If they’ve allowed some other student to wear long sleeves and pants, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t let her. It sounds like they will not allow only outright religious symbols, but that they have decided that a hijab is a religious symbol on a par with a cross or yarmulke. (I’d say it is cultural more than religious–just as female genital mutilation is practiced by Muslims, but is cultural in origin, not religious.)
There is no information regarding what the woman asked for. Unconfirmed second-hand reports said there were “others” beyond the hijab, but we have no confirmation if that’s true. All the Citadel confirmed was
“Brett Ashworth, a Citadel spokesman, said the school is considering two specific requests from the student: That she be allowed to wear a hijab and that she be allowed to cover her arms and legs.”
Washington Post, 4/22
The same Citadel spokesman said Citadel did grant a previous male student the exception to cover his arms and legs during exercises for religious reasons.
This wouldn’t be a particularly strong argument in a judicial evaluation of what constituted a reasonable accommodation. I think it would have some relevance–but it might cut both ways, honestly, depending on what had been requested (and rejected) in the past.
A friend recently reported that her company (big, global Fortune 50) installed special washing stations near the rest rooms in locations which have numerous Muslim employees, vendors who visit regularly, etc.
It didn’t take a lawsuit, it didn’t get any publicity, and you wouldn’t even notice them unless YOU were Muslim and it was Ramadan and you were looking for a place to wash ritually before prayer. Just like most men don’t notice the little cubicles set aside for pumping milk (for companies far-sighted enough to have them). Or people who don’t use wheelchairs don’t notice the bars in the toilet stalls, or sighted people don’t notice the braille numbers on the elevator panels.
It’s good business to make your employees, vendors, contractors, etc. comfortable in your facilities.
I don’t know enough about the Citadel issue to even comment on the merits here- and folks seem to be weighing in without any sort of set of facts in front of them, particularly on the motives of the young woman in question. But I wanted to point out that many “accommodations” are made quietly, inexpensively, and without any sort of fuss. Because sometimes it’s just smart to accommodate. It can take hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate an issue which frequently has an inexpensive “work around” which ends up making a lot of people feel more comfortable- even those that don’t benefit from the accommodation. I am long past the “nursing mom” stage of my career, but I appreciate any business which recognizes the unique challenges that a new mother faces in going back to work.
There was never an official record of the uniform exception.
I would argue that accommodating anything and everything just for the sake of being “progressive” is not good business. You accommodate what you can, without jeopardizing your organization’s mission. In the Citadel’s case, they explicitly accommodate all religions. Students are free to worship whoever they want, and the school even offers free transportation to those who wish to attend churches/mosques/synagogues off campus. That sure seems reasonable to me.
The Citadel could litigate on the basis of religious necessity. Are hijabs specifically required by Islam? This is apparently a very subjective topic, even among Islamic scholars.
http://tarekfatah.com/muslims-are-not-required-to-cover-up-hijab-has-nothing-to-do-with-morality/
“Are hijabs specifically required by Islam? This is apparently a very subjective topic, even among Islamic scholars.”
It is hotly debated, but my understanding of the law is that U.S. courts won’t get into the weeds of whether something is required by the religion or not. Religion is something that exists in people’s minds. If a litigant claims they have a sincere religious belief mandating X, courts mostly take them at their word. Note the recent SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision. There’s no widely accepted Christian dogma that believers cannot permit their corporation to participate in the provision of employee health insurance that covers IUDs. Lots of Christian authorities don’t think that. But the plaintiffs said they believed it, so the court accepted it. You can be a religion of one.
The big exception here is conscientious objector status in the national draft; you have to show that you’re an active member of a sect with certain pacifist policies in order to qualify.
“I would argue that accommodating anything and everything just for the sake of being “progressive” is not good business.”
Fractal, I specifically noted that this was a company which had Muslim employees, vendors and contractors in certain locations- not that they were being “progressive” in any way, just practical. You are sure looking for an argument where none exists. It is a good business practice to keep talented employees- churn is expensive and is terrible for morale. It is a good business practice to make it easy for your suppliers to do business with you- you will likely get better prices, better service, and much more attention from your vendors when you treat them well.
Etc. Especially when there are inexpensive “fixes” at hand.
“Are hijabs specifically required by Islam?”
Some say yes, and others say no. It depends on the branch/denomination/sect.
“This is apparently a very subjective topic, even among Islamic scholars.”
Expert opinions are very subjective for almost any item like this in any religion, because the nature of religion is that it exists outside of the natural world, or else it would be science. With no ability to gather substantial facts and evidence, scholars disagree in every religion. There is not going to be one unified answer like you would get if you asked 20 physicists for the rate of acceleration due to gravity.
Because the nature of religion is supernatural and therefore beyond the natural world, there is no scientific evidence, so you can’t require experts to agree or provide scientifically meaningful proof. If that were the standard there would be no religious accommodations. The standard is basically whatever the individual believes, as long as the belief is “understandable to same-culture peers” according to the DSM (American Psychological Association). That basically means that the person’s belief has to be held by other people around them, and not only them to be considered a religious belief. I am confident that this woman will have no difficulty meeting that test.
@hanna “You can be a religion of one.”
Yes, you can, but, oddly, it depends on what others think of your belief.
If your belief is “understandable to same culture peers” then you can be the only one and claim it is your religion. For example, in Hobby Lobby, religious peers may not believe what the plaintiff believes, but they do understand their religious rationale.
On the other hand, if you constantly claim to everyone that you are the Queen of England and your dog is Prince Charles, asserting that it is your religious belief will probably not keep you from eventually being taken away in a rubber truck. That is because in this case, your belief is probably not “understandable to same culture peers” such as other people around you (I don’t think). In that case it would probably be considered a delusion.
However, if in fact you do have a group of people around you who agree with you, and share your belief that you are in fact the Queen of England, and your dog is Prince Charles, then it could be considered a religion because in this situation it is “understandable to same culture peers.” That is true regardless of any amount of evidence to the contrary.
So by that logic, should Pastafarian students also be able to wear colander hats while in uniform at the Citadel? Technically, it is a belief “understandable to same-culture peers”.
And look! They even allow people to wear them in their driver’s license photos…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pastafarian-colander-license-photo_us_56498e42e4b08cda34897b27
@fractalmstr "So by that logic, should Pastafarian students also be able to wear colander hats while in uniform at the Citadel? Technically, it is a belief “understandable to same-culture peers”.
And look! They even allow people to wear them in their driver’s license photos…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pastafarian-colander-license-photo_us_56498e42e4b08cda34897b27"
Definitely, yes. If the student says s/he has a sincerely held belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may sauce be upon him, and is it “understandable to same-culture peers” then it goes in the religious bucket. While some may think Pastafarianism is a joke, that can not be a test for religion because there are people who think every religion is a joke. If they say they are sincere, there is no way to prove otherwise. Also, you can’t judge by evidence because religion exists outside the natural world, or it would be science, so that would also rule out all religions.
The DSM uses the “understandable to same-culture peers” clause to distinguish a religion from a delusion. Basically, if you decide that fractalmstr is God, that is going to be a delusion, unless you get a group of people around you to agree with you and acknowledge your Godliness, then FractalMstry would be a religion. Does that make sense?
That is why the government allows the colanders in Driver’s license photos, and in other places. If the government decides that only X, Y and Z are “real religions” and others are just silly, then who is going to decide which ones are “real”, and on what basis can the just silly ones be separated from the “real” ones? If there were an objective test that would clearly identify a “real religion” I suspect we would only have one religion for everyone.
As far as I know, the “understandable to same-culture peers” rule is a medical and psychological one, not a legal one. I guess it might come up in the legal context in a commitment hearing. But I’ve never heard of it being used in a First Amendment analysis – though I certainly do not claim to be up on the literature in that field.
In practice, one is usually only taken away in a rubber truck to a psychiatric institution for evaluation only if the individual has shown or made statements indicating he/she poses an imminent actual danger to the lives of him/herself and/or others.
Given the lack of mental health funding/hospital beds in such institutions in many areas of the US, past histories of involuntary commitment being abused by authorities for dubious motives in the past, and the possibility of a strong case for a lawsuit against civil authorities/municipalities for wrongful involuntary commitment as Kam Brock’s case against the NYPD/NYC proves:
Whether or not something is thought to be delusional or groupthink is not really relevant to this discussion, though if anyone thinks the Citadel will allow a pastafarian to wear a colander, they are probably not too grounded in reality.
The tongue in cheek 
got left off.
The intersection of religion, dress requirements, and the subjugation of women can be tough to discern. Do most feel that the way the women in the Fundamentalist LDS group run by Warren Jeffs are required to dress is a choice or is it control of their women? What about the slightly less restrictive but still pretty strong requirement that some Christian fundamentalist groups of not letting woman wear anything but longish skirts and long hair? Or Hasidic dress with wigs to cover ones hair? I would guess that most think there is a line at which these practices are controlling of women, even if the women say they choose this lifestyle and mode of dress.
I think you should change the batteries in your sarcasm detector, cobrat 
Best post of the day, @fractalmstr (and the day is young)
@jym626 “…if anyone thinks the Citadel will allow a pastafarian to wear a colander, they are probably not too grounded in reality.”
@hanna "As far as I know, the “understandable to same-culture peers” rule is a medical and psychological one, not a legal one. "
This year the U.S. District Court of Nebraska ruled that Pastafarianism is satire, not sacred, and that anyone who thinks it is a religion has made an error “of basic reading comprehension…This is not a question of theology,” the ruling reads in part. “The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a ‘religious exercise’ on any other work of fiction.”*
This appears to establish a precedent that religious documents can be reviewed by the court and that, even if the there are believers who sincerely believe the religion, the court can rule that those believers have made an error of “basic reading comprehension.” It also seems to establish that the court can determine whether the writings of any religion are like “grounding a ‘religious exercise’ on any other work of fiction.” Perhaps unwittingly, the court has awarded some Pastafarians a huge victory.
The door now appears to be open to review religious writings in court, and decide whether believers have “made an error of basic reading comprehension” and whether religious writings are “in reality are like any other work of fiction.” If a religion has to prove its writings are non-fiction by any reasonable standard of science and reason to be a “real religion”, well then there are no more religions. That was the point of many Pastafarians from the beginning.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser.