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.

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.

What a shame.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What a shame.

In what sense? That she tried or that they denied it? I'm not sure what you mean.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What a shame.

In what sense? That she tried or that they denied it? I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean that it sucks that they denied it but I don't really see why this is such a big deal. It's just clothing.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

Yeah, the turban would be another big example.

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."

I really have no issue with the ruling so long as it applies to ALL religious attire.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

We had this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Charter_of_Values
come up in Canada a few years ago.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 djones520 wrote:

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)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


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.

 Hordini wrote:

 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....

 totalfailure wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

 plastictrees wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:


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.

 plastictrees wrote:

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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).

Is The Citadel actually affiliated with any military branch, or is it just a fancy state school?

 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.

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

Our first Sikh-Canadian Minister of Defense:





P.S. By the look of it, US has it too:

Seaward wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 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.