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.

 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.

 insaniak wrote:
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?

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.

Seaward wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

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.

SemperMortis wrote:

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?

 insaniak wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

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.

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".

SemperMortis wrote:

 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:

SemperMortis wrote:

 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.

I'm sure the courts can figure out if it's a religious dress or a cultural dress, just like they have with crossed on necklaces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 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.

SemperMortis wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

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?

Not yet, but according to the Washington Post, the family are considering all legal options.

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.

If she did her research on it. Its famous for that strict policy on uniform and college life.

Asking them to bend rules, difficult...

Looked on wiki for background. They got second only to the main officer training school commissioned in 2015.... It works.

 Ahtman wrote:
The Citadel Military College Denies Muslim’s Request to Wear Headscarf

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?

Confederate Army of Virginia....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:

 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.

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.

A good point and reminder.

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.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/grade-point/wp/2016/05/10/the-citadel-will-not-allow-an-exception-to-the-uniform-to-let-a-muslim-student-wear-her-hijab/?client=safari#

The Citadel also use to have been all male school till the 90's

SemperMortis wrote:


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.

Win Win

 plastictrees wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


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.