Do you really think she is going to tell people she has a hidden agenda?
The fact that her family is actually threatening to sue over this is quite telling. The school declined her request for a uniform change, as they have done with every other request for uniform change in the past. There was no unfair treatment here, nor was the school singling out Islamic religion and culture.
Again, Hunt, the school has never allowed an exception to the dress code. I certainly would not support a “super conservative Christian” requesting this type of change, and history shows us that the school would not either.
Fair is fair. People who are trying to make this about bigotry and religious intolerance need to get a life…
Your personal opinion on that is not necessarily shared by most Muslim women I’ve known who’ve donned it for their own personal religious beliefs.
This includes several HS classmates who have gone on to attend some of the most respectable/elite colleges…including Wellesley and into the professional world…including many which were/are still male dominated.
What you’re advocating would also be considered a form of “forced assimilationism” into upper/upper-middle class White mainly Protestant values/norms which was once popular in mainstream US values before the Civil Rights and movements of the '50s and '60s eventually caused such a mentality to be rejected as highly repressive and marginalizing of immigrants and American subcultures which don’t accord with such dominant elite supported values/norms.
I myself was surprised to still encounter a bit of this in a rural Midwest area when someone with that mentality openly objected to my using Mandarin to speak with some international students from China. Wouldn’t surprise me if the jerk who did so is now a supporter of a certain blowhard presidential candidate who has ran quite a bombastic campaign railing against whatever “minority to be hated du jour” happens to be convenient.
I find it interesting you’re refusing to acknowledge how you’re advocating a policy which marginalizes racial/religious minorities who are practicing their religious convictions. Especially one which has recently been heavily demonized by heated bigoted rhetoric by certain demagogue politicians such as a certain presidential candidate.
IMO…so long as the student is the one who is requesting the religious accommodation and not the state-educational institution and the institution hasn’t proven that accommodation is “unreasonable” according to the established legal standard set by prior court rulings, her motivations/“agenda” is irrelevant.
Also, making such assumptions and thus, casting aspersions about the accommodation seeker’s motives says much more about the personal biases/prejudices and thus, dubious motivations/character of those making such assumptions.
@cobrat “our personal opinion on that is not necessarily shared by most Muslim women I’ve known who’ve donned it for their own personal religious beliefs.”
I have heard religious people assert that this does not happen, that muslim women want to dress like that, and that this a a Islamophobic perspective. However, when I suggest that if women all love it does not happen then perhaps the women should be allowed to wear whatever they wish, but pressuring or coercing them to wear a burka or head-covering of any kind should be a felony, and since the pressuring is not happening, no one would go to jail. In my experience, none of them think that is a good solution, which suggests to me that they were lying from the beginning.
In spite of my view that in some cases it is coerced, I agree that she or a person of any religion should be allowed to wear what they wish within reasonable parameters. I would prefer the camoflage colander, but people should be able to do as they wish.
Why single out religious practices of one religion?
I know of several American fundamentalist Protestant sects which strongly pressure or even coerce women to avoid wearing anything other than floor length skirts/dresses, shirts which reveal too much, pants, or tight clothes which reveal a woman’s figure.
Some sects of Judaism such as the Hasidim mandate a dress/grooming code for both genders which could easily be seen in many areas with heavy Hasidic populations such as the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Williamsburg and Crown Heights.
Your hypothetical law’s language doesn’t seem to cover them even though the actions are essentially the same.
Also, wouldn’t there be serious difficulties for the court to determine “beyond all reasonable doubt” that someone was feloniously coercing/pressuring them versus stubborn persuasive efforts which are covered under the First Amendment in speech and exercise of one’s religious beliefs? @Hunt@Hanna
“Also, wouldn’t there be serious difficulties for the court to determine “beyond all reasonable doubt””
Communities have a right to freely associate. That includes the right to expel, shame, or shun people who don’t follow the rules.
I don’t buy for a second that most of the people in these communities are freely choosing anything – the whole point of a social rule is to constrain choices and facilitate peer pressure – but they have a constitutional right to join, to exert pressure, to walk away, and to stop being friends with people who walk away. You don’t want the government deciding what conversations can go on within a church or a family.
@cobrat “Why single out religious practices of one religion?”
This is America, the land of the free. The right to practice your religion does not, or at least should not extend to coercing others. The whole defense of this apparel up-to-now has been based on the view that women want to wear the apparel. I think that is fine, if they want to wear it. However, if even one woman is being coerced to wear it, that is a problem. It isn’t the land of the free majority. Now you are challenging banning coercion which suggests that you know that the “women all want to wear it” argument is a lie. Is that true? If not, what is your purpose?
I know of no other item of religious item that is so widely reported to be used to control, subjugate women, and dehumanize women. However, if that is also happening in any religion or no religion, it should be stopped. Wrong is wrong, regardless of the particular religion involved. I am in no way singling out Islam.
@cobrat "Also, wouldn’t there be serious difficulties for the court to determine “beyond all reasonable doubt”
Hopefully, the primary effect is getting people to quit trying to control women, but if the behavior continues, then that is what evidence, judges, and juries are for. It does not seem that difficult to prove in a world of cameras, email, taper recorders etc.
“if that is also happening in any religion or no religion, it should be stopped.”
I agree that it’s wrong to coerce religious practice, but making it a felony to tell someone they’re going to Hell for wearing shorts is not an ethical or practicable solution to that wrong. Government can’t and shouldn’t force people to be friends or approve of each other’s choices.
Let’s say two Hasidic Jews get married. One decides to leave the faith and quit wearing religious clothing, and the other says, “This isn’t what I signed up for – if you stop obeying religious law, I’m divorcing you.” You want to make that divorce against the law? The spouse who suggested it should go to jail? Breaking up a family is surely the strongest type of pressure you can come up with.
@hanna “Communities have a right to freely associate. That includes the right to expel, shame, or shun people who don’t follow the rules.”
I think threats and intimidation are not okay to enforce compliance in a community. This type of winking at religion leads to honor killings of women every year in this country. That is like the KKK “freely associating” with blacks in their community.
These rights have always been subject to compliance with the law. Saying you can’t threaten or intimidate women is like telling people that they can’t beat kids. These threats are not just “freely associating” and they certainly are not “freely associating” when acted upon. Bigots who just can’t deal with women having the same rights men have should find another country to live in.
I totally agree @Hunt. This whole thread smells of misogyny and anti-Islam bias. The same arguments were used against women pushing for admission into the Ivies (“next they’re gonna want their own bathrooms!”) or women into the armed forces or, now, trans people using the bathrooms of their own choice.
If the Olympics are allowing athletes to wear hijabs, if the US armed forces are allowing soldiers to wear turbans, the Citadel can find ways to accommodate this young woman. Fair is fair.
“I agree that it’s wrong to coerce religious practice, but making it a felony to tell someone they’re going to Hell for wearing shorts is not an ethical or practicable solution to that wrong.”
They can threaten hell all they want. Imaginary threats are not threats, in my mind. However, as long as honor killings are happening, these are not imaginary threats.
I would also suggest that religions should be held liable for false claims and promises like any other business. If they promise miracles for donations, they should be accountable. Again, if they can really perform the miracles they claim then they should not mind, but I am willing to bet that they will mind. lol It is the biggest scam in America.
Honor killings aren’t happening in this country because they’re already against the law. If the threat of violence is all you meant by outlawing coercion, then fine, but it’s no change in the law. That’s already against the law, and it is overwhelmingly not how religious coercion happens in this country. It happens through the threat of social exclusion and cutting the misbeliever off from family. You didn’t respond to the divorce threat hypothetical.
I am very curious why you think this thread has a misogynistic and anti-Islamic bias to it. What has anyone said here that would suggest these things? When has the Citadel ever made a uniform exception for a male and/or person affiliated with another religion?
@hanna “You didn’t respond to the divorce threat hypothetical.”
I am not avoiding it, just thinking about it. My first thought is that anyone is free to divorce for any reason.
I also think it is fine for a community to act as a unit against a person, as long as they comply with the law, so that they get no extra leeway for their religion, essentially saying that religious rights do not trump women’s rights. However, I would also suggest that if the law is broken, the community may be liable. If the decision for the act was made by religious leaders in a church, the church may be liable.
Regarding what is allowable to do to defenseless young women, I suggest that if you can force your destitute grand father to do it in order to eat, then you can do it to these young ladies. If not, it should be illegal.
Also on this thread: all kinds of highly questionable comments about women requesting special accommodations, this woman’s motive, and Islam as a repressive religion.
@KATLIAMOM “Oh please, @Muchtolearn - there’s a big difference between a hijab and a burqua. This is precisely the kind of anti-Islam comment I’m talking about.”
I have repeatedly agreed that the issue is coercing women, regardless of religion. It should not matter what the item is or what religion it is. Misogynists leveraging any religion to control women is a problem in America. Do you agree?
Regarding the Citadel, I think it is fine to wear a hijab, if Pastafarians can wear a colander. I think everyone should be equal, as long as she wants to wear it and it is not coerced. Do you agree?
I don’t think the woman’s motive matters at all.
Much of Islam, and many other religions are oppressive to women. Maybe the truth hurts. If they don’t want to treat women equally, go to Saudi. Bye. :-h Women have rights here, and freedom of religion does not trump that for any religion.
"I have repeatedly agreed that the issue is coercing women, regardless of religion. It should not matter what the item is or what religion it is. Misogynists leveraging any religion to control women is a problem in America. Do you agree?
Regarding the Citadel, I think it is fine to wear a hijab, if Pastafarians can wear a colander. I think everyone should be equal, as long as she wants to wear it and it is not coerced. Do you agree?
I don’t think the woman’s motive matters at all.
Much of Islam, and many other religions are oppressive to women. Maybe the truth hurts. If they don’t want to treat women equally, go to Saudi. Bye. Women have rights here, and freedom of religion does not trump that for any religion."
@katliamom “Wow. The level of this discussion is going downhill fast and has just reached a new low.”
If you think that treating all women in an equal, non-coercive way is a new low, then It looks like you found your misogynist in the mirror.
I have more problem with the other requests than I do with the head covering. If she could get a hijab that was tight to her head like the athletic ones approved by NCAA and Olympic committee (no beads, no ends hanging low or that could be caught in equipment), I think it would quickly become part of the uniform much like eyeglasses or a hearing aid would. She’d still have to wear the caps, still have to wear all the other uniforms, but would also have her hair covered.
I have more issues with the other requests for special haircuts and bathroom accommodations. If she doesn’t like the haircuts offered, she should do her own or do them when at home. The bathroom is the bathroom. I’m sure there is a certain amount of privacy and a certain amount of non-privacy. That’s the nature of the school and the military like atmosphere. That’s what’s offered and everyone must live on campus and everyone must live within the rules. No private room, no private bathroom, no being excused from training requirements like swimming or crawling through mud. If training can be done in a long sleeved tee rather than short, not a problem. It’s hot in SC, and I think her safety needs to be considered in whether she can safely go through training in the heat covered head to toe.
I don’t buy the ‘but they’ve never made an exception’ argument. They never admitted women, until they did. They never allowed anyone not to pray at meals, until they did. That’s the nature of exceptions, that someone has to be the first one to request and receive one.
