A link to the Citadel President’s Statement.
http://www.citadel.edu/root/citadel-president-statement-may-2016
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
@soze The same amendment that keeps congress, and by extension the military, from forcing an atheist to practice religion is the same one that allows for accommodation of religion where possible. Military members give up many freedoms that those they serve enjoy. The military should do everything possible to protect the free exercise of religion when the practice is not counter to good order and discipline and does not impede the mission.
@T26E4 “I agree that secular institutions should not promote or prefer one religion over another as well as to protect those who hold anti-theist values. … I’m glad the regulations allow discretion to allow for reasonable accommodations.”
I agree with this.
I think the way to do this is to establish parameters for religious headgear/apparel. If you can get your hijab, yarmulke, or colander within these required parameters, then you can wear it. However, when you make specific exceptions for particular religions instead of using established parameters, the effect is to imply that those religions are recognized and therefore essentially promoted over others beliefs. That is a problem.
It is also of the utmost importance that all soldier’s loyalty is to the military, their superior, and the person next to them, whether they wear a hijab, yarmulke, cross, or colander.
@Much2learn while I understand your well intended statement, that’s not true. Everyone in the military swears an oath to the constitution and that is where primary loyalty lies. Yes, their is loyalty in the ranks but misplaced loyalty is what leads to coverups of things like Mai Lai or Abu Graib when fellow soldiers are shamed that speaking up would be disloyal to peers or to the chain of command.
The Citadel is not a military school that requires commission to the armed forces after graduation. In fact, approx only 40% of graduates actually become commissioned officers at graduation . So it’s probably a moot point about what the military is willing to accommodate . If she is that committed to serving in the military , why not seek acceptance at one of the military service academies ? JMO
@soze I’m also an athiest – and a realist. Since most Americans identify themselves as of some religion, and there’s something called freedom of religion in this country, I accept that there will be some regulations that I find, well, unnecessary.
This thread is about a woman asking about a hijab. I wanted to point out that men are asking for, and getting, religious accommodations not unlike what she’s asking for.
You know, to keep this thread from turning into a misogynist or a Islamophobic discussion.
I am in the same boat. This entire discussion isn’t really even about religion. This discussion is about someone trying to change a policy that arguably doesn’t need to be changed. Nobody is forcing this girl to attend the Citadel, and it is unlikely that the Citadel is the only college she is able to attend. She knew the dress code was rigid, and that the school prides itself on strict uniformity, so why decide to go if the fit isn’t right? As another poster said earlier, her motives are questionable.
Furthermore, just because a school is state-sponsored doesn’t mean they have to kowtow to every public request for change. In order for some organizations to fulfill their missions, they need things to be done a certain way. In the Citadel’s case, they require a high standard for dress code and conformity as they believe it makes for stronger graduates. They are not singling out any religions here, nor are they acting unfairly (IMO). They are simply saying, this is our dress code, you either agree with it, or find another school that fits what you are looking for.
“This discussion is about someone trying to change a policy that arguably doesn’t need to be changed.”
Well, too bad, @fractalmstr BUT IT’S ALREADY CHANGED. For more than one person, and for more than one religion.
You can’t tell one person, yes you can wear your religious headgear and not another. Your whole argument is a moot point.
@katliamom, apparently it has NOT changed at The Citadel. The Citadel is not the armed forced of the USA.
True. Which makes it even weirder, for a school that prepares young people for the armed forces of the USA. Way to make yourself obsolete and irrelevant, Citadel. What next, no gun powder on campus? They’ll train with swords?
The Citadel is more about traditions than it is preparing for the Army. It’s military in the sense that 150 years ago, young men of distinction had to learn how to be officers.
It’s very possible this student is trying to make a point, but that doesn’t negate the question.
To be brutally frank, my heart will not bleed for someone who wants to wear a symbol of female oppression.
But we’ve been over this before.
It doesn’t negate the question – and its answer shows that Citadel’s sensibility still reflects 150 year old values 
Personally I’m more than a little creeped out by the Citadel’s statement regarding the obliteration of the self in order to rebuild that person into something else.
But, it’s America, and if you want to do that, knock yourself out. I’m kinda wondering if the applicant has an agenda towards dismantling the Citadel’s creed because she disagrees with it. That’s what bugs me-I don’t agree with the Citadel, but she’s using religion and they’re using tradition to enforce certain behaviors.
I’m not sure why one is more worthy than the other.
Hey, I always thought people who supported the military, and places like the Citadel, also loved the U.S. Constitution. It’s the Constitution that *requires/I reasonable accommodation (as interpreted by the Supreme Court). Whether any particular accommodation is reasonable or not is debatable. It’s just my judgment that the Citadel will have a hard time winning this one if they have to litigate it.
The obliteration of the self in order to rebuild that person into something else is what military training is all about. Military basic training’s sole purpose is to take a recruit with individualist characteristics and strip that identity away and rebuild him/her along with her fellow recruits as a team who will work together to achieve common goals. The objective is to subsume the self to the team.
@NoVADad99 I understand that is a technique the military currently uses; I just don’t agree with it.
Having been through it, I find that it is highly effective. When you are in a life and death situation, you need to know that you can depend on the person next to you. It’s like the scene in Stripes where they were introducing themselves in the barracks at the beginning of training, with the “Pyscho” Francis and the rest of the cast of characters. In the end, they did become a team working together.
I had the same reaction. But I wouldn’t apply to The Citadel.
In addition, such was the creed at West Point until 20 years ago, when “the changes” made it harder to haze, humiliate, hurt, bully, or destroy a young person in the name of “building a team”. It doesn’t mean West Point has gone soft - though some at the Citadel certainly would think so - and it certainly doesn’t make West Point officers less effective or less able to depend on one another.
From what I’ve heard, her requests went beyond wearing a hijab and included items such as private hair cuts at the campus barber shop by a female, bathroom accommodations and other items. It may have been that these additional accommodations were simply too burdensome on the school.