might prevent them from taking that order.
Other militaries have proven this can work, why cant the U.S.?
Because clearly going the most extreme route possible either direction is the only answer.
Are you sure that isnt confirmation bias? That you think that because your looking for that?
And get rid of anything that interferes with the mission Huh? Just a better idea to make sure the military has no outside ties, no familes, nothing like that.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?
Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.
So than by that logic you should remove all forms of individualism. Like all forms. Get rid of their religion, make sure they dont have families. Remove anything that might prevent them from taking that order.
Other militaries have proven this can work, why cant the U.S.?
Because clearly going the most extreme route possible either direction is the only answer.
Duh...
Hotsauce, you have to allow some facets. We aren't mindless automatums. Eventually we have to reintegrate with society. What we do though is not what the rest of society does. You can't even compare a burger flipper at McDonalds to a cook. Cause in the Air Force at least, that cook could next week be the guy whose responsible for dealing with HR that has to transit home.
The requirements of the job require us to be different from the rest of society. Our US society embraces difference. Our military society, we just can't let everyone be their own special snowflake. It's a very fine balancing act. And if you tip the scales to far one direction, it's all going to fall over.
I get that. I obviously dont think the military is mindless. But you have to honestly answer me why you think a hijab would interfere with the ability for one to meld as it would be with the military. Would other people honestly think "She is wearing a Hijab, she isnt one of us really" when crawling in the mud or under fire?
djones520 wrote: I'm also just going to throw out some anecdotal evidence, but from my many years of experience, I've always noticed that the personnel who try to be more individuals, have to stand out in someway, they are the ones that are the most difficult to deal with in getting the mission accomplished.
Between the wife and I we have 4 platoon leader jobs (3 mine) 5 company commands (2 mine) and she had a BN and now BDE command and deployed again (where as I am a nasty contractor at this point). That is over 18 years in prime leadership positions. I can say our anecdotal evidence mirrors yours. The guy/gal who goes out of their way to stand out without a good understanding of appropriate behavior/times for certain behaviors tends to be a burden on the chain of command, from his/her team/section/squad/vehicle commander/leader on up.
Paoa02 wrote: if this college want to play pretend military then it should probably read up on the DoD directive highly encouraging religious accommodation as long as it doesn't interfere with mission accomplishment. It's a college, the mission is to sit in a classroom. I think it might just be fine to allow it. Is it a common thing in the service? No, but there's not exactly a ton of Jews, Sikhs,or female Muslims in the service in the first place.
Of course you'll be sure to note that DoD does not allow Hijabs even when troops are in classroom or garrison settings. Kind of makes your point, well, pointless.
I can't seem to find that point in the DoD directive that states that, could you note the section for me?
Just a note on FET teams, the hijab fits under a helmet and over body armor, it's not a huge issue really.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I get that. I obviously dont think the military is mindless. But you have to honestly answer me why you think a hijab would interfere with the ability for one to meld as it would be with the military. Would other people honestly think "She is wearing a Hijab, she isnt one of us really" when crawling in the mud or under fire?
You want the honest answer? Yes. The amount of changes forced on the military this last decade has not done a lot of good for morale overall. Whether or not it is right for gays to openly serve, or women to fill combat rolls, is not the issue. I'm not even going to go into that. Our military was premier. Desert Storm, we were going into a conflict that we fully expected to be an absolute blood bath. Casualties were projected to be towards World War 2 levels. Instead it was a mud stomping the likes of which the world had never seen. Throughout much of the GWOT, things were the same. Our military proved to be such an elite force, that it was simply amazing. With a fraction of the force that the Russians brought to bear, we were effectively stomping the gak out of insurgent forces in Afghanistan. We again steamrolled Iraq's military, and effectively destroyed the insurgency that sprung up there, something that is supposed to be "impossible" to do.
Then all of a sudden, we're being told that we aren't good enough. We need to change this, and that, and we need to accept this, and that. It's fething morale up left and right. Whether or not it's right, doesn't matter. It is still having those effects. Social engineering in the military hurts the military. We don't exist to make people feel good about themselves. We exist to kill people and break things. You don't do that by being nice. By making people feel like special snow flakes. It's that simple.
And just for the record, I sure as hell bet that a hijab getting caught on some barbed wire while low crawling through mud, and getting everyone behind you stuck, is certainly going to do nothing to help.
EDIT: I want to make a strong caveat to this, I just had PRK done yesterday, and I'm am a bit irritable today, so if my postings seem to be coming off a bit harsh, try not to take it personally.
That might be true as time passes. But the military and military academies (private or otherwise) are not proper venues for "social experiments".
Care to explain to me then, how it is that the military tends to be the first place for social experiments??? The Civil Rights movement sprang in part because of military service of African-Americans and the abolishment of segregated units. The Army, and then baseball were the first two institutions in the US to fully de-segregate (officially).
The reason why the Truman was able to pull off desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces with minimum fuss, was because blacks served with distinction in World War II. Plus, you had a fair number of blacks serving in the officer corps and several high-profile decorations of black servicemen. In other words, black people proved themselves in large numbers, and most whites in the Service saw and respected them for it. From then on, there was no color but O.D. Green. However, there was still some bigotry and the military didn't fully desegregate until 1954.
As for the Civil Rights Movement, it goes back long before Jackie Robinson and military desegregation. Back to the 1890's, in fact. The desegregation of Major League Baseball and the Armed Forces were just two more major milestones in a whole list of watershed events relating to Civil Rights in the United States.
LordofHats wrote:If anything, the military is the best place for arbitrary social barriers to be knocked down;
The West Wing. The writing ranged in quality, but damn is it quotable.
Which is typical of civilian "entertainment" from Hollyweird that tries to shove their views down the throats of their viewers, and refuses to look at the long view/big picture.Contrary to popular belief, the entertainment industry (like other media organs) isn't on the pulse of American majority attitudes. They're in their own little world. While what that Admiral character said is true to an extent, military desegregation wasn't as disruptive to unit cohesion as the writers of that episode make it out to be (see my point above). And attitudes toward homosexuals in society had changed greatly by the time this episode had aired, which had more to do with homosexuals now serving openly than Hollyweird propaganda like this episode. This is just more half-factual nonsense from self-congratulatory, white liberals in entertainment who want to pat themselves on the back for being so "progressive" and "tolerant", and to hell with gradually changing long held beliefs, good social cohesion and order, and smooth change that benefits all.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?
Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.
So than by that logic you should remove all forms of individualism. Like all forms. Get rid of their religion, make sure they dont have families. Remove anything that might prevent them from taking that order.
Other militaries have proven this can work, why cant the U.S.?
Because in the Armed Forces there is an understanding that there is a time and place for religion. And families have feth-all to do with individuality and taking orders. If anything, learning to operate within a family unit actually can help build character (or it did at one time, before the idea of a "stable family" became a joke).
There's a lot to unpack here. The answer should be no, and often is. All these changes that old guard hate have been implemented and we are still the best. your analysis of the wars in iraq
And Afghanistan is mind boggling. We killed a ton of insurgents, but we sure as hell didn't destroy insurgency, anywhere Social change isn't fething up morale, not anywhere I've been or seen. Also barb wire will catch on a shemagh and yet somehow never saw any policy to remove them. Everything you said is so frustrating, because I think you believe it. Never seen an issue when it was Jews in yarmulkes.
If the request was approved it would have been the only uniform alteration request ever approved in the school’s 175 year history.
My only problem with it would be that if her uniform alteration request had been accepted, we would have had a situation where the formal press release informing us of the uniformity of their uniforms being nonuniform, and now we're denied the formation of those words on a military form.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?
Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.
So than by that logic you should remove all forms of individualism. Like all forms. Get rid of their religion, make sure they dont have families. Remove anything that might prevent them from taking that order.
Other militaries have proven this can work, why cant the U.S.?
Because then nobody would join up. It sucks enough giving up your freedom for years at a time.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?
Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.
So than by that logic you should remove all forms of individualism. Like all forms. Get rid of their religion, make sure they dont have families. Remove anything that might prevent them from taking that order.
Other militaries have proven this can work, why cant the U.S.?
Because then nobody would join up. It sucks enough giving up your freedom for years at a time.
There is no individuals in the US Military. One Team One Fight
Col. Dash wrote: I have no issue with this. The entire purpose of freshmen year is to break down individuals and make them look and act like a coherent group/team similar to a prolonged harsh basic training with extra college courses. Last I checked they weren't even allowed to wear civilian clothes the first semester or two except on leave. You cant do that and have one person being unique.
So... The one black guy in the class would have to paint his face? The lone redhead would need to dye his hair?
That one 'unique' person is only unique by virtue of being the first. At some point, the first female student was similarly unique.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That isn't the argument The Citadel have used. Their argument to paraphrase it is that they have always given all cadets of any origin at all the exact same uniform, and they believe this is an important part of their education process. (Note that women wear the same uniform as men at The Citadel.) To create one exception opens the door to others, and they wish to continue with the same uniform. However they stressed this is not done on grounds of religion or practicality.
Which is fine, insofar as it goes... It would seem unlikely though that the needs of Muslim students were in any way considered when the uniform was designed.
Times change. 'But we've always done this' is only a valid reason for so long.
A quick note on the social policy dropping morale thing. It would be weird for 60% of troops to support homosexuals in the military and 58% to support opening combat positions to women if after that had been done their morale tanked.
Just saying.
You want the honest answer? Yes. The amount of changes forced on the military this last decade has not done a lot of good for morale overall. .
Hang on a second... Wasn't the whole point of stamping out individuality to make soldiers accept orders without a second thought?
110% wrong
That was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek response based on some of what was said on the previous page.
The thing is, one of the hallmarks of a functional military is the ability to adapt to a changing situation. So even disregarding the 'morale' issues that are apparently stemming from being told to accept something that they don't like, if your soldiers are so incredibly resistant to change, that would seem to be a fairly significant issue all by itself.
The fact that the military are trained to go out and do nasty things doesn't give them a free pass to hang onto the prejudices and preconceptions that the rest of society has deemed out-dated and in need of change.
Paoa02 wrote: A quick note on the social policy dropping morale thing. It would be weird for 60% of troops to support homosexuals in the military and 58% to support opening combat positions to women if after that had been done their morale tanked.
Just saying.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Would other people honestly think "She is wearing a Hijab, she isnt one of us really" when crawling in the mud or under fire?
You want the honest answer? Yes.
I'm speechless, and I think that is probably for the best.
How much do you know about military mindset. Where favoritism and individualism is seriously frown upon. Mind you this concerns Citadel and not the US military. She enters US Military service this is pretty much what's going to happen
1. Hijab comes down to verify identity to CAC card on entering post
2. Hijab has to come off during NBC training
3. Hijab has to come off for Drown Proofing training
4. Hijab has to come off for additional security cards in secure area
5. Security Cards follows rule 1
6. Hijab has to come off is she re-enlist anyone being its digital now
(Citadel gradurates are Officers)
7. She deploys into "certain" areas she will have to pull the Hijab off for positive identifications. (Remember the Insurgents can access uniforms online)
Paoa02 wrote: A quick note on the social policy dropping morale thing. It would be weird for 60% of troops to support homosexuals in the military and 58% to support opening combat positions to women if after that had been done their morale tanked.
Just saying.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Would other people honestly think "She is wearing a Hijab, she isnt one of us really" when crawling in the mud or under fire?
You want the honest answer? Yes.
I'm speechless, and I think that is probably for the best.
How much do you know about military mindset. Where favoritism and individualism is seriously frown upon. Mind you this concerns Citadel and not the US military. She enters US Military service this is pretty much what's going to happen
1. Hijab comes down to verify identity to CAC card on entering post
2. Hijab has to come off during NBC training
3. Hijab has to come off for Drown Proofing training
4. Hijab has to come off for additional security cards in secure area
5. Security Cards follows rule 1
6. Hijab has to come off is she re-enlist anyone being its digital now
(Citadel gradurates are Officers)
7. She deploys into "certain" areas she will have to pull the Hijab off for positive identifications. (Remember the Insurgents can access uniforms online)
You know the Hijab doesn't cover the face, right? It's not a veil like the Niqab.
Jihadin wrote: You know we have to have positive identification right? Visual. EECC and all that jazz.
Kind of a moot point as it stands now. If she gets through the Citadel and gets commissioned, she won't be wearing a hijab on active duty while in uniform. PT uniform goes on in the morning and hajib comes off. She'll be able to put it back on when she gets back to her quarters and changes into civilian clothes.
the context for my post was military, feeling exclusionary when the gak hits the fan cause your fellow soldier wears a different hat seems outrageous. In citadel who cares, approve it, I doubt that it will send the whole place into a spiral of disorder where next thing you know cadets are coming to class in parachute pants and halter tops. I'm about allowing it when it is feasible to do so in the military, just as the directive states. Is it going to be allowed at all times and places? Probably not, but we have FET teams managing to get stuff done and guys in turbans whose faces are exposed but not their hair and we manage to get those guys through the gate every morning. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that in my experience most people don't care and in many situations it won't detract from military operations. I'm not a first sergeant or a full bird, I've done 7 years and have a little more time ahead of me and in my view removing individuality makes taking orders easier, that's not what creates unit cohesion. In my opinion it's the shared struggles that a unit faces together that bonds soldiers to each other and gets them to go the extra mile for the man on their left and right.
Paoa02 wrote: the context for my post was military, feeling exclusionary when the gak hits the fan cause your fellow soldier wears a different hat seems outrageous. In citadel who cares, approve it, I doubt that it will send the whole place into a spiral of disorder where next thing you know cadets are coming to class in parachute pants and halter tops. I'm about allowing it when it is feasible to do so in the military, just as the directive states. Is it going to be allowed at all times and places? Probably not, but we have FET teams managing to get stuff done and guys in turbans whose faces are exposed but not their hair and we manage to get those guys through the gate every morning. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that in my experience most people don't care and in many situations it won't detract from military operations. I'm not a first sergeant or a full bird, I've done 7 years and have a little more time ahead of me and in my view removing individuality makes taking orders easier, that's not what creates unit cohesion. In my opinion it's the shared struggles that a unit faces together that bonds soldiers to each other and gets them to go the extra mile for the man on their left and right.
Except point 2 in your directive is:
(2) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wear of any authorized article of the uniform.
The Hajib will replace and/or interfere with her head gear. Not too hard to see.
Additionally you can't substantially burden the person's exercise of faith, defined as "In general, significantly interfering with the exercise of religion as opposed to minimally interfering with the exercise of religion." Not allowing the hijab does not substantially burden her ability to exercise her faith.
Jihadin wrote: You know we have to have positive identification right? Visual. EECC and all that jazz.
I'm well aware. But they don't make everyone who comes onto a government facility wearing a Hijab take it off before gaining entry. If you can't get positive ID with someone wearing a Hijab, I doubt that person would be able to get positive ID at all. That's like saying you can't get positive ID of someone wearing a cover or a Kevlar.
(2) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wear of any authorized article of the uniform.
The Hajib will replace and/or interfere with her head gear. Not too hard to see.
Your point about the PT gear is a good one, and certainly legitimate. That said, the argument that a Hijab would interfere with any authorized headgear is pretty blatantly spurious. Quite frankly, a tactical Hijab would interfere with headgear less than some authorized female hairstyles.
insaniak wrote: The picture posted earlier in the thread would seem to suggest that this is not necessarily the case.
Indeed.... and during my time in, I saw plenty of hair styles on female soldiers that interfered more with the wear of a beret or PC, much less a kevlar, than the Hijabs shown earlier ITT.
Honestly, if the regular army had THAT problem fixed, then there may be something to be said for reviewing whether a hijab can fall under the same constraints as a yarmulke in uniform.
I kind of tipped my hat to this thread but this one really stuck out to me and made me laugh
See that why there is why the military can sometimes seem scary "Breakdown the individual" is something disturbing. as if you can have a group of individuals who work together properly.
Ever heard of the saying "Differences make us stronger"
Differences sometimes make you stronger....other times they completely ruin a unit and its ability to fight. I can only assume whomever said this has never served a day in the military, if they had they would never have said this
4–3. Authorized uniforms
The following uniforms are authorized for wear by ROTC cadets:
a. Cadet-type uniform. Schools that are authorized commutation in lieu of issue-in-kind uniforms may adopt a
uniform of any type or color they desire, provided there is no conflict with any provisions of law or regulation.
b. Issue-type uniform. The issue-type uniform is identical to that issued to enlisted Soldiers or is so similar in design
and fabric that one cannot be distinguished from the other. CTA 50–900 provides the basis for issue and AR 700–84
prescribes the procedures for requisitioning these uniforms.
insaniak wrote: The picture posted earlier in the thread would seem to suggest that this is not necessarily the case.
Indeed.... and during my time in, I saw plenty of hair styles on female soldiers that interfered more with the wear of a beret or PC, much less a kevlar, than the Hijabs shown earlier ITT.
Honestly, if the regular army had THAT problem fixed, then there may be something to be said for reviewing whether a hijab can fall under the same constraints as a yarmulke in uniform.
You saw the result of poor leadership, and that has zero bearing on this issue. If leaders allowed hairstyles that interfered with proper uniform wear, those leaders were wrong. There is no disputing that. I had a couple troopers in one of my commands that tried that crap. It ended very quickly.
(2) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wear of any authorized article of the uniform.
The Hajib will replace and/or interfere with her head gear. Not too hard to see.
Your point about the PT gear is a good one, and certainly legitimate. That said, the argument that a Hijab would interfere with any authorized headgear is pretty blatantly spurious. Quite frankly, a tactical Hijab would interfere with headgear less than some authorized female hairstyles.
No, authorized hairstyles do not interfere with headgear. Poor leaders allow unauthorized hairstyles. And a hajib would interfere with the proper wear of soft caps, berets, pretty much all head gear, unlike a yarmulke that is completely covered and invisible once headgear is on. That is not spurious, it is fact.
That isn't true if the hairstyle is fabulous; if it is an awesome hairstyle then it is excellent leadership.
That is actually pretty close to the excuse one of my platoon sergeants had for allowing one of his female troopers to be out of reg when I took command in Panama. My 1SG, who took over as 1SG a week before I took command had a friendly chat with him. He saw the error of his ways relatively quickly.
When Skynet launches its war against humanity, and armies of T-800s are marching past my house, I won't care if the resistance is wearing the correct headgear or not, only that they can do their job and send those tin cans back to the scrapheap!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When Skynet launches its war against humanity, and armies of T-800s are marching past my house, I won't care if the resistance is wearing the correct headgear or not, only that they can do their job and send those tin cans back to the scrapheap!
That only works for 'resistance' and 'rebellion' types, where the army consists of a motley crew who have banded together to fight the evil powers that be.
When you are part of the military that IS the powers that be, good or bad you must be as regimented as T-800s or Stormtroopers. Crisp, regimented uniforms indicate the stability of the kingdom/state.
You get to look different if you are an elite unit or leader.
This is military aesthetics 101, I can't believe I have to outline this on a wargaming forum.
I had two females that decided to do their hair in corn rows in my unit. One was told it was an eccentric hairstyle and she had to undo it. That was the blonde female. The other one never had anything said to her.
(2) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wear of any authorized article of the uniform.
The Hajib will replace and/or interfere with her head gear. Not too hard to see.
Your point about the PT gear is a good one, and certainly legitimate. That said, the argument that a Hijab would interfere with any authorized headgear is pretty blatantly spurious. Quite frankly, a tactical Hijab would interfere with headgear less than some authorized female hairstyles.
No, authorized hairstyles do not interfere with headgear. Poor leaders allow unauthorized hairstyles. And a hajib would interfere with the proper wear of soft caps, berets, pretty much all head gear, unlike a yarmulke that is completely covered and invisible once headgear is on. That is not spurious, it is fact.
It doesn't seem to interfere with the proper wear of headgear here:
Spoiler:
or here:
Spoiler:
or here:
Spoiler:
or here:
Spoiler:
For a closer view of a tactical hijab (without pistol grip, folding stock, or shoulder thing that goes up ) this kind of thing is what I'm referring to:
Spoiler:
As you can see, it is basically like a neck gaiter or balaclava, except the top is is attached with velcro, making it even easier to quickly remove than a neck gaiter or balaclava, both of which are authorized gear items.
CptJake wrote: And none of those are worn to US Army standard.
Why? Because they have a Hijab under them? If it's something other than that, please explain how a Hijab would conflict with proper wear of any of those covers.
What is US Army standard for wear of a Kevlar and how does the Hijab in the picture interfere with that any more than a balaclava or a neck gaiter (both of which are authorized)?
CptJake wrote: You cannot wear a neck gaiter or balaclava with your soft cap or beret. So no, they are not authorized.
They are authorized with a Kevlar, which was what I was specifically referring to when I said "What is US Army standard for wear of a Kevlar and how does the Hijab in the picture interfere with that any more than a balaclava or a neck gaiter (both of which are authorized)?" and as I have stated many times in this thread. Obviously, if a Hijab was to be allowed, the regulations would be modified to allow either the wear of the Hijab with a cover, or the wear of the Hijab in place of the cover (similar to the use of Sikh turbans).
I feel like at this point your argument is boiling down to the tautology of "The Hijab is not authorized in uniform because the Hijab is not authorized in uniform." Other than current regulations (and if we're to have this discussion at all, we are accepting that if the Hijab were to be allowed, it would require a change in regulations, since the Hijab is currently not allowed), how would the Hijab conflict with the proper wear of a cover or a Kevlar?
CptJake wrote: And none of those are worn to US Army standard.
The standard is laid down in the uniform regulations, and any difference from those is an exception.
However, the supplementary uniform regulations allow service members to request exceptions on grounds of conscience, and direct the armed forces in general to give serious consideration to making accommodations for these requests, providing they don't prejudice good order, operational effectiveness, etc. (with many provisos and so on...)
(The above does not apply to cadet uniform at The Citadel.)
Whether the provision for exceptions is part of the standard or not, I think is a semantic distinction that should not blind us to the true situation, which is that the US armed forces are slowly becoming more open to different religions.
Exactly so, religions are not prohibited. That's why the new regulations give more scope for religious people to be allowed to comply with different aspects of their faith such as wearing a turban or hijab.
Exactly so, religions are not prohibited. That's why the new regulations give more scope for religious people to be allowed to comply with different aspects of their faith such as wearing a turban or hijab.
Those aren't regulations, they're individual case-specific, and they don't apply to the Citadel.
The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.
As I said earlier, this applies to the regular armed forces, but not to The Citadel.
Kilkrazy wrote: The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.
If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.
We still on the Citadel or we now bashing the US Military?
Pictures shown were not US Military.
Citadel stuck to their uniform requirement of no individualism
US Military is a different animal compare to the Citadel.
ETP are made when it is needed for mission as one poster threw up two females wearing Hijabs in either OIF/OEF to avoid a cultural escalation.
Now on here we have as I can see US Military vs non Military to an extent.
Kilkrazy wrote: The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.
If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.
One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.
Kilkrazy wrote: The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.
If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.
One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.
What exactly do you know about the CAB and how it is earned?
Kilkrazy wrote: The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.
If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.
One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.
What exactly do you know about the CAB and how it is earned?
I'm familiar with the requirements. I would assume you are as well, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Are we moving the goalposts already, or is this an attempt at appeal to authority?
I can play this game too, if that's what you want. What exactly do you know about the Hijab and how it is worn? How would it conflict with proper wear of a Kevlar or cover if it was approved for wear in uniform? No one has answered that yet with anything other than what essentially boiled down to "Hijabs would conflict with proper wear of Kevlar and covers because the Hijab is currently not approved for wear in uniform."
To be clear, Seaward made the claim that the only Sikh soldiers getting approved for beards and turbans were doctors who would never see combat. But there is a Sikh who is a Combat Engineer who has been awarded a Combat Action Badge who has also been approved, so that would seem to indicate that Seaward's argument isn't completely accurate. What that has to do with what I know about a CAB and why you're asking me, even though you already are well aware of what it is and an explanation of the requirements for the badge are readily available, I don't know.
Kilkrazy wrote: The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.
If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.
One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.
What exactly do you know about the CAB and how it is earned?
I'm familiar with the requirements. I would assume you are as well, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Are we moving the goalposts already, or is this an attempt at appeal to authority?
I can play this game too, if that's what you want. What exactly do you know about the Hijab and how it is worn? How would it conflict with proper wear of a Kevlar or cover if it was approved for wear in uniform? No one has answered that yet with anything other than what essentially boiled down to "Hijabs would conflict with proper wear of Kevlar and covers because the Hijab is currently not approved for wear in uniform."
Okay
One has to be present during an engagement.
III. AWARD ELIGIBILITY
The Combat Action Badge (CAB) may be awarded by any commander delegated authority by the Secretary of the Army during wartime or the CG, U.S. Army Human Resources Command and will be announced in permanent orders.
The requirements for award of the CAB are Branch and MOS immaterial. Assignment to a Combat Arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations is not required to qualify for the CAB. However, it is not intended to award all soldiers who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.
Specific Eligibility Requirements:
May be awarded to any soldier.
Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.
Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.
Soldier must not be assigned/attached to a unit that would qualify the soldier for the CIB/CMB.
One can get a CAB if a rocket hits within 100m of you.
As for Hijab in the US Military. One (NCO's) enforce the standards set by AR 670-1. Till then An individual cannot wear a Hijab unless its a ETP concerning mission or there is a change in AR670-1 introducing it into the US Armed Forces. If an individual wears a Hijab and I order her to take it off. Am I the bad guy for slamming her with an Article 15 for disobeying a direct lawful order from me if she does not remove it but stands by her Cultural upbringing?
One can get a CAB if a rocket hits within 100m of you.
As for Hijab in the US Military. One (NCO's) enforce the standards set by AR 670-1. Till then An individual cannot wear a Hijab unless its a ETP concerning mission or there is a change in AR670-1 introducing it into the US Armed Forces. If an individual wears a Hijab and I order her to take it off. Am I the bad guy for slamming her with an Article 15 for disobeying a direct lawful order from me if she does not remove it but stands by her Cultural upbringing?
Yes, CAB awards can be somewhat loosely awarded, it all depends on the command (and whether or not some powerpoint ranger major wants one)...
For the record, I agree with you... As it stands now, 670-1 prohibits the wear of a hijab. But... what I See Hordini asking is, aside from the regs, how would a hijab interfere with the wear of headgear? As in, let's suppose in a hypothetical that on May 15th, Big Army and SMA put out a memo stating "670-1 has been amended to allow the wear of hijab and other religious/cultural headgear, provided it does not interfere with the wear of other required headgear."
As far as I can see, if the reg was amended to allow it, there really isn't anything to prevent the proper wear of a kevlar/PC, etc. It really isn't any more thick of a cloth than a yarmulke is.
Kilkrazy wrote: The matter of whether they are regulations or not is a semantic difference. The effect of the new guidance documentation is to put a duty on the armed forces to give proper consideration to requests for faith based dress exemptions from the normal uniform, and grant them where properly feasible.
If you think that's going to result in hijabs being approved or turbans making it in for anybody but three Sikh doctors who are never going to see a day of combat, I dunno what to tell you. Except that my experience with the American military suggests otherwise.
One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.
What exactly do you know about the CAB and how it is earned?
I'm familiar with the requirements. I would assume you are as well, so I'm not sure why you are asking me. Are we moving the goalposts already, or is this an attempt at appeal to authority?
I can play this game too, if that's what you want. What exactly do you know about the Hijab and how it is worn? How would it conflict with proper wear of a Kevlar or cover if it was approved for wear in uniform? No one has answered that yet with anything other than what essentially boiled down to "Hijabs would conflict with proper wear of Kevlar and covers because the Hijab is currently not approved for wear in uniform."
Okay
One has to be present during an engagement.
III. AWARD ELIGIBILITY
The Combat Action Badge (CAB) may be awarded by any commander delegated authority by the Secretary of the Army during wartime or the CG, U.S. Army Human Resources Command and will be announced in permanent orders.
The requirements for award of the CAB are Branch and MOS immaterial. Assignment to a Combat Arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations is not required to qualify for the CAB. However, it is not intended to award all soldiers who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.
Specific Eligibility Requirements:
May be awarded to any soldier.
Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.
Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.
Soldier must not be assigned/attached to a unit that would qualify the soldier for the CIB/CMB.
One can get a CAB if a rocket hits within 100m of you.
As for Hijab in the US Military. One (NCO's) enforce the standards set by AR 670-1. Till then An individual cannot wear a Hijab unless its a ETP concerning mission or there is a change in AR670-1 introducing it into the US Armed Forces. If an individual wears a Hijab and I order her to take it off. Am I the bad guy for slamming her with an Article 15 for disobeying a direct lawful order from me if she does not remove it but stands by her Cultural upbringing?
Nobody is suggesting that soldiers should just start wearing Hijabs, and there was never, at any point in this thread, any subtext, suggestion, implication, or indication otherwise. It is clear to everyone in this thread that if soldiers were to be allowed to wear the Hijab, there would have to be a change to regulations. The imaginary scene in which you give someone an article 15 for wearing a Hijab in violation of regulations is not something that anyone in this thread was suggesting as a course of action.
Nobody is saying female Muslim soldiers should be able to just start wearing Hijabs without a change in regulations. It's currently not allowed. If someone in this thread suggests that it should be allowed, what that means is, "regulations should be changed so that it should be allowed." Otherwise it's not allowed. Most of us are arguing from a position of good faith. I thought for the most part that you did too, but I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you are trolling or just deliberately being obtuse.
And yes, clearly you can get a CAB for being in an engagement in which the enemy misses you. Are we going to start examining everyone with a CIB, CAB, or CAR to determine who was in "real" combat or not? I don't think that really has anything to do with the point. I get it, not all engagements are created equal. That doesn't change the fact that someone with a CAB has, by definition, been involved in an engagement of some sort.
CIB = Combat Infantry Badge = earned in direct engagement with the enemy = is not the same as a EIB = Expert Infantry Badge = Series of tasks passed on first time go to earn the EIB
CAB and CAR are the same. Orders are written and the Badge/award is entered into an 201 file.
If the hijab was a religious garment then changes will be made. Hijab is a cultural item and not view as the same way as a Shik turbin. That individual wears a under piece under his Kevlar which is the same as the one he wears under his turbin.
Jihadin wrote: CIB = Combat Infantry Badge = earned in direct engagement with the enemy = is not the same as a EIB = Expert Infantry Badge = Series of tasks passed on first time go to earn the EIB
CAB and CAR are the same. Orders are written and the Badge/award is entered into an 201 file.
If the hijab was a religious garment then changes will be made. Hijab is a cultural item and not view as the same way as a Shik turbin. That individual wears a under piece under his Kevlar which is the same as the one he wears under his turbin.
Is the Hijab being viewed as a Religious piece?
No one said anything about an EIB so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Culture and religion are very often intertwined. I think that the Hijab is both a cultural and religious item depending on the context, and I think it would be difficult to argue that it's purely one or the other. To the Muslim women who want to wear it though, I think it certainly qualifies as a religious item, similar to the Sikh articles of faith.
Culture and religion are very often intertwined. I think that the Hijab is both a cultural and religious item depending on the context, and I think it would be difficult to argue that it's purely one or the other. To the Muslim women who want to wear it though, I think it certainly qualifies as a religious item, similar to the Sikh articles of faith.
I agree that it is contextual... I mean, for a woman from KSA or Iran or other Muslim majority nations, where the hijab, burqa and other garments are the norm, it's more cultural than religious (despite there being justification through religious texts)
For a Muslim woman in the US, it very likely is a religious statement and is worn in pretty much an exclusively religious context. There are a couple of young Muslim women in my religion class right now, they both wear the hijab daily. For them it's quite clearly a statement of religious faith.
As there as many awards and decoration concerning the US Military that has been brought up
How many versions of the Hijab are there.
The headgear worn by Sikh are called Dastar
Jihadin wrote: CIB = Combat Infantry Badge = earned in direct engagement with the enemy = is not the same as a EIB = Expert Infantry Badge = Series of tasks passed on first time go to earn the EIB
CAB and CAR are the same. Orders are written and the Badge/award is entered into an 201 file.
If the hijab was a religious garment then changes will be made. Hijab is a cultural item and not view as the same way as a Shik turbin. That individual wears a under piece under his Kevlar which is the same as the one he wears under his turbin.
Is the Hijab being viewed as a Religious piece?
The revised not regulations aren't restricted to things you think are religious.
More information on this point can be found in the revised not regulations.
Jihadin wrote: As there as many awards and decoration concerning the US Military that has been brought up How many versions of the Hijab are there. The headgear worn by Sikh are called Dastar
I suppose it would depend on what you considered a "version." If you're thinking of the Niqab and the Burka, those are all different from the Hijab. If you just mean different versions as in different cloths, colors, etc, then there are of course a wide variety.
If the regulations were changed to allow the Hijab, it would make sense that they would approve only a few specific versions like they did for the Sikh soldiers. I believe they currently have an ACU and black version, depending on what uniform they're wearing. For the Hijab, I'm guessing there would probably have to be a garrison and field version, and perhaps a PT version as well.
How does this not boiling down to letting anyone wear anything with the uniform? Let native americans wear the feathered head piece, let anyone wear cap, scarf, jewelry or anything else. If hijab can be allowed for religious reasons, certainly anything else can. Ahd im sure men also are allowed to wear hijabs then.
Baxx wrote: How does this not boiling down to letting anyone wear anything with the uniform? Let native americans wear the feathered head piece, let anyone wear cap, scarf, jewelry or anything else. If hijab can be allowed for religious reasons, certainly anything else can. Ahd im sure men also are allowed to wear hijabs then.
The same way any different options for any different uniform or gear items are allowed and it doesn't boil down to letting everything be allowed. There would still be regulations, even if the current regulations were to be modified. Just because some things are allowed doesn't mean everything is allowed.
How often do we make exceptions? Is there a point where a line is drawn or does a military or military academy have to allow for any ones individual belief system to be represented physically? I don't really know the answer but it seems to be coming down to every thing is ok versus nothing is ok and I don't think it is that simple.
Since anecdotal evidence is being tossed around my cousin and his wife are Muslim but she (and their daughter) never wear a hijab.
Jihadin wrote: CIB = Combat Infantry Badge = earned in direct engagement with the enemy = is not the same as a EIB = Expert Infantry Badge = Series of tasks passed on first time go to earn the EIB
CAB and CAR are the same. Orders are written and the Badge/award is entered into an 201 file.
If the hijab was a religious garment then changes will be made. Hijab is a cultural item and not view as the same way as a Shik turbin. That individual wears a under piece under his Kevlar which is the same as the one he wears under his turbin.
Is the Hijab being viewed as a Religious piece?
The revised not regulations aren't restricted to things you think are religious.
More information on this point can be found in the revised not regulations.
Alrighty then
I mention ETP which means Exception to Policy better yet waivers but
Edit
KK since I was refered to as an individual of "you" I cannot be the individual to go against the AR670-1. Unless revisions are MADE to update the AR670-1. If your not fimiliar with AR's to current update can be seen bottom of the actual AR itself as shown in the piture.
Ahtman wrote: How often do we make exceptions? Is there a point where a line is drawn or does a military or military academy have to allow for any ones individual belief system to be represented physically? I don't really know the answer but it seems to be coming down to every thing is ok versus nothing is ok and I don't think it is that simple.
Since anecdotal evidence is being tossed around my cousin and his wife are Muslim but she (and their daughter) never wear a hijab.
Speaking for myself, I'm certainly not arguing for everything is okay or nothing is okay. I certainly agree with you that it's not that simple, and it's certainly not a black and white issue. The argument that if we allow Hijabs, we have to allow everything has pretty obviously already been demonstrated to be untrue if we examine the issue of the Sikhs. Just because Sikhs have been allowed the wear of some religious items, it does not follow that now everything is allowed and there are no longer any rules. Just as it doesn't follow that lesbian and gay service members can now serve openly, and black service members can now serve in any branch and in any job - there are still rules and regulations and the military hasn't descended into anarchy, as some people suggested would happen beforehand.
Every time someone considers a change in some regulation, there is usually someone who comes along and says "Well, if we allow this thing, we have to allow [/i]everything,[/i] and that is very blatantly, obviously not the case.
Now, how we determine what will be allowed or not is certainly an issue with some complexity and a variety of factors, and I'm certainly not taking that lightly, but the idea that one change will lead to infinite changes or the removal of all regulations is quite frankly just silly and not helpful to the argument in either direction.
That might be true as time passes. But the military and military academies (private or otherwise) are not proper venues for "social experiments".
Care to explain to me then, how it is that the military tends to be the first place for social experiments??? The Civil Rights movement sprang in part because of military service of African-Americans and the abolishment of segregated units. The Army, and then baseball were the first two institutions in the US to fully de-segregate (officially).
The reason why the Truman was able to pull off desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces with minimum fuss, was because blacks served with distinction in World War II. Plus, you had a fair number of blacks serving in the officer corps and several high-profile decorations of black servicemen. In other words, black people proved themselves in large numbers, and most whites in the Service saw and respected them for it. From then on, there was no color but O.D. Green. However, there was still some bigotry and the military didn't fully desegregate until 1954.
As for the Civil Rights Movement, it goes back long before Jackie Robinson and military desegregation. Back to the 1890's, in fact. The desegregation of Major League Baseball and the Armed Forces were just two more major milestones in a whole list of watershed events relating to Civil Rights in the United States.
Which is typical of civilian "entertainment" from Hollyweird that tries to shove their views down the throats of their viewers, and refuses to look at the long view/big picture.Contrary to popular belief, the entertainment industry (like other media organs) isn't on the pulse of American majority attitudes. They're in their own little world. While what that Admiral character said is true to an extent, military desegregation wasn't as disruptive to unit cohesion as the writers of that episode make it out to be (see my point above). And attitudes toward homosexuals in society had changed greatly by the time this episode had aired, which had more to do with homosexuals now serving openly than Hollyweird propaganda like this episode. This is just more half-factual nonsense from self-congratulatory, white liberals in entertainment who want to pat themselves on the back for being so "progressive" and "tolerant", and to hell with gradually changing long held beliefs, good social cohesion and order, and smooth change that benefits all.
Both of your arguments (About Blacks and Homosexuals) were that they had to be shown to serve well in order to serve. (In other words, the whole 'You have to have experience to get experience dilemma'). Without the military being forced to allow them to serve, they would have never been able to serve at all because of the 'morale hit'.
Might as well throw this in. Those individuals who received waivers to wear their Turbin of the Sikh faith. Has to carry those waiver on them at all times IIRC. Copy on them and the original in their 201 file. Digitized form on AKO in case either get lost. Since they are well known in the US military I doubt anyone will call them out of reg's
Hordini wrote: One of the Sikhs who was approved is a Combat Engineer with a Combat Action Badge.
TIL. Do you happen to know if he got his approval before or after?
From the article I saw on him specifically, I'm pretty sure it was after. But he's still a Combat Engineer and I doubt the Army would retain him if the waiver would make him effectively non-deployable in his primary MOS.
Ahtman wrote: How often do we make exceptions? Is there a point where a line is drawn or does a military or military academy have to allow for any ones individual belief system to be represented physically? I don't really know the answer but it seems to be coming down to every thing is ok versus nothing is ok and I don't think it is that simple.
I think in general, the military academies themselves are taking the "no exceptions" route (though to be fair, I don't know WP, AFA, or NA policy) similar to the Citadel.
As for the regular military, it does seem to be that exceptions will only be granted in the situation where there is ability for the exception to not interfere with wear of protective gear (as someone... Jihadin maybe, noted... the Sikhs, when they put kevlar on, take off their bulky turban, but still retain the tight fitting garment under it).
This is why they've made it a policy that troops can wear a simple cross (unit dependent, because most of my units wouldn't allow it) beneath the uniform. Native Americans are authorized to partake in their religious ceremony once per year, which violates drug policy (and if they do this, they are rigorously tested afterward to ensure compliance).
In other times, units are forced to "force" military people to violate tenets of their beliefs. The Jewish dude on my second deployment had deployed with the unit on their previous rotation. When they were flying home, the flight was slated to take off on a Saturday, in the middle of the Sabbath for him. He went to plt sgt, and 1sg... and 1sg basically said "well, you can travel on a saturday, in which you aren't working anyway, or you can stay here and hope you can find another flight... I'm not keeping 200 of my troops in the desert for one person. We all want to see our families" Long story short, he flew home on Saturday, and then later consulted his local Rabbi who confirmed that the "no travel" restriction on holy days was malleable, due to his position in defending his country. Since then, he'd consulted the Rabbi on a bunch of other issues that may have come up, so that the deployment we were on together went a lot smoother for everyone, because he knew which rules he could bend religiously, and when he should bend them.
That might be true as time passes. But the military and military academies (private or otherwise) are not proper venues for "social experiments".
Care to explain to me then, how it is that the military tends to be the first place for social experiments??? The Civil Rights movement sprang in part because of military service of African-Americans and the abolishment of segregated units. The Army, and then baseball were the first two institutions in the US to fully de-segregate (officially).
The reason why the Truman was able to pull off desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces with minimum fuss, was because blacks served with distinction in World War II. Plus, you had a fair number of blacks serving in the officer corps and several high-profile decorations of black servicemen. In other words, black people proved themselves in large numbers, and most whites in the Service saw and respected them for it. From then on, there was no color but O.D. Green. However, there was still some bigotry and the military didn't fully desegregate until 1954.
As for the Civil Rights Movement, it goes back long before Jackie Robinson and military desegregation. Back to the 1890's, in fact. The desegregation of Major League Baseball and the Armed Forces were just two more major milestones in a whole list of watershed events relating to Civil Rights in the United States.
Which is typical of civilian "entertainment" from Hollyweird that tries to shove their views down the throats of their viewers, and refuses to look at the long view/big picture.Contrary to popular belief, the entertainment industry (like other media organs) isn't on the pulse of American majority attitudes. They're in their own little world. While what that Admiral character said is true to an extent, military desegregation wasn't as disruptive to unit cohesion as the writers of that episode make it out to be (see my point above). And attitudes toward homosexuals in society had changed greatly by the time this episode had aired, which had more to do with homosexuals now serving openly than Hollyweird propaganda like this episode. This is just more half-factual nonsense from self-congratulatory, white liberals in entertainment who want to pat themselves on the back for being so "progressive" and "tolerant", and to hell with gradually changing long held beliefs, good social cohesion and order, and smooth change that benefits all.
Both of your arguments (About Blacks and Homosexuals) were that they had to be shown to serve well in order to serve. (In other words, the whole 'You have to have experience to get experience dilemma'). Without the military being forced to allow them to serve, they would have never been able to serve at all because of the 'morale hit'.
That's because respect isn't given. It's earned. Regardless of the abuse of the word "respect" nowadays, and the sense of entitlement that comes with that.
And there is no higher respect than that earned in the forge of war. After such shared experiences, a man isn't black, white, straight, or gay. That man is your brother.
The Second World War necessitated the use of large number of black troops, whether elements in the Armed Forces wanted it or not. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was necessary as a policy compromise to keep the hard-liners among "progressives", and vote-hungry/opinion poll junkie politicos, from throwing the current (at the time) military culture into chaos (the Cold War demonstrated that politicians are just as much the enemy of the fighting man as the guy trying to kill you). You didn't need forced legislation, or politically inspired forced policies, to give such groups the chance to prove themselves and gradually change the military's culture, with little to no disruption. World War Two hammered home (finally) that blacks are just a capable of serving their country with distinction, thus changing people's minds in that regard. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise allowed homosexuals to more confidently enlist, and slowly changed the military cultural norms toward homosexuals openly serving from within. Thus, homosexuals could prove themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no issues from within the ranks, and showing the brass that change is overdue.
The problem with "progressives" is the same as those on the "hard right". It's "all or nothing" and "we want it NOW". Gradual change, and gradually changing people's attitudes (sometimes by treading a middle ground for a time), is the way to go when trying to enact positive change, even in supposedly free societies. Using nothing but threats of government power, and overbearing social pressure to infringe on freedom of opinion, will do nothing but generate ill will and backlash. And that is counter-productive.
The problem with "progressives" is the same as those on the "hard right". It's "all or nothing" and "we want it NOW". Gradual change, and gradually changing people's attitudes (sometimes by treading a middle ground for a time), is the way to go when trying to enact positive change, even in supposedly free societies. Using nothing but threats of government power, and overbearing social pressure to infringe on freedom of opinion, will do nothing but generate ill will and backlash. And that is counter-productive.
What's a more gradual change for our armed forces than having a woman wearing a head scarf at a public school with mandatory ROTC participation?
Blacks weren't integrated into the service because of respect, nor were gays. It is better information and abolishing ignorance of "the other" that does that, and even then at the time there was still much resistance. They were considered sub human an unequal which was horse apples and trying to revise the levels of ignorance to simply being a lack of respect isn't any better.
The problem with "progressives" is the same as those on the "hard right". It's "all or nothing" and "we want it NOW". Gradual change, and gradually changing people's attitudes (sometimes by treading a middle ground for a time), is the way to go when trying to enact positive change, even in supposedly free societies. Using nothing but threats of government power, and overbearing social pressure to infringe on freedom of opinion, will do nothing but generate ill will and backlash. And that is counter-productive.
What's a more gradual change for our armed forces than having a woman wearing a head scarf at a public school with mandatory ROTC participation?
Indeed. A trial period wouldn't be that big of a big deal, and would (in all likelyhood) result in a permanent change in regulations.
Ahtman wrote:Blacks weren't integrated into the service because of respect, nor were gays. It is better information and abolishing ignorance of "the other" that does that, and even then at the time there was still much resistance. They were considered sub human an unequal which was horse apples and trying to revise the levels of ignorance to simply being a lack of respect isn't any better.
That's where you are wrong. How the hell do you think that "better information" came about and "ignorance of the other" was eliminated?
It was because the people in question set an example
And that did far more for a change in military culture than any real influence from civilian quarters or civilian activism.
And I revise nothing. I just know actual history, and I don't accept the crap shoveled by modern social sciences professors as the "new fact". If anybody is preaching historical revisionism here, it's you. Not me.
The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.
The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...
skyth wrote: The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.
The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...
Of course there was. The complaints at the time were that soldiers lived in close quarters, and that would be uncomfortable and distracting if one of the 'guys' was trying to hit on you.
I can't even express how much I wish that was hyperbolic satire...
I don't see that that as a legitimate complaint as it wasn't going to happen. Just the the argument that transexuals are going to assault children if allowed to pee in the bathroom they are comfortable in.
Whether or not it was a 'legitimate' complaint, it was the common one being made at the time, and as you say, things only changed in the military in that case because change was pushed on them and they just had to live with it.
The simple fact is that regardless of their reason for existence, the military doesn't get a free pass on ignoring social change. It might happen slower in the military due to the highly structured institutionalised nature of the beast, but sooner or later the military has to adjust just like the rest of us.
skyth wrote: The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.
The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...
The problem is though.... there were homosexuals in the military before, during, and after DADT. I think part of the reason for the repeal of that policy, was pressure from within as well as without.
skyth wrote: The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.
The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...
There were plenty of homosexuals in the military before DADT was repealed. Hell, Manning was actively trying to get kicked out, floating around a FOB in a tiara and sending his first sergeant selfies of himself in drag and they still didn't separate him.
Judge me all you want, I support this decision.
By attending a Military College, you sign your arse to the goverment and they can do whatever the hell with it they want.
On a sidenote: Congrats on actually getting accepted into the Citadel.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yaraton wrote: In the Canadian army (and I presume in our Royal Military College of Canada) the male Sikhs are allowed to wear their military-issue green turbans and not shave their beards even in the units that don't have beard-wearing tradition, providing they always have a small container with Vaseline on them at all times while in uniform to apply it on their beards before putting a gas mask. Obviously all the military standards of putting on a gas mask and a helmet apply to them too.
insaniak wrote: Of course there was. The complaints at the time were that soldiers lived in close quarters, and that would be uncomfortable and distracting if one of the 'guys' was trying to hit on you.
I can't even express how much I wish that was hyperbolic satire...
If I had a nickel for every editorial from that time period I read that argued integrating gays would destroy the military because it would break unit cohesion, I bet I could buy a burrito, at least.
skyth wrote: The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.
The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...
There were plenty of homosexuals in the military before DADT was repealed. Hell, Manning was actively trying to get kicked out, floating around a FOB in a tiara and sending his first sergeant selfies of himself in drag and they still didn't separate him.
That's a problem then if they choose which rules to follow or not follow.
The Don't Ask Don't Tell system was a good compromise for the time but it had the drawback that revealed homosexuals still were punished and therefore were liable to blackmail and other evils, not to mention that it actively encouraged people to be dishonest which isn't basically desierable.
skyth wrote: The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.
The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...
There were plenty of homosexuals in the military before DADT was repealed. Hell, Manning was actively trying to get kicked out, floating around a FOB in a tiara and sending his first sergeant selfies of himself in drag and they still didn't separate him.
That's a problem then if they choose which rules to follow or not follow.
By the time of Manning, and the end of DADT, the units that I was in, the command structure, from brigade down to company were instructed to no longer initiate chapters for that reason, if it was the sole reason. I know others, such as Jihadin have pointed out differently. But most of the time, I had very open commanders, who informed the soldiers of policy and policy changes. So the commanders I had in Germany had a company briefing and said rather bluntly, "The current unit policy is that we will not initiate chapters for violations of DADT. However, if we initiate chapter for other reasons, and you mention it, that will simply be added on."
a number of months later, when the announcement was made that DADT would be repealed, he had to brief us that it was going to happen, but had not, so don't be coming out just yet.
skyth wrote: The problem is without the military being forced to accept homosexuals in then they never would have had the opportunity to 'earn' respect thus they never would have been able to join. It's a catch 22.
The problem is there's no legitimate reason to keep them from serving...
There were plenty of homosexuals in the military before DADT was repealed. Hell, Manning was actively trying to get kicked out, floating around a FOB in a tiara and sending his first sergeant selfies of himself in drag and they still didn't separate him.
That's a problem then if they choose which rules to follow or not follow.
By the time of Manning, and the end of DADT, the units that I was in, the command structure, from brigade down to company were instructed to no longer initiate chapters for that reason, if it was the sole reason. I know others, such as Jihadin have pointed out differently. But most of the time, I had very open commanders, who informed the soldiers of policy and policy changes. So the commanders I had in Germany had a company briefing and said rather bluntly, "The current unit policy is that we will not initiate chapters for violations of DADT. However, if we initiate chapter for other reasons, and you mention it, that will simply be added on."
a number of months later, when the announcement was made that DADT would be repealed, he had to brief us that it was going to happen, but had not, so don't be coming out just yet.
actually a concern for a bit depending on who the soldier announce/claim he/she was a homosexual. Within the unit there were so many "Okay......where do you WANT to go with this?"
Nurgle wrote: Judge me all you want, I support this decision.
Starting with a "come at me bro" sort of attitude isn't really necessary at all. If you read the thread people are all over the board on this but discussion =/= judgement.
Nurgle wrote: Judge me all you want, I support this decision.
Starting with a "come at me bro" sort of attitude isn't really necessary at all. If you read the thread people are all over the board on this but discussion =/= judgement.
Actually. The Chain of Command gets pissed when the S/M wants UCMJ actions started to process them out. Granted it was at the time a Chapter for the Good of the Army. It leaves a tarnish on our unit (mostly those of us in leadership positions) in a sense we couldn't protect them.
insaniak wrote: Of course, whether or not it worked, and whether or not it was actually the best way of dealing with the issue are not the same thing...
That's fine. Whether or not the military handles various irrelevant social issues in the 'best' way is rather low on my list of priorities for it.
The same way any different options for any different uniform or gear items are allowed and it doesn't boil down to letting everything be allowed. There would still be regulations, even if the current regulations were to be modified. Just because some things are allowed doesn't mean everything is allowed.
So you allow some religious people to wear their religious clothing.
Then how can you deny me wearing my religious clothing?
The thing is, a lot of religion is interpretation.
The Bible doesn't require Roman Catholics not to use contraception or be men and not get married if they are priests. It's something that has been interpreted into the religion by popes.
if a Muslim is told by their mullah that they should wear a hijab, they probably are going to want to wear a hijab.
When the base commander has to judge that soldier's request to wear a hijab, he is going to take advice from a military muslim chaplain, even from a mullah of the sect that the soldier belongs to.
Kilkrazy wrote: When the base commander has to judge that soldier's request to wear a hijab, he is going to take advice from a military muslim chaplain, even from a mullah of the sect that the soldier belongs to.
Well, base commander's not going to be deciding, but either way I can tell you that no, he's not.
That's right. You can't just suddenly decide you have a religion that requires you to wear a purple helmet or something. The people examining your application will look into the background of the basis for the claim.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's right. You can't just suddenly decide you have a religion that requires you to wear a purple helmet or something. The people examining your application will look into the background of the basis for the claim.
Which is why the regulations are an acceptable answer to:
It's up to you to decide. If I want to wear some special clothing, what stops me from making it a religious requirement to do so?
Kilkrazy wrote: The regs specify the standard uniform, not what religious dress might be.
But they specify when an exception to policy may be asked for. And 'I feel religious' don't cut it.
Sure it does, I have seen multiple examples of it in this thread. It cuts it just fine, which is why also I am allowed to wear turban, hijab or anything else I would like. All I have to say is "religion". At least that's what they do, so in the name of equality I'd expect to have the same rights.
If it is justified then you be granted a waiver to wear the article for religion purposes. Also it is I believe TRADOC that decides that issue. Not some base commander.
Kilkrazy wrote: The regs specify the standard uniform, not what religious dress might be.
But they specify when an exception to policy may be asked for. And 'I feel religious' don't cut it.
Sure it does, I have seen multiple examples of it in this thread. It cuts it just fine, which is why also I am allowed to wear turban, hijab or anything else I would like. All I have to say is "religion". At least that's what they do, so in the name of equality I'd expect to have the same rights.
No, it does not cut it. Not in the US military or commissioning programs which is what the thread is about. Which is why the potential cadet in the original article cannot do as you seem to be able to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: If it is justified then you be granted a waiver to wear the article for religion purposes. Also it is I believe TRADOC that decides that issue. Not some base commander.
The guidance was posted earlier. If I remember correctly (and may very well not be doing so) it is a service secretary call. So above TRADOC.
No, it does not cut it. Not in the US military or commissioning programs which is what the thread is about. Which is why the potential cadet in the original article cannot do as you seem to be able to.
So some religions are favoured, while others are oppressed?
How do you say yes to one person because of the religion and no to another person because of another religion?
Certainly to "feel religious" cut it for those pictured in this thread. It just don't cut it for people of other religions.
No, it does not cut it. Not in the US military or commissioning programs which is what the thread is about. Which is why the potential cadet in the original article cannot do as you seem to be able to.
So some religions are favoured, while others are oppressed?
How do you say yes to one person because of the religion and no to another person because of another religion?
Certainly to "feel religious" cut it for those pictured in this thread. It just don't cut it for people of other religions.
Because we enforce the Regs that are there. We don't create them. We just enforce them
Baxx wrote: How do you say yes to one person because of the religion and no to another person because of another religion?
This is the question that comes up in every single one of these religious exemption threads, and it basically boils down to "what if it became impossible for human beings to apply sense or reason?"
Fortunately humans are still capable of such. We can make an assessment between something that is dictated by the religion, and something that individuals in the religion simply like to do. This doesn't mean that all humans everywhere will always agree on every decision, there will be an inherent level of subjectivity, but the idea that we cannot do it at all is basically to reject the human capacity for reason.