Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 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.

Last time I checked Sikhs weren't harboring terrorists, abusing women, or stoning rape victims.

Well, we might make page 3...

 trexmeyer wrote:
Last time I checked Sikhs weren't harboring terrorists, abusing women, or stoning rape victims.

Sikh Terrorism

Abuse of Women

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.

Couple of things

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Last time I checked Sikhs weren't harboring terrorists, abusing women, or stoning rape victims.

Sikh Terrorism

Abuse of Women

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.

 trexmeyer wrote:
But yeah, let's pretend there aren't mass rapes going on in Europe committed by Muslim immigrants

When college kids gang rape a girl during Spring Break and put the video on Youtube, do we even mention if they're Christian? No. We only mention that they're black, or white. Because that's what we do. We pick some silly single descriptor and boil a person(s) down to it.

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.

How about we all mosey back on over to the topic... Which is nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

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.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

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).

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.

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.

This sprang to mind immediately.

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.

 Ouze wrote:

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.

SemperMortis wrote:

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"?

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

Seaward wrote:

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.

 insaniak wrote:

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?

Currently, yes.

 insaniak wrote:

Seaward wrote:

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.

Seaward wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

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?

 insaniak wrote:

Seaward wrote:

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

You seem to be assuming that the hijab would replace the rest of her uniform entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

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?