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.

 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

 insaniak wrote:

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?

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.

 Jihadin wrote:

 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.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 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

 Jihadin wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 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.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 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.

 Jihadin wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
snip

Win Win

I know your joking.

Yes indeed, thanks for recognizing it as such

 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.

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.

 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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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...

 CptJake wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

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?

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:


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.

 Hordini wrote:
It doesn't seem to be much of a problem here:

Spoiler:

Is it weird that my first thought was "that is a wonderful color! It meshes so well with he camo XD"

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.

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.

 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!

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

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.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.