Military College Denies Muslim Student to wear head scarf

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.

**LordofHats**

Hordini wrote:
And yet, Sikhs have on multiple occasions proven that they are able to serve, all while using regular gas masks and regular helmets. I think the difficulties have been massively overstated.

Yeah there are ways around, but others in thread have accurately pointed out that the beards in particular present issues with getting proper seals on gas masks. They can get seals, but getting that seal leads to other problems.

Of course, we could design a new gas mask to get around that, but is it worth the cost to design a new gas mask, or to just say "Okay, we can make this work. It might not be perfect, but we can make it work." I think the later is perfectly acceptable. It's not like the military is a place where we expect absolute safety at all times.

**Jihadin**

hotsauceman1 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.

Erasing identity in order to form a more perfect cohesive force?
Is the military a cult or something.

13 years of Afghanistan/Iraq. There is a good core group of followers of Bacchus. We picked Roman version being then anyone of religion was thrown in the Coliseum for our amusement.

**hotsauceman1**

Didnt they say petorleum jelly was used to get a good seal?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
hotsauceman1 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.

Erasing identity in order to form a more perfect cohesive force?
Is the military a cult or something.

13 years of Afghanistan/Iraq. There is a good core group of followers of Bacchus. We picked Roman version being then anyone of religion was thrown in the Coliseum for our amusement.

I am legitimatly asking this.
Huh?

**Kilkrazy**

Hordini wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Sikh's I think have some issues when it comes to military regulations. Never shaving their beards makes it hard to put on gas masks, and never cutting their hair and wrapping it up in scarves makes it hard to wear a regulation helmet. Sikh's have served with distinction in military forces around the world, so I don't doubt their ability to fight as well as anyone else. There is however a reality that there aren't that many Sikh's in the US armed forces, and we're not going to go about designing special gas maks and helmets, or forming our own Sikh regiment, just to accommodate a very small portion of the population. That's just logistics. We can bend some rules here and there, and I think we can be mature enough to say that accommodating a few people isn't going to destroy our Army, but going much father than that presents increasing issues that aren't simply overcome.

And yet, Sikhs have on multiple occasions proven that they are able to serve, all while using regular gas masks and regular helmets. I think the difficulties have been massively overstated.

It's not a problem. The UK has Sikh tank commanders and aircraft pilots. They wear a special low profile turban under their helmet.

**Jihadin**

Under garment mention on a thread awhile back ago regarding that under garment with someone from the UK. Just not the turbin itself

**LordofHats**

Jihadin wrote:
Under garment mention on a thread awhile back ago regarding that under garment with someone from the UK. Just not the turbin itself

I don't know about an under garment under the Turban, but the Five K's include a Comb, which is usually tucked into the hair under their head covering.

**insaniak**

Wulfmar wrote:
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...

No. Neither is a hijab.

That was the point. Pointing out to someone that their chosen attire is 'a symbol of modesty but not a necessity' is rarely going to be sufficient to encourage them to remove it.

**Prestor Jon**

LordofHats wrote:
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.

I don't think it would be difficult at all for The Citadel to explain in court why cadets wear uniforms and why the school has uniform regulations.

The school isn't preventing the girl from being a Muslim or being a practicing Muslim they are only requiring her to wear the proper cadet uniform during the times when she is required to be in uniform. How does wearing a hat stop her from being a devout Muslim? It doesn't. If she doesn't want to wear the uniform she can go to a shool that doesn't have uniforms.

The Citadel is a military academy so they require military style uniforms and uniform regulations. If you don't want to conform to uniformity than you shouldn't be enrolling in a military academy. It makes no sense to create the institution and then start chipping away at its ability to conduct itself in its intended manner.

**LordofHats**

Prestor Jon wrote:
How does wearing a hat stop her from being a devout Muslim?

What problem does letting her wear it present?

It makes no sense to create the institution and then start chipping away at its ability to conduct itself in its intended manner.

Because the whole thing falls apart if we let someone wear a fashion choice that they feel is religiously significant on their head?

Come on. The place isn't going to crumble into dust. People will get butt hurt, some people will be happy, some people won't give gak, and a year later no one will give a gak anymore.

**Wulfmar**

insaniak wrote:
Wulfmar wrote:
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...

No. Neither is a hijab.

That was the point. Pointing out to someone that their chosen attire is 'a symbol of modesty but not a necessity' is rarely going to be sufficient to encourage them to remove it.

They argued it was for religious reasons - I stated it's not a religious garment and therefore the argument doesn't stand. Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.

So telling them it's not a necessity and not ruled by religion is sufficient . I don't understand what point you're trying to make

**CptJake**

insaniak wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Hijabs are not relevant or appropriate to the culture at The Citadel.

Neither were girls originally, apparently. Sooner or later, institutions have to change to reflect a changing society.

Thanks for cutting the context out of my comment, which was pretty relevant to what I said.

Hijabs are ONLY worn by the FETs when it helps their mission. They are not in anyway a concession to the soldiers' culture. There is zero reason to wear one as a cadet at the Citadel.

**insaniak**

Wulfmar wrote:
Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.

If the school had a uniform policy that only included pants, and a female student wanted to wear a blouse because she is uncomfortable running around topless, would we be having this same discussion?

Or would it be reasonable to assume that allowing shirts in a mixed gender institution might be a good idea?

To a lot of Muslims, going without the hijab is no different to going without a shirt. The fact that you don't consider it necessary doesn't mean it isn't... It just means that you dont need to wear one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It makes no sense to create the institution and then start chipping away at its ability to conduct itself in its intended manner.

It makes total sense to chip away at institutions that were based on sensibilities that are now a century out of date and don't reflect today's society.

**CptJake**

insaniak wrote:
Wulfmar wrote:
Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.

If the school had a uniform policy that only included pants, and a female student wanted to wear a blouse because she is uncomfortable running around topless, would we be having this same discussion?

Or would it be reasonable to assume that allowing shirts in a mixed gender institution might be a good idea?

To a lot of Muslims, going without the hijab is no different to going without a shirt. The fact that you don't consider it necessary doesn't mean it isn't... It just means that you dont need to wear one.

If this particular young lady is so tied to the Hijab due to religiously imposed ideas about modesty, she will be screwed when she has to do PT with males and forced to wear shorts and a t-shirt along with every single other cadet doing PT.

So, either she is not one of the Muslims you allude to, or she is REALLY trying to get into a place she has no chance of fitting into. It will be worse for her if she gets on active duty when she graduates.

**Wulfmar**

insaniak wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It makes no sense to create the institution and then start chipping away at its ability to conduct itself in its intended manner.

It makes total sense to chip away at institutions that were based on sensibilities that are now a century out of date and don't reflect today's society.

Institutions like Islam then? Religions were useful in the Dark Ages but aren't particularly relevant today in progressive societies.

**Jihadin**

CptJake wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Wulfmar wrote:
Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.

If the school had a uniform policy that only included pants, and a female student wanted to wear a blouse because she is uncomfortable running around topless, would we be having this same discussion?

Or would it be reasonable to assume that allowing shirts in a mixed gender institution might be a good idea?

To a lot of Muslims, going without the hijab is no different to going without a shirt. The fact that you don't consider it necessary doesn't mean it isn't... It just means that you dont need to wear one.

If this particular young lady is so tied to the Hijab due to religiously imposed ideas about modesty, she will be screwed when she has to do PT with males and forced to wear shorts and a t-shirt along with every single other cadet doing PT.

So, either she is not one of the Muslims you allude to, or she is REALLY trying to get into a place she has no chance of fitting into. It will be worse for her if she gets on active duty when she graduates.

PT is 5 times a week regardless of weather. More if you break height/weight standards

**CptJake**

Jihadin wrote:
CptJake wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Wulfmar wrote:
Therefore it has no special treatment and is no different to underwear / socks / a blouse.

If the school had a uniform policy that only included pants, and a female student wanted to wear a blouse because she is uncomfortable running around topless, would we be having this same discussion?

Or would it be reasonable to assume that allowing shirts in a mixed gender institution might be a good idea?

To a lot of Muslims, going without the hijab is no different to going without a shirt. The fact that you don't consider it necessary doesn't mean it isn't... It just means that you dont need to wear one.

If this particular young lady is so tied to the Hijab due to religiously imposed ideas about modesty, she will be screwed when she has to do PT with males and forced to wear shorts and a t-shirt along with every single other cadet doing PT.

So, either she is not one of the Muslims you allude to, or she is REALLY trying to get into a place she has no chance of fitting into. It will be worse for her if she gets on active duty when she graduates.

PT is 5 times a week regardless of weather. More if you break height/weight standards

Son2 went to North Georgia (another Military College) and was in the Corps of Cadidiots there. For incoming freshmen and freshmen they were in PT uniforms quite a bit...

**insaniak**

Wulfmar wrote:

Institutions like Islam then? Religions were useful in the Dark Ages but aren't particularly relevant today in progressive societies.

Any religion, just like any other institution, has to evolve along with society in order to stay relevant. And while it's happening slowly with Islam, it is happening... as evidenced by the fact that we're hearing about a young muslim girl in the US asking for permission to wear her hijab at a military school.

Seems that Islam is moving a little faster than that particular institution on this one...

**Seaward**

LordofHats wrote:

The Citadel is state owned (South Carolina), which makes it subject to religious freedom requirements. She could sue, and that's her right. Something existing unchanged for 175 years is not an argument in itself to go on unchanged.

Again, the Citadel is a Senior Military College. Federal law governs its requirements, and forcing every single cadet to join ROTC means that it's not exactly your average state school.

Hordini wrote:
[And yet, Sikhs have on multiple occasions proven that they are able to serve, all while using regular gas masks and regular helmets. I think the difficulties have been massively overstated.

I'm pretty sure there are currently three, and they're all in stateside medical positions with no likelihood of deployment. They've been given individual exemptions because of that, but the Army hasn't made it a policy.

**Hordini**

Seaward wrote:
Hordini wrote:
[And yet, Sikhs have on multiple occasions proven that they are able to serve, all while using regular gas masks and regular helmets. I think the difficulties have been massively overstated.

I'm pretty sure there are currently three, and they're all in stateside medical positions with no likelihood of deployment. They've been given individual exemptions because of that, but the Army hasn't made it a policy.

Yes, there are three or four in the US Army. I'm not only referring to them though. Between just the British and Indian armies, there have been thousands of Sikhs who have done it, in combat, since WWI.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
LordofHats wrote:

The Citadel is state owned (South Carolina), which makes it subject to religious freedom requirements. She could sue, and that's her right. Something existing unchanged for 175 years is not an argument in itself to go on unchanged.

Again, the Citadel is a Senior Military College. Federal law governs its requirements, and forcing every single cadet to join ROTC means that it's not exactly your average state school.

And ROTC regulations state that schools can require any uniform they want, as long as they don't violate any laws.

Second time this has been pointed out now.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
And ROTC regulations state that schools can require any uniform they want, as long as they don't violate any laws.

Second time this has been pointed out now.

SMC rules are different from ROTC rules.

**Jihadin**

Citadel does not follow the ROTC program

**Seaward**

Jihadin wrote:
Citadel does not follow the ROTC program

Sure it does. ROTC enrollment's actually required. They can turn down commissioning when they graduate, though.

But their campus rules are governed by the federal law on Senior Military Colleges.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
And ROTC regulations state that schools can require any uniform they want, as long as they don't violate any laws.

Second time this has been pointed out now.

SMC rules are different from ROTC rules.

The laws I could find refer back to ROTC for uniform instructions. Are there any other laws clarifying uniform rules for them?

**DutchWinsAll**

insaniak wrote:
Wulfmar wrote:

Institutions like Islam then? Religions were useful in the Dark Ages but aren't particularly relevant today in progressive societies.

Any religion, just like any other institution, has to evolve along with society in order to stay relevant. And while it's happening slowly with Islam, it is happening... as evidenced by the fact that we're hearing about a young muslim girl in the US asking for permission to wear her hijab at a military school.

Seems that Islam is moving a little faster than that particular institution on this one...

Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.

Yes they're both deeply conservative societies, but the US Military is far and away more progressive then mainstream Islam. Like orders of magnitude.

**insaniak**

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.

Are 'the Muslims' in the US doing that?

**Hordini**

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.

Yes they're both deeply conservative societies, but the US Military is far and away more progressive then mainstream Islam. Like orders of magnitude.

I'm not sure how to take that, since mainstream Muslims don't tend to throw people off of roofs.

**Ahtman**

Hordini wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.

Yes they're both deeply conservative societies, but the US Military is far and away more progressive then mainstream Islam. Like orders of magnitude.

I'm not sure how to take that, since mainstream Muslims don't tend to throw people off of roofs.

In all fairness I don't think mainstream humans in general don't throw people off roofs..

**LordofHats**

Ahtman wrote:

In all fairness I don't think mainstream humans in general don't throw people off roofs..

Wait... If mainstream humans don't don't throw people off roofs, doesn't that mean that mainstream humans throw people off roofs XD

Curse you double negatives!

**Hordini**

Ahtman wrote:
Hordini wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
Oh come on! Has the Citadel ever passed a gay soldier? Pretty sure the Muslims are still throwing them off roofs and throwing stones at women like this young girl.

Yes they're both deeply conservative societies, but the US Military is far and away more progressive then mainstream Islam. Like orders of magnitude.

I'm not sure how to take that, since mainstream Muslims don't tend to throw people off of roofs.

In all fairness I don't think mainstream humans in general don't throw people off roofs..

Certainly true.