Why are we assuming the school shared the requests? It may have already been reported by the media or if the student was local some classmates may have leaked the info.
@cobrat, there is no evidence that they revealed anything personal about the student. They may have discussed the potential policy changes with some students in order to gauge the potential effect on the community: for example, how would Jews and Christians, who had agreed to follow the standards by not wearing religious items, feel about the sacrifices they made for the mission of the school? A reasonable step before undertaking a huge change in policy.
Again, I freely admit that I have zero sympathy for catering to female covering which is cultural, not religious, and only serves to abase and constrict the lives of women. She should be going to a woman’s college or at least a “normal” school if she wishes to be shrouded at all times or in the company of men. (Frankly, I have wondered whether she was interested in The Citadel because it would offer her an excuse to get out from under her father’s rules.)
I actually have sympathy–much to my amazement, after reading Pat Conroy’s book–for the idea that The Citadel is a unique place with a unique history and mission. It seems that The Citadel has examined itself, and moved beyond the days when it was strictly for white Christian men. It is now inclusive. It sounds as if they accepted this young woman in good faith.
Personally, I would never, ever have considered going to the school, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to exist. If she actually wanted to be an army officer she could have applied to West Point. It’s not as if avenues are closed to her.
The problem, as I see it, is that they are publicly funded. I always thought they were private. Perhaps they need to find a way to go private in order to continue. Apparently they get only 8% of their funding from the state.
There is a ton of conversation about this on the Citadel Class of 2020 facebook page, which is open… The page is choppy, with old posts interspersed with new ones, so you need to scroll back a lot.
As for those who ask why she didn’t apply/attend West Point or one of the other FSAs, we don’t really know if she tried applying, succeeded in getting a nomination from a nominating source, and possibly ended up being rejected.
Something to keep in mind is that among folks who aspire to attend military oriented colleges, the FSAs are the military oriented college’s equivalent of the Ivies/peer elite colleges.
They are extremely competitive to gain admission to and there is a bit of disdainful snobbery some FSA admits/graduates I’ve encountered/read about have of their counterparts at the senior military colleges because the latter are regarded as being far less selective/easier to gain admission to…especially for in-staters.
Schools like VMI or The Citadel tend to be used as academic match/safety options among many students applying to the FSAs, especially students who are in-state for those institutions just in case they strike out in FSA admissions.
And this perception goes back a long ways in US military history. I recalled reading that despite spending a year at VMI before he opted to attend West Point, future WWII general George S. Patton had to repeat his West Point Plebe year for being “deficient in mathematics”.
Incidentally, a few undergrad classmates from SC received unsolicited applications and multiple solicitations to apply to The Citadel with fee wavers and offers of a full-ride scholarship as a “Citadel Scholar” when they were HS juniors/seniors. None were interested and they felt such solicitations reeked of desperation to attempt to attract more applicants whose stats/resumes were at the higher-end of the typical applicant pool of the period.
@cobrat We have no confirmation that the student requesting accommodations is an instate student or that she wouldn’t be competitive for a military academy appointment . In terms of multiple solicitations to apply, unsolicited applications , offers of application fee waivers and offers of lucrative scholarships , The Citadel is hardly the only public institution to participate in such practices. My son’s email was frequently filled with such requests from quite a few other schools, so I’m not sure of the relevance to this particular case. Do we have reason to think this student received solicitation from The Citadel?
I was addressing the multiple postings of why the applicant seeking religious accomodation didn’t apply/attend an FSA.
Likely because admission to an FSA is much harder than to The Citadel.
Agreed, @carolinamom2boys . Many, many colleges and universities send out marketing material (often a lot of it), including Harvard. Marketing is not “reeking if desperation”. Those students flatter themselves. Many schools also market to students that may likely not qualify for admission.
@cobrat That’s why I mentioned in an earlier post it would be interesting to see what other institutions the student had applied to and what is her home state. Why not apply to any other university and go the ROTC route if she wanted the “military experience” ? Maybe because of the military commitment involved at the completion of the program? We can’t begin to know because the info is not available , so all we can do is speculate.
Exactly. My point was simply that there are other avenues to becoming an army officer than The Citadel, so if that was why she applied she had other alternatives: service academies, other quasi-military schools such as VMI or Norwich, “regular” schools with ROTC, et al. The only thing that is special about The Citadel is the very discipline she seeks to disrupt.
Ironically, that’s one of the very arguments many admins and alums of the Citadel and VMI used to justify their rules in denying access to their STATE SUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS to women in the '90s.
It was also the very argument VMI alums/admins tried to use to justify continuing mandatory mealtime prayers despite the fact the courts found that as a STATE SUPPORTED EDUCATION INSTITUTION, they were in violation of the First Amendment in the area of not favoring one religion/coercing religious acts from affiliates/subordinates.
Both were found to be wrong legally and both were eventually forced to accept women and in VMI’s case, end mandatory prayers at mealtimes despite such protestations as the above or the fact many casted negative aspersions towards those who challenged the constitutionally dubious based “traditions” through insinuations of them being “litigious”, “disruptive”, etc…
Goodness, some of those very same arguments/negative aspersions are similar to the patterns of behavior of those who attempted to prevent desegregation of universities/K-12 schools during the '50s and '60s…
@cobrat, These schools once practiced discriminatory admissions. They no longer do, and at this point whether they were forced into it or went willingly doesn’t really matter. The Citadel’s rules now apply equally to males and females of all religions and races.
Do you not see the difference? There are other Muslim students at the school now. They apparently are able to comply with the dress code. Because of course, as we know, this covering oneself up has little or nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with outdated, discriminatory cultural issues.
As I said above, the school apparently derives only 8% of its income from the state. I think that they should look for ways to finance going private.
Would you support a Quaker applying to the school and demanding to be released from all military-related activities? Or would you suggest that the Quaker apply to schools whose mission and rules do not directly contravene his or her religious requirements?
If other students are prohibited from displaying crosses or wearing yarmulkes, isn’t allowing this student to wear a hijab favoring one religion over another? It seems like either everyone should be able to bend the dress code (there goes uniformity) in the name of religious freedom, or no one should. Oh wait, the latter rule is already in place.
Actually, it does matter. An institution which was forced into implementing non-discriminatory policies rather than voluntarily doing it of its own accord is highly indicative of an institutional culture which has to be forced by higher authorities to be constitutionally compliant as opposed to doing it because it’s constitutionally and just as importantly…morally correct.
By the same token, an individual who is compelled by court rulings/law enforcement or lawsuits to comply with legal/ethical regulations tend to be viewed with far more skepticism about his/her character, motivations, and willingness to comply as opposed to someone who volunteered to do so of his/her own accord without being forced.
Considering The Citadel doesn’t mandate its graduates to accept a commission/join the armed forces upon graduation and the Citadel does have a small contingent of civilian students who aren’t obligated to join the corps of cadets, I would.
It’s not an FSA or joining ROTC as a scholarship/3rd year cadet where all graduates are mandated to accept a military commission/join the armed forces upon graduation to complete a minimum service obligation unless something serious happens to prevent that such as a serious debilitating injury/medical condition incurred during their period when they are held to that service obligation.
Incidentally, that’s a similar tactic to what Bob Jones U accepted when the IRS revoked its exemption for promoting racially discriminatory policies such as barring interracial dating among its students in the '70s.
So now going private is innately evil because it was done by Bob Jones for bad reasons?
For the reasons you’re advocating for them to do so, it’s very similar as the motivation behind your suggesting they do so is in order for them to avoid the high possibility being legally compelled to provide religious accommodation as a state run and supported institution.
In short, an end-run around the Constitution much like Bob Jones U’s admins accepting the IRS’ decision to revoke their tax exempt status so they could continue their racially discriminatory policies such as a ban on interracial dating which they implemented and expanded upon in the '70s.
A suggestion motivated by your personal bias against the religious practices of this particular seeker.
I’m not advocating that they do so in order to avoid accepting people. I’m advocating that they do so in order to preserve a code of conduct which is currently applied equally to people of all genders, races, and religions.
What you are suggesting is that if a person who claims to be unable to associate with any men non related to her wants to go to the school, the school should have to set up separate all-female classes with female teachers in order to accommodate her. There has to be SOME point at which the line is drawn and a person with extreme “religous” demands needs to seek a more suitable environment.
There is.
However, from the actual nature of the Citadel’s mission, lack of mandatory military obligation for its graduates unlike the FSAs or scholarship/3rd year or later ROTC cadets, the fact it had a history of discriminatory policies against various marginalized groups as recently as the '90s, and the fact its a state supported and run institution which has the burden of proving whether a given religious accommodation is “unreasonable” by the legal standards set by prior court rulings…whether the religious accommodation seeker’s request is “unreasonable” is a very open question at this point. And one where The Citadel IMHO would have a much harder case to prove…especially considering the US military already has proven to be far more flexible on this score, it has civilian students in its student body, and it doesn’t mandate all its graduates accept military commissions/joining the military upon graduation which means quite a few end up being effectively no different than a graduate from any other civilian state university*.
Notwithstanding the personal biases/prejudices of some who feel her request is excessive who are making some of the very same arguments used by pro-segregationists in the '50s and '60s regarding the integration of the armed forces, schools, and public facilities, admins/alums of The Citadel and VMI regarding the acceptance of women as cadets, or admins/alums of VMI regarding their “tradition” of mandatory mealtime prayers…all of which were found by courts to be discriminatory acts which Federal anti-discriminatory acts prohibit for state run/supported institutions.
- I.e. Allowing Sikhs to wear turbans and to grow a beard or recognizing/allowing Wiccans to practice their beliefs openly. Interesting considering there are still many fundamentalist Christians and others who harbor deep prejudices/fears because in their minds "OMG! Witches practicing witchcraft!! OMG! OMG! OMG!".
Thankfully, the Constitution and Department of Defense policies set from above mandate commanding officers and superiors provide reasonable religious accommodations notwithstanding possible personal prejudices/fears they may hold against this or any other religious minority. And if such commanding officers/superiors try to impede or otherwise act on their personal prejudices/fears…I sincerely hope there are judicial/disciplinary policies in place to hold such officers/superiors accountable.
** According to The Citadel’s own website, ~30% of graduates accept a military commission each year. Seems like ~70% graduate to be civilians no different than graduates of civilian colleges.
Well, all I can say is that you are right: I am “prejudiced” against women being required to cover themselves when men have no such restrictions. I regard it as pretty much the same as wearing a slave collar and chains.
Ironic that you so stoutly defend this symbol of the subjugation of women.And that you keep implying that I am motivated by racism or the like. No, I am motivated by a deep-seated belief in the equality of my gender. Equality. Justice. All those good things.
I will just note that I think it’s kind of cheesy to impugn this young woman’s motives, with no evidence beyond the fact that one doesn’t like what she’s asking for.
And I would suggest that if she were some super-conservative Christian who wanted to cover her arms and legs, a lot of people would be whistling a different tune.
@Hunt, I am not impugning her motives. I don’t like what she’s asking for, but I disagree with those who say that this is all a play by her family and so forth.
Just to be clear.
And as I’m sure you know, I would think the same if she were an Orthodox Jew or a member of some Christian sect.